www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West In what relationship do we stand with Rome

I just ran across this from another forum and wondered if the Byzantine Rusyns stood in the same relationship as does the Melkite Patriarch since we have no patriarch save Pope Benedict XVI.

The following is a statement that deals with some of the problems in the relationship that exists between the Eastern Catholic Churches and Rome, it was made by the Patriarch of the Melkite Catholic Church at the Synod of Bishops in 2001:


Quote:
H.B. Gr�goire III LAHAM, B.S., Patriarch of Antioch for the Greek-Melchites, Syria

It is incorrect to include the Patriarchal Synod under the title of Episcopal Conferences. It is a completely distinct organism. The Patriarchal Synod is the supreme instance of the Eastern Church. It can legislate, elect bishops and Patriarchs, cut off those who differ.

In No. 75, a "particular honor" given to Patriarchs is mentioned. I would like to mention that this diminishes the traditional role of the Patriarch, as well as speaking about the honor and privileges of the Patriarchs in ecclesiastical documents.

It is not a question of honor, of privileges, of concessions. The patriarchal institution is a specific entity unique in Eastern ecclesiology.

With all respect due to the Petrine ministry, the Patriarchal ministry is equal to it, "servatis servandis", in Eastern ecclesiology.

Until this is taken into consideration by the Roman ecclesiology, no progress will be made in ecumenical dialogue.

Furthermore, the Patriarchal ministry is not a Roman creation, it is not the fruit of privileges, conceded or granted by Rome.

Such a concept can but ruin any possible understanding with Orthodoxy.

We claim this also for our Patriarchal Melkite Church and for all our Eastern Catholic Churches.

We have waited too long to apply the decrees of Vatican Council II and the Encyclicals and letters by the Popes, and notably by Pope John Paul II.

Because of this the good will of the Church of Rome loses credibility regarding ecumenical dialogue.

We can see the opposite occurring: the CCEO has ratified uses absolutely contrary to Eastern tradition and ecclesiology!

[00119-02.03] [in096] [Original text: French]

If we do then why don't we act with more autonomy than we do? If we don't that would explain to a great degree why we are so dependent upon Rome. If we don't how might we gain a relationship more similar to the Melkites?

CDL

I posted this same statement elsewhere, and the wise Hesychios said the following

Which may at least in part answer your question. It seems to me, even with a Patriarch, the Melkites are functioning in a system which is really at a disadvantage and is not in line with the traditions of the East. It seems for instance the Melkite Patriarch is not just not on the same level with the Pope, but he is not even equal with the Curia itself. He, along with the other Eastern bishops, just forms a part or department of the Curia. In essence his role, from my perspective, is seriously denigrated and subverted. That is what I draw out of his words.

Hesychios mentioned two other things. One is that a post Vatican II change (which I can�t recall the nature of) has made this situation worse. The other is that having a Patriarchate is not protecting oversight of the Melkite flock since they don�t directly administer Melkites out of their patriarchal territory. I believe what Hesychios said is that it is conceivable that if rates of migration continue out of the Middle East, almost all of the Melkite flock will be under Rome and not under the Melkite Patriarch. That would be truly sad in my opinion.

Regarding the Ruthenians, it does seem their dependence on Rome is even greater than the Melkites. Hesychios points to the situation with ordinations. It also helps explain to me why some of the changes are happening that are being talked about in the threads about the liturgy.

Andrew

Andrew,

You caught my drift. I'd like to learn more about the Patriarch's influence, if any, outside of Lebanon. That would be truely a shame if he had none. Do you have some links or sources to help me understand this?

I'm ever more troubled by the limitations the Ruthenians have in this regard.

CDL

Someone with more knowledge I think would have to answer your question. I bet Irish Melkite knows a fair amount about this.

What I have heard anecdotally is the Eastern Patriarchates can and in at least some cases are influential in the affairs of their diaspora churches. I have heard that in particular about the Melkites, and particularly in regards to liturgics. Ordinations are another area as well, where some influence has been wielded in a round about way.

Andrew

CDL,

Thank you very much for posting this. I agree that the Melkites Patriarchs have done an excellent job in providing a voice for Eastern tradition and Ecclesiology within the Eastern Catholic churches in union with Rome.

Mark, you may or may not know, but they were one of the loudest voices for protection of the Eastern Churches rights during the First Vatican Council. Something that, at least at the time, was not appreciated in certain ways.

Like I said, it will be sad if the economic/political situation in the Middle East leaves the Melkites as a rump patriarchate without control of its own flock.

Andrew

It think it should be fairly easy to determine the relationship between each (and all) of the Eastern Catholic Churches and Rome by revisiting the appropriate provisions of the CCEO.

The Code of Canons for the (Oriental) Eastern Churches governs this relationship and interrelationship among the Churches.

The recent acts of Rome vis-a-vis the Eastern Catholic Churches are based on the CCEO provisions, e.g., contrasting provisions governing appointment of Bishops within the patriarchal territory and those Bishops in the diaspora.

Any grievance, preconceived or otherwise, held or secretly nurtured by any Eastern Catholic Church should be addressed to the Supreme Authority in the Catholic Communion (aka the Pope) through the proper channels.

If not satisfied with the answer from Rome, then simply decide to get out of the Catholic communion.

Amado

You mean like the Latin right bishops who act in contemacious disobedience without immediate consequence, or perhaps you are only thinking of those who merely bend all the rules or hide behind legal "exceptions" or economy, for example?

I am sure you know that there is more than a little room in the Codes, both east and west, for interpretation.

For you there is only leagal schism?

There is no such thing as 'de facto' schism?

Do you hold the east to a higher standard? On what grounds?

Ecclisiastical law is not quite the same as civil law.

And Roman law, the basis of our canons, is a law unto itself, poorly understood by most and treated with utmost caution by far too many of our canonists. The code is there to serve the Church. The Church is not here to serve the code.

The code is subordinate to the Law.

Eli

You mean like the Latin right bishops who act in contemacious disobedience Eli [/QB][/QUOTE]

EDIT: contumacious disobedience

I don't get what you mean. Give specifics.

You do not interpret a Codal provision if it is clear enough. Of course, if there is actual differences in its implementation, then go back to the "legislative authority" (who is the Pope under both Codes) for clarification.

What is?

I did not intend to talk about schisms, "legal" or "de facto!"

No. Both East and West are held to the same "standard."

I should know.

You are preaching to the choir!?

Amado

You are preaching to the choir!?
Amado [/QB][/QUOTE]

Good. I have never met a choir that could not use a little improvement.

Is your expertise in the eastern Code? or are you a canonist for the western Church?

Eli

Thanks for your help! I think many of us need "improvement!"

No, I am not an expert on the CCEO but I have read a major portion thereof. Neither am I a "canonist for the western Church!"

I could be a cannoneer for the West though, if push comes to shove!

Amado

Andrew,

Yes, indeed, I was aware of the above. In fact, it was the main motivation (although perhaps not apparent to many) for saying what I said. I'm glad you got my drift. (Pardon the venacular).

How will our patriarchs and metropolitans ever be considered equal to the Pope in rank and dignity if they are, in almost all cases, unable to even VOTE for him?

Does no one think it odd that our sui juris Church leaders are subject to the Will of Rome but yet have no say in electing Peter's successor? That is, the College of Cardinals elects the pope, and I assume this is as the Latin patriarch; however, since he has jurisdiction over all Catholic churches, why don't our bishops get a say in the election?

Dear Friends,

Just a note to say that when I visited St Peter's in Rome for the first time ever on June 28th, I came away from that experience having discovered myself as someone who truly is in "communion with Rome!"

I was moved to tears as I walked past the tomb of St Josaphat and saw that of Pope St Pius X.

I found a papal coat of arms pin with a small medallion of ST Peter and of a pope on the reverse side attached to it.

The pope was, in fact, Pope Pius XII, under whom a number of relatives of mine, including my father and grandfather, laboured and suffered.

I was proud to wear it and it is here in front of me right now, as are the memories.

Can't wait to go back to the Eternal City.

God bless His Holiness the Pope!

Alex