www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Are we an impediment to reunion?

Yes, my views on the primacy of the Pope, and how his primatial authority is exercised within the Church are in a state of flux, and have been for some time.

I became Eastern Catholic only this year (March 2005), after attending Church at a Byzantine (Ruthenian) parish in Weirton (WV) while working on my Masters in Theology at Franciscan University (Praise God, I am now happily back in California after completing my degree).

Now, as my theology has become more Eastern, I have come to believe that the limits of the Pope's authority, both patriarchal and primatial, need to be better defined, because for the primacy to serve its proper role of unity within the Church it must be exercised in an extraordinary fashion, that is, it should not be exercised constantly in the Church. In other words, there is no need for the Pope to micromanage the operations of the various Churches throughout the world, especially the Eastern Churches, which are supposed to be self-governing entities. Moreover, unless this important task is done, that is, of determining precisely how the Pope's primacy is to operate in a limited fashion (i.e. as a "necessitas ecclesiae") within the Church, there can be no advancement in ecumenical relations with the Orthodox Churches. It really is highly unlikely that our Orthodox brothers will accept a version of the primacy that does not respect the legitimate autonomy of the other Patriarchal Churches.

That being said, I will simply reiterate the statement I made earlier: the Pope should not be appointing bishops in the Eastern Catholic Churches. Moreover, if he were to stop doing this abusive practice (a practice that does not respect the true sui juris nature of the Eastern Churches), it is possible that it would help advance the cause of ecumenism.

Dear Dr. Eric,

I think I better explain myself so that the Catholics, Roman and Byzantine may have a better understanding of how both Protestants and Orthodox think.

I was always ecumenical minded, but I did have a problem with the Pope. It seemed that his position, or rather how his 'position' appeared to my American 'democratic' sensibilities was difficult to overcome. The illusion was created of an Emporor, or a Monarch at least.

Well I did get over it, and realized afterwards that it was not any illusion given by 'the Pope', but rather the impression given by the 'adulation' of the Catholic people.

I know now that this heightened respect by the Catholic people towards the Pope was other 'wordly' and had to came from the seat of Peter.

When I saw Pope John Paul II, I saw the suffering of a saint, especially when in all his sufferings, he sat out in the hot sun for hours at a time...when really he didnt' have to subject himself to that. Not to mention the humiliation of his speech handicap, etc. etc.

But compassion and reasoning does not come easily to others...and that's unfortunate, for if we Orthodox do not start facing realitiy, I don't see how we can survive, especially in the Middle East.

I believe Pope John Paul II saw this too, and if he humbled himself to such a great extent in the Middle East and in Greece, it was to pull the Orthodox to him. This was not done to save the Catholic Church, but rather to save the Orthodox themselves, and with them all of Christianity.

Zenovia

Dear Zenovia,
I agree that the Christian faith is going to be wiped out in the Middle East if we all don't put aside our differences, reunite and stick together. May the Church breathe with both lungs at full capacity. If that means that the East has to give up some of its autonomy, so be it. If that means the West has to give the East more autonomy, so be it. (As, long as there is a consensus on the Primacy of the Pope. That has been defined, loosely, and everyone will have to agree on that. Also that the dignity of the Patriarchal Sees will also have to be protected.)

Dear Dr. Eric,

I stated the difficulty I had with the Papacy, and hoped by explaining it, the Catholic Church would acquire a better understanding of what the problem really is.

If a problem is understood, it's can be solved a lot quicker and a lot easier.

Zenovia

Dear Zenovia,
I believe that St. Ignatius of Antioch mentions that the Church in Rome holds the Presidency in Love. That's how I see it anyway.

Carson,

To go back to your initial question, I think in some ways the Eastern Catholic Churches are impediments to reunion and in other ways they are not.

This is just my two cents, which is really worth less than that.

I think the fact that Roman Catholics see other rites employed and used inside the Catholic Church is a very good thing, and helps pave the way to reunion through understanding and mutual respect.

Inasmuch as the Orthodox simply don't like your existence; that's obviously and impediment. But I would say the responsibility for that impediment lies more on the shoulders of the Orthodox than on the Eastern Catholics.

Logos Teen

I'm gleaning from this very helpful thread that if we really did act as a sui iuris Church we would most likely be seen as a possible bridge between the "two lungs" than we are now. What self respecting Orthodox Church would submit themselves to some of the humiliations the Eastern Catholics submit themselves to? I would think that until we take "Orientale Lumen" seriously we are never going to be what God intends for us.

Therefore, I am going to make it a major life's goal to teach the truths of that document. This is going to be interesting.

CDL

Greetings all,
Under current Roman Catholic ecclesiology (which Eastern Catholics are bound to whether they appreciate it or not) no limits can be set upon the authority of the Pope, none.

This is why the Papal authority is no longer a presidency of love, regardless of how saintly the man is. It has rather evolved into a presidency of power, and this is reiterated in document after document even using the words 'power' and 'powers'. This can easily be confirmed independently by anyone wishing to check the Sancte Sede website and reading any documents at random.

The fact is, the Pope would have the right to order all BC churches to remove their iconostasis, change the eucharist to azymes, change the vestments, change the churches name, suppress the CCEO (which was promulgated upon his authority alone, and 'imposed' upon all Eastern catholic churches), practically anything he thinks necessary for the good of the 'church'. He is above all church Councils and there is no appeal from his judgment in any matter whatsoever and he is responsible for everything that happens in the church down to the last cantor and acolyte.

He erected the Metropolia of Pittsbugh upon his own authority alone and can suppress it today on his own authority.

As a practical matter I don't think any modern Pope would do those things, knowing that it could provoke a schism, but the authority is definitely there, and reaffirmed continually in many ways.

It is a matter of historical record that the Ruthenian church did not embark on it's own restoration of traditions until ordered to by Rome, so thoroughly complete is the authority emanating from there.

The only way to regulate the authority of the Pope (or rather, define the rights of the Eastern churches) is to revisit Universal Jurisdiction. Since the Latin church is especially not likely to admit any new interpretation of these powers we have struck an impasse.

I think almost everyone appreciated the personality and humility of His Holiness John Paul II of blessed memory. We must not confuse the issue by admitting that he was such a great guy we no longer need care about these other issues.

Anything that does not build up the church is likely to be to the detriment of the church. Universal Jurisdiction as a dogma is clearly an impediment to Christian unity, and is also not necessary. I think the even Pope Benedict XVI must realize this, after reading his statement at Bari.

This situation is intricately bound up with the entire concept of 'impediment to unity' as it relates to the Eastern Catholic churches. It can be fixed, but not without the cooperation of a reigning Pope.

+T+
Michael

Apotheon


if you say, prior to your posting above, that "I am Byzantine Catholic, but I consider myself to be an Orthodox Christian in communion with Rome.", how do you reconcile yourself with the Roman Church, as an orthodox, while the Roman Church, which you (as an orthodox) have accepted hasnt still satisfied or included, as you say, the orthodox position toward Universal Jurisdiction?


Isnt that a contradiction within yourself? And, doesnt that mean, that an orthodox, in view of these things disputed, cannot accept the Roman Church, unless he gives up being orthodox?

And, Zenovia

do you know that the expression that pope is equal to Tradition of the Church (The Life of the Body of Christ), hasnt come from simple folk devotion, but it came from the pope himself at the Vatican I Concil, when he said to his opponent, who was arguing that infalibility cannot be accepted in view of the tradition of church, that "Ma io sono il tradicione".


Do you agree that tradition of the church is personified, embodied, incarnated in the pope alone, exclusively and above all others?

First, let me say that I believe that being Orthodox includes a recognition of the primacy of the Pope as the successor (in a unique sense) of St. Peter, and in support of this idea, I would simply point to the excellent book by Francis Dvornik on the Roman Primacy, because in his book he shows quite nicely that a form of the primacy was accepted by the East during the first millennium. Second, I make distinctions, as the previous Pope and the present one call upon all Catholics to do, between what is essential to the Papal office, and what is a matter of historical contingency.

Thus, my saying that the Pope must accept the self-governance of the other Patriarchal Churches is not a rejection of the primacy; rather, it is the rejection of historical developments that do not fully reflect the nature of the Papacy as it was instituted by Christ. Pope Benedict XVI, while head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said much the same thing in a document entitled The Primacy of the Successor of Peter in the Mystery of the Church, and as he indicated in that document, "The primacy differs in its essence and in its exercise from the offices of governance found in human societies: it is not an office of co-ordination or management, nor can it be reduced to a primacy of honour, or be conceived as a political monarchy." [no. 7] The way in which the primacy operates can, and even should change, when the needs of the Church require it at any given time. Again as the present Pope explained, "The concrete contents of its [i.e., the primacy's] exercise distinguish the Petrine ministry insofar as they faithfully express the application of its ultimate purpose (the unity of the Church) to the circumstances of time and place. The greater or lesser extent of these concrete contents will depend in every age on the necessitas Ecclesiae. The Holy Spirit helps the Church to recognize this necessity, and the Roman Pontiff, by listening to the Spirit's voice in the Churches, looks for the answer and offers it when and how he considers it appropriate." [no. 12] In other words, just because the Popes in the past have done a specific act of governance within the Church does not mean that they will always do that same specific activity. It is quite possible that the number of things done by the Pope will diminish over time, just as they may increase when the good of the Church requires it. That being said, it is obvious that the dialogue on the role of the Pope within the Church will have to continue, and both sides must earnestly seek to will of the Lord for His Church, but to simply say that the Papacy as it has operated over the last 500 or 1000 years is the model for the future, simply fails to distinguish properly between what is essential to the Papal office and what is historically conditioned. It must always be remembered that the Pope is the guardian of Sacred Tradition, and is not the embodiment of Tradition.

With foregoing information in mind, if the Pope wants to bring about communion with the Eastern Orthodox it would serve the cause of ecumenism to show them that it is truly possible to be Orthodox and in communion with Rome. It would help ecumenism if the Pope (and the Roman Curia) took seriously the sui juris nature of the Eastern Catholic Churches, which are already in communion with the successor of St. Peter, because if that is not done, there is no reason for the Eastern Orthodox to accept the Primacy as it operates at the present time.

Now as far as my comments about being Orthodox are concerned, I stand by them, because there should be no difference between the Eastern Catholic Churches and the Eastern Orthodox Churches in their expression of the Orthodox faith, in either liturgy or theology. Thus, I take seriously the mandate of the Second Vatican Council which said that, "For this reason it [i.e., the Council] solemnly declares that the Churches of the East, as much as those of the West, have a full right and are in duty bound to rule themselves, each in accordance with its own established disciplines, since all these are praiseworthy by reason of their venerable antiquity, more harmonious with the character of their faithful and more suited to the promotion of the good of souls. All members of the Eastern Rite should know and be convinced that they can and should always preserve their legitimate liturgical rite and their established way of life, and that these may not be altered except to obtain for themselves an organic improvement. All these, then, must be observed by the members of the Eastern rites themselves. Besides, they should attain to an ever greater knowledge and a more exact use of them, and, if in their regard they have fallen short owing to contingencies of times and persons, they should take steps to return to their ancestral traditions." [Second Vatican Council, Orientalium Ecclesiarum, nos. 5-6]

Shouldn�t be, but in reality as we all know there are many. The main one is what has come up in this thread. The exercise of primacy which the Eastern Catholics have accepted is itself the ultimate "Latinization". Everything else really flows from this.

That of course sets aside the other issue, is �Orthodox in Communion with Rome� a possibility when it naturally entails being �Orthodox out of Communion with the Orthodox�. When an acorn drops and sprouts, it undoubtedly becomes a whole new tree.

Hesychios,

I think there is a very conscious recognition on the Orthodox side of how unlikely it is that a significant shift will happen here and that a way out of Canon 331 will be found. That is essentially the reality of the situation.

In many ways this actually has nothing to do with the Orthodox themselves, and is more about the internal politics and structure of the Latin Church. I think the situation with the Eastern Catholics is more or less a side effect of this internal tension.

Verissimus.

Andrew

Uhm, not to be a party-pooper, but I don't think that many Orthodox care about the Eastern Catholics. We are not a big deal to most Orthodox . . . and not to most Catholics, either, for that matter.

The Eastern Catholics are tiny; we don't carry much influence with Rome; and we only seem to be a real issue of contention between the Catholic and Orthodox churches in the Ukraine. Heck, the Melkites and the Antiochians get along with each other, use each others' church buildings when in need, and inter-marry with each other.

Put another way, reunion is just not a pressing issue to most Orthodox or most Catholics. Most Orthodox don't want to be in communion with Rome; that's one of the main reasons why they are Orthodox. Most Catholics don't even know of the existence of the Orthodox, and thus they don't want reunion either.

The small numbers of Catholics and Orthodox who do care about reunion know what the main issues are . . . papal claims to supremacy, the filioque, lingering hatred over the Fourth Crusade, etc.

However, no one in Rome, Moscow or Constantinople is waiting with baited breath to learn from the Eastern Catholic churches about how their churches can reunite. No one among the leadership of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches is looking to the Eastern Catholics to teach them how to be "Orthodox in communion with Rome." They just don't care. Aside from the conflict in the Ukraine, we --the Eastern Catholics-- really don't matter as an issue, and we are not noticed as an example.

The only ones who care about the "role" of the Eastern Catholics to be an example of reunion . . . are the Eastern Catholics and the others who come to this Forum.

So:

Shall the Eastern Catholics dare to try to live a vision that does not depend upon being a living bridge between Roman Catholics and Orthodox? Instead, shall the Eastern Catholics devote their energy on theosis and evangelization ? If we would do that, we would be renewed and thrive and expand.

Ironically, we might become so successful that the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox might actually have to pay attention . . .

We will fail if we gaze at our navels and wonder if we are an "impediment".

We shall succeed only if we look to Christ, and live in Christ, and allow Christ to make us more like Him, to use us as He wills.

-- John

You raise a number of points suitable for discussion here. But you haven't responded to my simple question about your earlier post. So perhaps that's not what you want.