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

Bless, Father Stephanos,

Please be careful when imputing bad motives to anyone named "Alexander."

There are those of us who are rather sensitive about that, you know . . .

But you are O.K.!

Kissing your right hand, I again implore your blessing,

Alex(ander)

Dear Brother Alex,

When you say that Rome has "immediate jurisdiction" over the Eastern Catholic Churches, are you saying that Rome currently does not respect the jurisdictions of the current Patriarchates in the Catholic Church?

We discussed this in another thread - the difference between the national Patriarchates and the Eastern exarchates existing within the boundaries of what is traditionally regarded as the "Western" jurisdiction. Do you think the Pope would ever interfere in the affairs of a sui juris national Patriarchate in the same way he did in the exarchate in Canada?

Even his actions (or lack of) regarding the proposed Kyivan Patriarchate seems to underscore the great self-restraint he is exercising in the affairs of lands not traditionally Latin Catholic. If you do not mind my saying, the Ukranians should just go ahead and establish THEIR OWN Patriarchate. As an outsider, I do not see the Pope's inaction as an implication of him being AGAINST the Patriarchate; rather, I see it as something positive - he wants you guys to handle your own affairs. Isn't that what you want? So why is there so much acrimony against the Pope's "inaction?" By his "inaction," the Pope of Rome seems to be taking just the type of action that Eastern Catholics desire. I sincerely do not understand. If the Pope exercises his authority in a Patriarchate, you complain; if he DOESN't exercise his authority, you complain (the "you" not directed at you personally, Alex). Some have interpreted his inaction as paying lip service to Moscow. But maybe its just as simple as the fact that he wants you guys to handle your own affairs.

Blessings,
Marduk

BTW, if it ever comes to pass that the Ukranians form their own Patriarchate FIRST without the Pope of Rome establishing it, I believe it will set a very important administrative precedent for the Catholic Church, one that future Popes cannot deny. In my mind, this will make it much easier for me to let go of my current reservations and actually go ahead and apply for full communion in the Catholic Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

Bless me, Father Stephanos.

Thank you for the information about Pope Alexander.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear Marduk,

If I were the Administrator, I just might say that that was a "Copt out!" (Kidding, kidding! ).

The problem is that while His Holiness said he wanted to recognize the UGCC Patriarchate, he won't because world Orthodoxy doesn't want him to.

Does Rome interfere in EC Church affairs? Yep . . .

And does Rome allow the UGCC to manage its own affairs and to take the proverbial (Roman) bull by the horns?

Not in the least. I think everyone would be happy if Rome just butted out and let the UGCC Synod call its head as it likes and act as a de facto Patriarchate.

But Rome doesn't and won't.

The reason our Patriarch went to Rome to get approval is because we have our own "Uniates" who need Rome's approval for everything.

When Patriarch Slipyj declared our Church a Patriarchate, it divided us into two camps, including families themselves.

Whenever we had a family event and a discussion on Rome and the patriarchate was about to begin, I would try to intervene and ask everyone to talk about something else (a single Byzantine jurisdiction perhaps . . .) rather than something that would lead to fights and hard feelings.

That's how big a deal the whole issue is with us!

If you don't believe me, become a Coptic Catholic and find out for yourself!

When is the happy day, by the way? And the Administrator thinks I don't work to get new members for our Churches . . .

Alex

Dear Brother Alex,

When you said that the Pope of Rome did not want to recognize the UGCC Patriarchate, does that mean there is a de facto Patriarchate in existence that the Pope of Rome does not recognize? Forgive me for only knowing the barest facts about this issue.

Is part of the problem the fact that some Ukranians want explicit approval from Rome, some want explicit approval from Moscow, and some (like yourself ) want one regardless of either?

Can you please explain (or direct me to a link) the circumstances regarding Patriarch Slipyj?

The Coptic Catholic friends I have are very proud to be Catholic, and very jealous of their Coptic and Catholic character. I think this has a lot to do with being a minority group. Trials and tribulations tend to forge identity. To be honest, however, I do not think they are very aware of the jurisdictional squabbles that can and do occur within Catholicism and within Orthodoxy and between Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. Here is a touchy issue - celibacy in the U.S. Please answer the following questions (which others should also feel free to answer)

1) True or false: the Pope of Rome only got involved in the matter after a LOCAL bishop requested it.
2) True or false: The Pope of Rome's intervention was canonically proper.
3) True or false: The Pope of Rome's decision was canonically proper.
4) True or false: The Pope of Rome's decision was explicitly intended to be temporary.
5) True or false: submission to the decision would have been the better course of action.

If the answer is "false," please explain.

Dear Marduk,

Yes, I used to be very active in our patriarchalist movement. I would be up all hours of the night writing stuff for distribution! What former zeal I had!

Patriarch Josef declared himself a Patriarch and our Church, for the most part, accepted him as such.

Rome refused to recognize him - and in the Catholic Church today that means that he was NOT a patriarch in any way.

No foreign government would call him "Patriarch" even though all his letterhead referred to him as such - again because Rome would not acknowledge it and this is crucial in the end.

We liturgically commemorated the the old Confessor as such until his repose but there were disagreements and divisions in our Church because of this - because Rome wouldn't approve it and for our "Uniates" that meant that that was that.

Lubomyr Husar does not use the title "Patriarch" but has insisted on Rome acknowledging it. As long as we have the privilege of being "in communion with Rome" any patriarchate depends on Rome's approval, period. We can all call him "patriarch" and what-not. That doesn't change Rome's attitude at all.

The Pope has said he wants to approve it. But he won't because world Orthodoxy is against it etc.

In a sense, I think our people are more willing to stomach this reason rather than the old "Ost-politik" reasons Rome used to give.

And Rome's decision to listen to what world Orthodoxy will have, as I'm beginning to observe, the unintended effect of getting some of our more "Uniate" inclined people to see that Orthodoxy isn't the "bogeyman" they thought it was - given that Rome truly does take its feelings seriously.

The Catholic theologian Rosemary Radford Ruether once had this to say about priestly celibacy.

She noted that Catholic apologists for it claimed that it was a gift of the Holy Spirit.

"But," she said, "We could ask why the Holy Spirit would do that to a person!"

Alex

Taken from: http://www.angelfire.com/pa3/OldWorldBasic/NewQ_Anew.html

Things Catholics often don�t understand
about Eastern Orthodoxy

�Why aren�t you under the Pope?�
Orthodox believe the Church in its fullness is present wherever the faithful are gathered around their bishop � a successor to the apostles holding the true faith � celebrating the Eucharist. (Priests in the thinking of the early Church are ordained to stand in for the bishop at the local community�s offering of the Holy Sacrifice.) Therefore national or autocephalous (self-headed) churches (under their own patriarchs � some of these patriarchates date back to the apostles) are each the Church in its fullness. (The patriarch of Constantinople is not �the Orthodox Pope� or �the spiritual head of the world�s Orthodox Christians� as is often wrongly reported.)

The word �Church� often is used in four ways: the one true Church (the universal or Catholic Church) is made up of Churches (particular autocephalous or autonomous churches) in communion with each other. These in turn are made up of local churches each gathered around a bishop, and these are made up of local congregations (including, for example, geographical parishes).

Catholicism agrees with much of this Orthodox understanding, except it holds that communion with only one patriarch, the Pope of Rome (who indeed was pre-eminent in the preschism Church), is necessary to be fully the Church. He is regarded as both the patriarch of his particular Church, the Roman one, and a kind of super-patriarch, the �vicar of Christ�, of the entire universal Church. This implies that the Roman Church (its rite, its theological schools of thought), of which the Pope is patriarch, is somehow superior to the Byzantine and other Churches: �more Catholic�, as if �Roman� equalled �universal�. Many Catholics at least unconsciously take this as a given. Unfortunately, this complete identification of the Church with the Roman patriarchate or Roman Church automatically relegates the Eastern Churches to second-class status. This is unacceptable to all Orthodox.

Before the Schism, the historic, apostolic Orthodox Churches of the East, which like Rome accepted the Council of Chalcedon�s teaching on the two natures of Christ, were in communion with the Pope but never were under him as parts of his patriarchate.

I hope this article is better at explaining our side of the discussion.

JoeS

Dear Brother Alex,

Thank you for the explanation. It really has helped me understand your point of view and frustration.

One more question(s): Which Pope did not recognize Patriarch Slipyj? If it is the current Pope of Rome - or even if it wasn't - is it possible that even back then, the Pope of Rome simply realized that such a move would alienate many Orthodox? Is the cause of unity (a tightrope walk indeed) a good enough reason (from your perspective) to hold off on recognizing such a proclamation at this time?

Comment:
I wanted to bounce off our current discussion on one of my Coptic Catholic friends. I presented to him the notion of jurisdiction and cultural-religious identity, then asked him what he thought of Pope John Paul II. He said that 1) "there is only one Church," 2) "the Pope respects our traditions," 3) "God bless him with many more years. He is the best Pope we have ever had."

My conversation with him lasted about 15 minutes. I did present to him the situation in the Ukraine to get his perspective. He said, "if Ukranians believe the Pope is the head of the Church, they should respect his decisions."

Question:
How would you assess his answer? Is he being too "Latin"? Is he an "uniate"?

My friend is an immigrant from Egypt. I believe in general that submission to authority is more important to people from the "Old Country" than in the West. I somewhat appreciate and understand his answers. Our Holy synod in Egypt made several changes to the Coptic Divine Liturgy in the past five years - changes with doctrinal ramifications! If such a thing happened in the West, people would be up in arms (and indeed many have been up in arms since Vatican II). But there was nary a ripple in Coptic Orthodoxy regarding the changes. I think that is because Coptic Orthodox have more of an "Old World" respect for authority than many in the West.

Blessings,
Marduk

Marduk:

I know this is off topic (and, if the Administrator wants, I'll move this to a new thread) but what changes did your Holy Synod make to the Coptic Liturgy?

Dave

Dear Brother Joe,

Thank you for your post. In fact, I am fully aware of the Orthodox grievances against Rome. The excerpt you provided is actually one of the more kindly expressed views the Orthodox have about the Catholic Church that I have ever read.

Having read much Catholic literature, however, as I understand it, Vatican II, which was intended to finish what Vatican I could not complete due to impending war, specifically stated that each bishop is a true head of his local Church, representing fully the Catholic Church in this local setting.

Also, I do not think that even Catholics believe that one needs to be in union with the Pope in order to be a "Church." The Orthodox Churches have been recognized as true Churches by the Catholic Church even since the failed reunions in the Middle Ages --- WAAAAAAY before Vatican II. Perhaps my definition of "Church" is in error, and I pray someone will correct me.

Is it at all possible that present apprehensions about Rome are based more on PAST experiences, rather than the actual practice of Rome today? It is hard, to be sure, to let go of the past.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear Chtech,

The Holy Synod removed prayers for souls in Hades, and changed the acclamation of the Apostles Peter and Paul from "Peter and Paul, heads of the Apostles" to merely "Peter and Paul, the Apostles."

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. Personally, I accept the former, but the latter has so much clear testimony from the ancient Church (i.e., that Sts. Peter and Paul were the most pre-eminent Apostles, the heads of the college, as it were) that it is hard for me to accept.

What Holy Synod did the removing of prayers? I always understood that according to Eastern Theology even those on the cusp of hades can be saved by prayers. God loves all even those who are damned in Hell. I guess this goes back to the Ladder of Assent in that those who are being pulled into Hades can still be rescued. Maybe a good start for another thread.

JoeS

//Dear Chtech,

The Holy Synod removed prayers for souls in Hades, and changed the acclamation of the Apostles Peter and Paul from "Peter and Paul, heads of the Apostles" to merely "Peter and Paul, the Apostles."

Blessings,
Marduk//

Dear Brother Joe,

May 29, 1999.

Yes, it would be worthwhile to discuss this in another thread.

I will say right now, however, that there are probably more generally held dogmatic beliefs in the Chalcedonian Churches than in the Oriental Orthodox Churches. I cannot speak for brother Ghazar, but the apokatastasis has never been a DOGMATIC belief in the Coptic Church, only an acceptable theologoumenon. Was this belief dogmatized by the EO sometime after Chalcedon? I know that according to the CC, the apokatastasis is dogmatically UNacceptable.

Let us continue on another thread which I ask that you begin, brother Joe.

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. I will be on hiatus from ByzCath until next Monday. Have a great weekend everyone.

Dear Alex:

In our conversations you have stated that you are in favor of a united Ukrainian Church and indicate you have no problems with it being an Orthodox Church. In other words, the UGCC returning to it's Orthodox roots which were taught to it by its mother church. If that is correct then I have a few questions -

-If the UGCC in Ukraine would reunite with it's Orthodox counterparts in Ukraine to form a united autocephalous Ukrainian Orthodox Church with it's own Patriarchate then -

What theology would it want to follow? Currently the UGCC is a mixture of both RC and Orthodox theology. Would it be willing to give up beliefs in Papal Supremecy, and Infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, etc. and return the the ORIGINAL theology taught to it by the mother how bore it?

For instance in the above post on another series you state the following -

[We don't adhere to the Immaculate Conception because we have ALWAYS celebrated her Sanctification in the womb of her mother, St Anne on the feast of the Conception of ST Anne that began in the East in the sixth century.]

Yet the national Cathedral for the UGCC of the Philadelphia diocese is named 'Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception'! Does that mean that all such UGCC churches outside the Ukraine would follow suit with this united now completely Orthodox Ukrainian Orthodox Church with it's own Patrarchate? And change their names or theology to conform back to an Orthodox theology?

Or do you forsee a schism within its mist if such an event should take place?

I say that because in reading yours as well as others posts, you all seem to indicate that most Ukrainian Catholics in the west would rather go to a Roman Catholic Church than a Ukrainian Orthodox Church here in the west(r=Ref discussion on a united Byzante Rite Chruch In America & Canada). So, though it may unite the church in the Ukraine it sounds like it would create pandemonium outside the borders of Ukraine.

What's you take on all this?

JoeS