www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology ORTHODOX BY FAITH, CATHOLIC BY DOGMA

Br Maximos wrote:

>Strangely enough, I actually have far less difficulty wrapping my stupid little head around papal *infallibility* than I do understanding papal *juridsiction* that is "universal" and "ordinary" (especially the "ordinary" bit!). I see more problems there for Church unity, mainly because infallibility is a charism that is invoked hardly at all, whereas jurisdiction is a matter of daily significance.

I agree.

http://oldworldrus.com

Rusnak,

You wrote:

"...�Eastern on the outside, Roman on the inside�, which is not what the Eastern Catholics are supposed to be about.) The �West is best� mentality is the real reason for the Schism."


Yup! And that schism is kept going by those who have the NEED to be Roman on the inside. They can't stomach oriental Christianity with their occidental stomachs. The original Uniates needed the West for economic reasons; the Orthodox Church (less St. Mark of Ephesus) needed the West to help with their approaching enemies; American Greek Catholics needed Latinizations to feel more Catholic. Nothing but falsies. No organic developments here.


Elias, the Ninny (not the Monk)

And now back to the bumper sticker:

Orthodox by Faith, Catholic by Dogma


I believe that this is redundant. That is the point! The belief is imbedded in the faith. We don't need to point it out but it is there. It was there in the first 1000 years, it was there in the second 1000 years and it is still there. You may parse, argue, split, disagree, etc. but it is there.

A humble Byzantine Catholic Sojourner:

John

John Petrus,

If it is redundant, then which phrase would remain on your bumper-sticker?

ORTHODOX BY FAITH or CATHOLIC BY DOGMA?

Which best describes you as a Byzantine/Eastern Catholic? Your initial bumper-sticker implied a dichotomy or hybridism as characteristic of those who consider themselves ...

ORTHODOX IN COMMUNION WITH ROME. There is no dichotomy, just 'communion.' And this brings me to my next point:

Since some have stated that there is NO DIFFERENCE between the Orthodox and the Byzantine Catholics - minus those pesty inorganic growths - can we not say that it is possible for Orthodox to be in communion with Rome while maintaining their unique identity as Christians?

The schism seems to be a man-made wall dividing us due to pride and those promoting self-advancement or primacy of anything but LOVE. A divorce might be 'legal' but doesn't rid of the children. Byzantine Catholics have a difficult time trying to pick which parent is their TRUE parent. We are put on the spot when it is the parents who should mend their ways. Catholic-Orthodox dialogs keep harping on the Uniat Problem. What problem? The Problem is between the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox. I am not the problem!!! I am not the divorce!!! I am not the Irreconcilable Difference which makes the Great Schism exist. I will NOT choose one parent over the other. We have stupid parents.


Elias, the Ninny (not the Monk)

Elias,

Whether you are a ninny or not I cannot say, but you have made one of the wisest comments I have read on the subject.

I teach Comparative Religions at a local college and am very embarrassed whenever I come to this ongoing schism. You have expressed exactly the reason for my embarrassment.

Dan Lauffer

Elias (the alledged ninny):

You write: I'm not sure what this comment means. I attend Melkite liturgies on regular basis and we do, indeed, commemorate his Holyness John Paul, pope of Rome in every liturgy. Were you suggesting we don't?

And, if I may be so blunt, it appears that your tone is a bit strident. I realize you are replying to the material and not the poster, but I wonder if you know how harsh your replies sound. It's clear that this is a touchy subject for you, but if I might suggest a little distancing from your feelings might help your replies be more Christian in tone, less judgemental, and more open to dialog.

Fr. Deacon Edward

Fr. Maximos:

I think your statement regarding infallibility and jurisdiction are to the point. As I stated somewhere, I doubt that papal infallibility will ever be used again. At best it's a negative aspect anyway. Infallibility prevents error, it does not ensure accuracy or Truth!

The issue of jurisdiction comes home to me in a vary powerful way. When Patriarch Maximos V was incapacitated by a stroke the Melkite bishops did nothing to ensure the continued operation of the Patriarchy. They simply maintained a "business as usual" aproach. Rome did not like this approach and appointed an "administrator" to oversee the daily activities of the Patriarchy. While the action itself of appointing an administrator is a "reasonable" thing to do, was it the right thing?

The Pope has said that he wants to readdress how this primacy thing is played out in practice, but I see little or no action (other than Archbishop Quinn's suggestions) toward actually addressing the real problem.

I see the pope's jurisdiction as being:

1. The classroom monitor: he gets involved when the squabbles between one church and another threaten unity
2. The coach: he is to encourage and build-up the bishops
3. The arbiter: when things get out of hand, he steps in to help arbitrate the situation, sometimes even making definitive statements that may resolve the issue
4. The recordkeeper: He confirms the appointment of bishops (as seems to have been one of the early roles)

How does this seem to you?

Fr. Deacon Edward

The normative custom in the Byzantine Churches has traditionally been to commemorate by name only one's own bishop. He, in turn, would pray for his metropolitan or patriarch. The official Church Slavonic liturgical books for the Ruthenian recension do not contain commemorations for the pope, but simply only for one's own bishop. After the full communion was re-established between Rome and the Byzantine Catholic Churches, commemoration of the pope was slowly added. Interestingly, he was prayed for as "our holy, ecumenical pontiff, John Paul II, the pope of Rome". Why is this interesting? Because the title of "ecumenical" is not one given to the pope, but to the Patriarch of Constantinople. The evidence seems to indicate that the earliest commemoration of the pope was not as universal bishop of Rome, but as their patriarch. [Given that communication between Constantinople and the Slavic Orthodox Christians was extremely difficult after the Byzantine Empire fell in 1453, this also seems to provide evidence for the idea that one of the many reasons for the union was to gain a stability that could no longer be found in Constantinople during that period.]

In the United States, the commemoration of the pope during the liturgy was standardized, but in most books this commemoration was broken into a separate petition to show it didn't belong there (see the official 1965 edition of the Chrysostom liturgy).

I don't know the standard Melkite usage. My copy of Raya's "Byzantine Daily Worship" is at home, but I believe that it only references the bishop and patriarch. I've been at Divine Services in Melkite parishes where only the patriarch has been commemorated. My guess is that the commemoration of the pope is something that only Melkites in America do. Perhaps Brendan can provide some additional information since he belongs to a Melkite parish that is very correct liturgically.

Moose --

The Melkite usage that our parish follows is not to commemorate the Pope in any of the litanies or the commemorations during the "Great Entrance", but the Pope and Melkite Patriarch are both commemorated in the series of commemorations following the Hymn to the Theotokos ("it is truly meet..."). In our parish, the latter is *always* done in Arabic, so it's sometimes missed by visitors.

BDW calls for commemoration of the Patriarch during the litanies (a practice we don't follow), and also refers to a papal commemoration following the Hymn to the Theotokos (see pg 286).

Fr. Dn Edward --

You wrote that: "The Pope has said that he wants to readdress how this primacy thing is played out in practice, but I see little or no action (other than Archbishop Quinn's suggestions) toward actually addressing the real problem."

Very true, sadly. It significantly reduces the impact of letters like "Ut Unum Sint" when the Orthodox see this kind of micromanagement taking place. We can rest assured that this kind of matter-of-course interference would never be acceptable to our separated brothers.

You also wrote" I see the pope's jurisdiction as being:

The classroom monitor: he gets involved when the squabbles between one church and another threaten unity
The coach: he is to encourage and build-up the bishops
The arbiter: when things get out of hand, he steps in to help arbitrate the situation, sometimes even making definitive statements that may resolve the issue
The recordkeeper: He confirms the appointment of bishops (as seems to have been one of the early roles)"

This is interesting. I would think that the Orthodox would be able to accept "1" and "3", provided that these powers are only exercised "on appeal" and not, as we lawyers say, "sua sponte" -- that is, the disputants must ask Rome to mediate, but Rome can't step in on its own accord. "2" seems pretty harmless, but a lot could be covered under that rubric that could be objectionable. "4" when phrased as record-keeper also sounds innocuous -- but when the Pope's confirmation is required for all episcopal appointments, that seems pretty unacceptable and far beyond what was done before the separation.

Of course, the theological issue lurking behind this is a real one, because even the most recent statements about the papal ministry from the Vatican indicate that the Pope alone must have the final say as to what his role is at any point in time -- meaning that whatever is agreed upon would be subject to unilateral change by the Pope alone. Ratzinger believes that this is a neccessary corollary of the dogmatic aspects of the Papal role. And, of course, it's precisely that kind of approach that led to the problems in this area to begin with. The Orthodox would be fools to agree to some role about the Pope while the Pope reserves the right to change that role unilaterally -- it sort of vitiates the discussions, because that supreme power swallows them up.

Brendan

Brendan,

I should have said he "confirms patriarchs" and his own bishops. I would like to state that the "confirmation of patriarchs" does not mean that he conversely rejects the election of some patriarchs. Rather, it is his role to acknowledge, on behalf of the universal Church, the election of the patriarch of a sui iuris Church.

Fr. Deacon Edward

To all:

My 1924 Liturgy Book from the Presov Eparchy (published in Uzhorod) does NOT have a commemoration for the Pope of Rome in the Great Litany. He is commemorated during the Great Entrance prayer of the priest, but not as SUPREME or ECUMENICL or as PONTIFF, only as "archbishop" of Rome. Interesting enough, the book does have bell symbols when to ring the handbells!

Elias, the Ninny (not the Monk)

Fr Dn. Ed & Brendan,

Your comments on possible understandings of the ministry of the Holy Father I think are helpful in the overall discussion within the Catholic Church, but is not the starting point we Catholics who are not Latin would initially offer. One of the differences between those of us not exposed to the Latin tradition and other Catholics is that we have, I would guess, an underappreciation for the "reality" of papal authority. Your experience in the West is generally one of maybe a vigorious discussion of what authority the Pope had but rarely a matter of once authority on a matter was asserted a problem in implementing it. For us, we have lived under a long history of claims of papal authority (often favorable to us) that have gone unrealized.

I think we are all fools to think the papal ministry can be "minimized" to a point when the Orthodox find it acceptable. I believe what does offer hope is what sutlely took place with the Holy Father's recent trip to Jerusalem. He consulted with other Christian leaders (including the Archbishop of Canturbury as well as the Orthodox) and then represented the Christian concerns (not just Catholic) with the Israeli goverment and the Palestinian Authority. Without fanfare, it was clear the Orthodox appreciated the Holy Father exercising his ministry to the benefit of Orthodox concerns.

This is my point. It is not a minimized papacy that in the end will bring unity, but an ACTIVE papacy that other Christian bodies find useful and helpful and advantageous. This is exactly what restored communion with us Greek Catholics, hence our unerstanding.

Kurt

Kurt,

Actually, I was not thinking of minimizing the papacy at all -- simply recasting it into a form that is more akin to its historical function.

As the Patriarch of the West the pope would continue in his present function within the Latin Church. This position, although somewhat different from the actions of the other Patriarchs, is nevertheless well established in the West and functions reasonably well.

The question that, in my mind, seems more pressing is the role of universil pontiff. What, exactly, does that mean and how is it applied. Surely the gathering of consensus and public presentation of that consensus would be a part of this function. In a way, this corresponds to the function of the Ecumenical Patriarch in revealing the mind of the Orthodox Church (today seldom used).

In reality the pope already confirms patriarch by sending them the pallium. He confirms the election of certian bishops in Switzerland (due to a concordat signed a long time ago the pope does not select bishops there, the people do and he confirms the selection -- although there he has right of refusal).

Fr. Deacon Edward

If you read the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches you will find that the Apostolic See reserves primatial authority over the entire church. The patriarchs are otherwise equal in dignity. The churches sui iuris are free to self governance only as long as this does not affect the church in some universal fashion.

John

Dear brothers and sisters:
This reply is just for you to know that we
Catholic(Byz,Rom,Mel,Cop)are united by
something beyond words or countries.
We,since the beginning,are brothers,ant as our Holy Lord said we have to"love one another like he loved us".Christ is not
rivalry of some kind,but peace and love.
I presume to be an ecumenist,little one
but ecumenist,and in my life I have seen the
worse heresies from my own friends(satanism,
witchkraft,etc)and I think tha we shoul be
Joyful(with a big"J") to be catholic and
pray for unity(catholic means universal).
Surrexit,non est hic...
Kai pylai hadoy oy katisjousosyn autes...
(and the gates of hell would not prevale
against it..) PAX VOBIS. ERNST