www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Do Eastern christians really NEED the Pope?

I know we have discussed this issue in various other threads but I wanted to open a thread that specifically addressed this. I don't think that anyone denies the importance of the See of Peter however, in light of our current situation, are Eastern Catholics really in NEED of Rome? The Orthodox have done just fine without him although they are quick to acknowledge his abscense as a loss. It seems to me that the East needs the West and vis versa. It's a wash until full unity is once again obtained.
Secondly, are the Eastern Catholic churches a brigde to unity or a hinderance?

From my perspective, Eastern Catholics are a DEFINITE boon ON THE LAY LEVEL for the cause of unity. On the ecclesiastical level, the existence of an Eastern hierarchy in communion with Rome is a real sore spot. However, I do not think this latter circumstance is the case in all instances.

Is the Pope of Rome necessary for Eastern Catholics? I venture my opinion as one who is NOT Catholic, but who might one day become one - On a moral-theological level, the Pope would be necessary - PERIOD (according to Catholic doctrine, that is); for the sake of unity, the Pope should ALWAYS exercise this necessary office in union and consultation with his fellow bishops and Patriarchs. On the discplinary level, and day-to-day governance, the Pope should not get involved in other Churches outside of his patriarchal jurisdiction unless specifically requested by his brother hierarchs.

Blessings,
Marduk

Since the Great Schism, both the conciliarity of the universal church and the pre-eminent position of the Supreme Pontiff have suffered, if you value total unity. East and West have both endured additional schisms of one kind or another since. In the East and the West, Divine Revelation in association with Holy Tradition has led to teachings that are usually only accepted within the specific jurisdiction, sometimes not even accepted by whole patriarchies. For me, that speaks volumes regarding what is really needed- unity. Not discussion of the merits of who needs whom.

IMHO, and from an Orthodox perspective neither laity or hierarchy feel a NEED for a papacy or what passes for one today. We saw what happened to the Byzantine Catholics when they joined up with the RCC. They used to be a Church now they are only a rite within the RCC Church.

JoeS

This situation may be different in some locales, but in the case of churches in Eastern Europe or derived from them, what you have written seems backwards. Care to explain?

In Orthodoxy we believe that each church standing alone,no matter how small, is THE Church as opposed to what I have read on RCC as different churches having rites within a one, Universal church of Rome. I may be wrong here but thats how we view on our side of the table.

JoeS

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We saw what happened to the Byzantine Catholics when they joined up with the RCC. They used to be a Church now they are only a rite within the RCC Church.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This situation may be different in some locales, but in the case of churches in Eastern Europe or derived from them, what you have written seems backwards. Care to explain?

You say the Orthodox have done just fine. How do you define doing just fine? The Orthdox are not in true unity, but have a very loose almost lip service unity. The multiple bishops in the same area is a good example. The arguments about the Bartholomew II are another. The different teachings regarding divorce, and artifical birth control and even abortion are others. No Orthodoxy isn't that one sheep fold that scriptue says the Church will be. Yet the Orthodox can be in the one sheep fold if they choose. The Orthodox are a very important part of the Catholic Church yet are not in true unity with themselves or the Catholic Church.

Every ball game needs an umpire. When the play is close, someone needs to make the call. The umpire lets the game go on, but when you need someone to make the call, he is there.

Ideally our Patriarchs and bishops should fulfill all of the day to day administrative tasks, our Synods elect bishops, etc.

We need Rome to be there if [1] we have an internal dispute that the Patriarch can't or won't resolve and [2] to make the call when Patriarchs have issues between themselves.

We don't, however, need a Roman-style management of layers of consistories, congregations, dicasteries, etc. which create an administrative codependency on Rome, which is the unbalanced current situation. Even an Eastern Patriarch is unable to confirm a bishop elected in the name of his Synod, as the names are currently sent to Rome for Rome to decide.

We do need a primus inter pares when serious matters of faith and morals arise that cannot be decided within or between Eastern Churches.

Whoa! I guess I missed something. When did they make ANOTHER Bartholomew?! Maybe the Second is a clone of the First? hehe

:p

Dave

How is that any different than having within the Roman Catholic structure a RC Bishop and a Ukrainian Catholic bishop in the same city such as what we have here in Philadelphia, or in Pittsburgh, or New York, or any other American or Canadian, or South American city. (overlapping jurisditions.)

What you call 'sui juris' we call 'automonous' and what you call an eparch we call 'automonos'.

Your analogy about Orthodox disunity is based on more than one Orthodox bishop per city (which is only condusive to the west) is no different than what you have here (in the west) within your own Roman Catholic structure.

Yes, I think if you poll the Orthodox they will say that "we have done just fine thank you for the past 2000 years".

JoeS

//You say the Orthodox have done just fine. How do you define doing just fine? The Orthdox are not in true unity, but have a very loose almost lip service unity. The multiple bishops in the same area is a good example. The arguments about the Bartholomew II are another. The different teachings regarding divorce, and artifical birth control and even abortion are others. No Orthodoxy isn't that one sheep fold that scriptue says the Church will be. Yet the Orthodox can be in the one sheep fold if they choose. The Orthodox are a very important part of the Catholic Church yet are not in true unity with themselves or the Catholic Church.//

I apologize. The below should be 'autocephalous'. Sui Juris = autocephalous
eparchy = automonous meaning having a metropolitan.

JoeS :rolleyes:

//What you call 'sui juris' we call 'automonous' and what you call an eparch we call 'automonos'.//

I see the point you are making but there is a difference because there is true unity within the Catholic Church. All bishops are in communion with one another through the Pope.
A Latin rite bishop teaches the same thing as a Byzantine rite bishop in matters of faith and morals because they are in true unity.

If this is true, then the Byzantine bishops have sold out to the western theology and belief on matters of Purgatory, IC, Filioque, Infallibility, Supremacy, Essence and Energies, Escotology to name a few. I was under the impression that the sui juris status of the Byzantine Faith guaranteed an Eastern Theology as opposed to what was being believed and taught by Rome? If sui juris is just window dressing then I can believe your statement, but if the Eastern Catholics take their faith seriously enough they will be very different than their western brothers.

JoeS


//A Latin rite bishop teaches the same thing as a Byzantine rite bishop in matters of faith and morals because they are in true unity.//

I have to admit I have little knoweledge regarding exactly how the Byzantines have been reunited to The Catholic Church and how their theological traditions are meshed in. I may be way off base. Perhaps I will learn some things here as we discuss them.
But as I understand it, the Catholic Church has said that the differences involve how East and West developed understandings of the same core belief's and both are valid expressions of the original core traditions.
For example Eastern Christians pray for the souls of the dead but never really developed a theology as to why they do it. The Western Church developed a theological understanding as to why we pray for the souls of the departed (Purgation). Yet we both/all do pray for them don't we?

Joes, you don't apparently have much contact with Greek Catholics. In my parish we do not use the Filioque at all.

Polycarp, there is a very developed thought about the dead in the Eastern liturgical tradition. In fact we have six All Souls Days: Meatfare Saturday, second, third, and fourth Saturdays of the Great Fast, the Saturday before Trinity [Pentecost] Sunday, and in some places Radonitsa [Tuesday after Thomas Sunday]. The Latins have one All Souls Day.

We often have memorial litanies [Panakhidas] on the anniversaries of death of the faithful.

One can pray for the dead as an Eastern Catholic without subscribing to a Latin idea of Purgatory. Even for the Latin Church, Purgatory was never a de fide doctrine as defined by a Council of the Church.