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

What is the antecedent of "they" in your first sentence? There is a Byzantine rite; it is used by a number of distinct sui juris churches among which is the Byzantine Catholic Church.

The various groups that use the Byzantine rite do are not a Church.

So, your argument is that you have a church within a church. Do I understand you correctly?

Joes

Dear Joe,

No - we are talking about the same ecclesial model as obtains in Orthodoxy - a COMMUNION of Churches that constitute the One Body of Christ.

Yes, the issue of Primacy is seen differently in Catholicism than it is in Orthodoxy.

But, as our parish priest once said, we Eastern Catholics are like the Orthodox, except that we continue to be in communion with Rome, as Orthodoxy always was, from the very beginning.

Alex

Dear Alex,

When Roman Catholicism and Orthodox Catholicism were in communion with each other the administrative structure of the RCC wasn't what it is today.
The Pope did not have either the power or authority he does now.

Before the schism each Bishop had administrative authority over his own diocese. Each of the five Patriarchates were self governing and according to the canos one Patriarch did not have supreme authority over the others. As one Bishop within each structure could not interfere in the administrative structure of another bishop within his chruch. When you (meaning yourself) looks at a specific Orthodox Church structure you identify that entity by it's highest Hierachal leader. Since the the RCC church structure (including all its sui juris churches) have one chief Hierach (the Pope) then you see it as one church. Just as you see the Russian Orthodox Church as one church structure from the Patriarch down.

All the various Rites within the eastern Catholic Church, structure whether an Eparchy or Patriarchate, still look to Rome and the Pope as their final authority. Therefore, there is no such thing as what we Orthodox call 'an autocephaleous chuch' within the RCC and those that or in communion with it. Their administrative duties are ultimately regulated by the Pope.

In addition, from what I have read on the Byzantine Forum, they do not consider the UOC-MP as a separate church but part of the MP. Based on that same criteria you do not consider the UCC or the BCC as separate churches (autocephaleous) but part of the RCC.

JoeS

Dear JoeS,

Fair enough! And if you want me to defend Roman bureaucracy with respect to the EC Churches, you are going to have to speak to someone else for that !

But would you not agree that the structure of the Moscow Patriarchate is not what the structure of Orthodox Patriarchates were way back?

And that there are different levels of bureacratization existing among the various Orthodox Churches today?

I'm in no way defending Rome's attitude toward the UGCC, however.

It is simply wrong and many Ukies have had enough of what we perceive to be unjust treatment.

The UOC-MP is not nearly under the Moscow Patriarchate's thumb as is the UGCC with respect to Rome, to be sure.

The point is, whether it comes to the UGCC or to the UOC-MP - whatever it says on paper is not the way things are in actuality. That is not a condemnation of EITHER Church.

In fact, as you know, Met. Vladimir Sabodan was a former theology professor and is very well liked and respected even by Ukrainian Orthodox bishops who are not in union with him and by many others.

He would be, in my view, the ultimate unifier for a united, canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Patriarchate of Kyiv. And I think not a few Ukrainian Catholics would prefer to be in union with him in that role too . . .

As you know, 25% of all those in Ukraine who define themselves as "Orthodox" say they don't belong to any Orthodox jurisdiction, canonical or otherwise.

I believe that the UGCC has to face, once and for all, its relationship with Rome which is not a relationship at all, but a situation of subservience.

And I believe that a canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Patriarchate, with Met. V Sabodan as Patriarch, should come about, with or without the blessing of the Moscow Patriarchate.

The MP can take a leadership role here by erecting such a Patriarchate WITH its blessing.

I think such an action on the part of the Moscow Patriarchate can go a long way to resolving the issues that have plagued Orthodox unity in that part of the world - I really do.

And I think that the time has come for ALL Ukrainians to unite under such a patriarchate.

I would be among the first to do so.

God bless,

Alex

//But would you not agree that the structure of the Moscow Patriarchate is not what the structure of Orthodox Patriarchates were way back?//

Dear Alex,

Im not sure of what you mean here. What was the structure of the MP in the early days? I thought the structure was pretty much what you see today.

JoeS

Dear Joe,

I mean that the MP is more bureaucratic and bureaucratically run than other Patriarchates in history and today.

Not that that's a bad thing - it's a big Church, to be sure.

All I'm saying is that there are varying styles of governing in various Churches that could be proper to the context in which those Churches find themselves.

So the Papacy and the MP MIGHT have more in common than with other Orthodox Patriarchates.

If you disagree, that's fine too!

Alex

Dear JoeS,

How do you feel about the Council of Sardica which canonically granted the Pope of Rome appellate jurisdiction for bishops? I believe it was what the Chalcedonians call the Sixth Ecumenical Council wherein all the decisions of previous Councils, ecumenical and local, which supported or were in agreement with the decisions of all previous Ecumenical Councils - which thus includes Sardica - were generally ratified.

Appellate jurisdiction is certainly different and of a more limited scope than the immediate jurisdiction proposed by Vatican I, but it does give the Pope of Rome a measure of authority with regards to all bishops - East and West.

I just want to know what you yourself feel about granting the Pope of Rome appellate authority.

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. No need to mention the Carthaginian canon regarding the immediate jurisidction of each autocephalous Patriarch over their own priests, which which I agree. The issue with bishops is another matter.

Do Eastern Christians really need the Pope.

This is the question possed.
Let see where the problem lies. Orthodoxy has a tendancy to "over" spiritualize the Church.

While it is true that the Church is invisible, known only to God, it is also a visible structure.
If you limit it to a "Spiritual Institution" then you need no head, not even Bishops, as the logical and fully thought out reasoning of the Reformation would suggest.

However, and it is a big however, "The Church is also a visible institution" and therefore needs a visible head, as seen in the communion of Bishops with the Apostolic See of Rome.
So do not say that Jesus is the Head of the Church,as if there were no earthly head,he is certainly that, there is no question, but he is head of the Church who has left someone to represent him, the Vicar of Christ, the Proto Thronos, the court of final appeal.


Stephanos I

Marduk,

The question of the Pope simply having jurisdiction that relies on appeal is certainly a more limited role than Vatican I seems to contemplate. One thing that I have noticed about Catholc Canon Law is that it is highly procedural. Would Rome agree to the procedural limitation that an appeallate role contemplates? Allow me to give an analogy of what juristdiction in appeals means, as well as its limitations.

Currently, we see Martha Stewart's case in the news. She has been convicted by a court in the District of New York. The Second Circuit has absolute jurisdiction to hear an appeal. But what if she declines to appeal? The 2nd Circuit cannot simply reach down and reveiw the case on its own. It doesn't matter how fouled up or outrageous the trial judges decisions may be. If Martha doesn't file her appeal, the case will never be heard. Period.

What happens if a Patriarch makes an outrageous decision? What would Rome accept as her limitations to address the issue?

Just a thought.

Andy

Dear Father Stephanos,

What you say is true. It is THE most compelling argument (in my eyes) for the papacy. It is a weakness, IMHO, in current Orthodox ecclesiology to say, "the priest is the head of his parish because a visible body must have a visible head," "a bishop is the head of his eparchy/diocese because a visible body must have a visible head," "a Patriarch is the head of his See/Patriarchate because a visible body must have a visible head," but it stops there. Interestingly, in each of these levels, the head is the VISIBLE locus of unity, intended to preserve that unity. "But is not there a larger visible body of the Church than the Patriarchate?" Catholics propose. My conscience COMPELS me to answer affirmatively! I must ask my Orthodox brethern, "why does not the visible unity of that larger body necessitate a visible head which is the locus of that unity?"

I have never read an Orthodox commentary or response to this Catholic argument.

Am I being "unorthodox" by accepting the Catholic argument? I must forcefully disagree. The head in each level of the hierarchy I mentioned above has actual jurisdictional authority over the "lower" levels of the hierarchy - in matters of discipline, morals and doctrine. The understanding that this must be so for the largest body of Christ - i.e., the body catholic throughout the world - is merely an application of an EXISTING ecclesiological reality in the Orthodox Church. The rationale is the same. It IS Orthodox AND Catholic.

What is EQUALLY Orthodox, a matter which is the sticking point between Catholics and Orthodox, is the extent to which the head of each level respects the decisions and input of those from the "lower" levels. The notions of respect, brotherly interaction, fatherly exhortation, submission to authority, and like notions indicating the relationships between the visible head and the visible body must be dictated by the Eastern concept of economy and the general Christian law of love. Patriarchs must show his bishops the same respect that he expects from them; a bishop must show his priests the same respect that he expects from them; a priest must show his congregation the same respect he expects from them.

As Jesus Himself said, the hierarchy of the Kingdom consists not in "Lording it over" but in humility. But there must be as much humility from the "lower" levels as from the "upper" echelons. With this in mind, there will be true unity.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear Andy,

I have always regarded appellate jurisdiction to be valid only in cases where an appeal is actually requested. I hope that answers your question regarding my view.

However, you have given me food for thought, and I pray everyone else here thinks about this as well. What happens if there is an egregious error or heresy - disciplinary or doctrinal - that rears its ugly head in a jurisdiction outside of the Pope of Rome's normal patriarchal jurisdiction? The following is my theoretical answer:

Rome should not get involved until ALL administrative remedies have been exhausted in the East. I think we have more such remedies in the East than in the West, actually (one of the strengths of Eastern ecclesiology ). If a Patriarch does not correct it, the bishops will cry out and he will HAVE to listen; if the bishops don't correct it, the priests will cry out and they will HAVE to listen; if the priests don't correct it, the people will cry out, and they will HAVE to listen; if none of these occurs in a sui juris Patriarchate, the other Patriarchs will cry out and the other Patriarchate will HAVE to listen. The Pope of Rome must respect and realize that the Holy Spirit is active in the ENTIRE Church, and that each local manifestation of the Church SHOULD have the capacity to correct its own mistakes.

If NO ONE can see the error or heresy (i.e., a departure from Sacred Tradition) in the East, then and only then should the Pope of Rome intervene. Of course, the chances of this occuring are a gagillion to one. HOWEVER, JUST IN CASE IT DOES OCCUR, human beings the frail creatures that we are, I do honestly believe that the Pope of Rome, as visible head of the entire Church, HAS the authority to intervene even WITHOUT the request of anyone from the East. This is HIS job, this is HIS special charism.

Does this mean that the Pope will never himself make a mistake? I do not believe it does. What I DO believe is that in the instance where such an unlikely event occurs as was discussed above, God will use the Pope of Rome in a special way to heal the Church. Here the humility of which I spoke in my response to Father Stephanos' post is necessary for the unity of the Church to prevail.

This brings to mind another thought. Vatican I makes it seem as though the Pope is above reproach, and that there may not be any administrative remedies IF the Pope of Rome himself might begin to teach error or is wrong in disciplinary matters. Here again, humility is the only remedy. The Pope of Rome MUST be open to correction from his fellow Patriarchs and bishops. He must bend like a reed if necessary, and be a solid rock only when he must.

I DO believe that the Pope of Rome, as visible head, MUST possess some kind of special gift from God in and for such cases that necessitate his intervention. But, as even Catholics admit, this charism is not pervasive for ALL his actions. The Pope CAN err, and in those instances where he does, he must accept the correction of his peers.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear Andy,

Good point!

But with respect to the Eastern Catholic Churches, Rome herself has made some pretty outrageous decisions (married priesthood in North America, the UGCC Patriarchate) and there is no appeal from those!

The point is that one's Patriarch is closer to the situation in his own Church than Roman bureaucrats.

Alex

Dear Marduk,

If what you say would have remained the case with Rome, there would never have been the long-lasting break with the East that has continued until today.

No one disputes a role for Rome.

What is in dispute is Rome's immediate jurisdiction over the Eastern Catholic Churches.

Even the EC Churches with Patriarchates don't exercise the same kind of autonomous governance that their Orthodox counterparts do.

Is that the way Rome advertises to the Orthodox on the "benefits" of eventual reunion?

Embracing is one thing - a bear-hug is quite another.

Take it from this former amateur wrestler . . .

Alex

Marduk,
Certainly it is not the Catholic view that the Pope of Rome is above reproach or rebuke. As is evident in the life of Alexander VI.
It is just that from the ancient point of view the Church of Rome is that as you might say, Supreme Court, (the court of final appeal.)

No one is suggensting in the Holy Church of God that anything be done without listening and certainly always with respect and love.
But as you know in any family at times the children might not like the decision of the father. But it is a decision of authority,
one may appeal in the sense of persuasion, but at the end of the day unless it is heretical or immoral, then one out of conscience must obey.

Stephanos I