www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Benefits of union with Rome

Dear Benedictus,
I appologize for not reading all six pages prior to this response. So, if I am repeating the words of another, please forgive me.
I am an eastern Catholic who recently was chrismated Orthodox. I spent many years in the EC church and witnessed a great deal. The bottom line is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says very clearly: It is a matter of conscience. You then must pray and dicern what God is calling you to. Certainly union with Rome is not essential. Orthodox ARE Catholic without the convulutence of Roman imperialism from an EC perspective. Orthodox churches elect their clergy and hierarches without the "blessing" e.g. the approval of Rome prior to their election. Orthodox churches continue to exist with very little exception, to the apostolic traditions handed down through the centuries. There has been less "organic" development in the Orthodox church and less sewer overflow as the EC's have experienced from Rome's "organic" growth. However, both churches retain apostolic succession and valid sacraments. It is where your heart and spirit are nurished that you must "in conscience" go.

God Bless.

Athanasius,
That is where you are incorrect.
Communion with the Apostolic See of Rome is absolutely essentialy.
It is called fedelity to the truth.
Stephanos I

Marduk,

Thanks for the clarification.

I can't think of a single instance in which the presence of a significant number of ECs from any sui iuris Church within the "traditional territory" of any other sui iuris Church has not resulted in establishment of a canonical jurisdiction to serve the needs of the former group.

In Lebanon, for instance, which you refer to as "normally recognized to be in the jurisdiction of the Maronite Church", there are 22 EC jurisdictions: 11 are Maronite; the remainder are divided among Melkites, Armenians, Syrians (Syriacs), and Chaldeans.

I think that, from an EC perspective, where this kind of overlay hasn't occurred, it's been more a matter of practicality than any canonical norm.
The martyred Armenian hierarch, Blessed Ignatius Maloyan, of thrice-blessed memory, Eparch of Mardin in Turkey, knowing that he faced arrest and probable execution, gave his jurisdiction and faithful into the pastoral care of his Chaldean counterpart, where it and they remained for some years. The Melkites maintained a Patriarchal Vicariate in Turkey until such time as Turkish citizenship requirements in regard to hierarchs and clergy made it impractical to continue; they then suppressed the jurisdiction, committing their remaining faithful to Chaldean care also.

I'm less absolute in my certainty about the situation among my Byzantine Slavic brothers and sisters in Eastern Europe. But, offhand, I can't think of an instance there either. Where the faithful of one Church sui iuris are subject to the hierarch of another Church [/i]sui iuris[/i] it seems to me that it's a case of the former being too few in number to justify their own canonical jurisdiction. I suppose the penultimate example is Croatia, where the Eparchy of Krivezci (the hierarchical see of the Croatian Catholic Church sui iuris) is charged with the pastoral care of "(all) Catholics of the Oriental Rites in the former republics of Yugoslavia". Such are principally, but certainly not exclusively, Croat Catholics.

In the US, those ECs who are subject to Latin hierarchs are those who Rome deems to be too few in numbers to justify erection of a jurisdiction (i.e., the Italo-Grieco-Albanians) or which don't have any hierarchy of their own (i.e., the Russians).

In India, Malankarese jurisdictions are particular and, in some instances parallel Latin or Syro-Malabarese jurisdictions. Latin and Syro-Malabarese jurisdictions, however, are geographic and not parallel; so, there are instances in which Latin Catholics are subject to EC hierarchs.

I guess one major consideartion that we haven't discussed is the fact that any erection of an EC jurisdiction - in the diaspora or traditional territories - requires Rome's approval. On that basis, I guess I'd argue against the idea that the Pope has shown us any particularly generous level of respect by allowing erection of our jurisdictions within the Western patriarchate.

As to our EO brothers and sisters, you mention Russia - that's a tough example to theorize, my friend :rolleyes: (which you obviously knew ). From a practical standpoint, if I were EP, I suppose I'd ask the MP to erect a jurisdiction for them within his patriarchate, and offer to provide him with the clergy needed to staff its parishes. I think the exclusivity considerations in the historic territorial lands are stronger among the EOs than the ECs.

If I'm wrong, I'm sure someone will correct me .

Many years,

Neil

Dear Irish Melkite (Brother Neil),

I'm not sure which part of what I wrote, you found disagreeable. Perhaps you thought I was referring to the Pope's appointment of Eastern Catholic bishops? If that is it, I wasn't referring to this. I was simply referring to how the practice of the Pope appointing bishops -in the Latin Church- began and grew in the middle-ages. This is according to the Jesuit historian, Schaltz.

Does this put me back on your correct list?

Dear Stephanos,

A bold pontifical pronouncement you have just made. I'm curious to know, if "Communion with the Apostolic See of Rome is absolutely essential," then what is it essential to -in your estimation? Salvation?

It is widely reported that the current Pontiff, H.H. John Paul II disuaded the Macedonian Orthodox from obtaining full communion with Old Rome. Does this mean that the Roman Pontiff has just sent an entire Church to Hell?

It is also a known fact that in the Balamand Agreement Old Rome agreed that it is wrong to seek converts from among the Orthodox. How does this square with your pronouncement that "Communion with Rome is essential"???

Please explain your words here.

Trusting in Christ's Light,
Ghazar

Bill,

Actually, I did think you were suggesting that the same historical perspective applied to the appointments in the East. I was disagreeing with you and Amado because I felt that the scenarios you proposed were specific to the West.

Sorry, my friend.

Many years,

Neil

Stephanos,
Fidelity to truth is relative. You either have "Peter" who is estranged from the other apostles i.e. Orthodoxy, or you have the other apostles without Peter. You can't be "prince" of the apostles if you are estranged from the others. Therefore, all is equal as is the need. Fidelity to the Pope is not the same as fidelity to the FAITH. This is equal regardless if you are Catholic or catholic; Orthodox.

I agree with Stephanos. And I recognize several forms and degrees of union with the office.

Just because some say he is not the apostolic head of the church - that does not make it so. The mind of Christ is all that counts here and he has made his mind and appointment of the office of Peter very clear. He has also made it voluntary. One should be wise to honor the office that Jesus himself bestowed honor upon. I am not sure that Jesus will be accepting excuses - as if God was not able to control the office he appointed.

Down the centuries, among the apostolic succession - those particular churches who have separated from the Papacy - are in the minority. The Papacy has always been and now too remains the guiding light for the majority of the members of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church down through time. That alone - should tell a wise man something. In the eyes of the world the Pope is the universal figure of Christianity. That should tell a wise man something also.

Communion with the Papal office does not have to necessarily fit the description that we might want to impose upon it. We, out here, do not define that communion, nor set a criteria by which they should act.

I am reminded of Paul who said to someone in the gospels �Who are you � to judge another man�s servant?� and so it is between Jesus who appointed that office - and the man who fills it. All other opinions are null and void. Paul leads me to believe that if one does not voluntarily honor the office of the Papacy - then one should at least not dishonor it. If we believe in apostolic succession at all for any Patriarch - then we must also believe that the apostolic succession of those who fill the office of the bishop of Rome - are �another man�s servant� and not to be judged by us.

If I believed in Jesus at all - I would hesitate to dishonor any Patriarch - and that would go double for the Patriarch in Rome - who - without question - fills the office that all admit had attached to it the description �Chief Apostle� and a primacy of honor. If it is not exactly defined what that �horn� was or is - then the wise man would steer clear of dishonoring something he is not clear on in the first place - least a member of the church place himself on equal to an appointed authority of the church.

Paul sometime disagreed with Peter - but Paul never ever went another way than Peter would officiate on. Paul would face him and argue his head off - until Peter changed his mind� but Paul would never separate himself from Peter and split the church and go his own way. Paul always honored Peter as - the last word on the subject. Paul went out of his way to convince Peter - when it would have been so much easier to just ignore Peter and go ahead and split the church by doing �what was right�. No - in Paul�s mind - remaining with Peter at all costs - was �what was right�.

This is the way I see it.

-ray

Dear all,

I agree with many points on both sides.

The Orthodox Churches have done quite well without Rome. In most instances, our hierarchs duty is to PRESERVE Tradition, and this is something that is not the purview of Rome alone.

However, I agree with Father Stephanos insofar as I think the Pope of Rome has an important role as a last court of appeals in cases of dispute that may affect the entire Church. In such cases, the Pope of Rome must weigh two (or several) options, look at the data of Sacred Tradition, and then judge within the bounds of Sacred Tradition. In that case, the Pope's decision certainly pertains to Truth, and is reflective of Truth.

Further, I think, Athanasius, your comment on the Papacy not being necessary has a great chance of being misconstrued as an exhortation to Catholics to not be obedient to their Patriarch. It's like saying to me, "unity with HH Pope Shenouda is not necessary for you Marduk," or "unity with HH Katholikos Karekin is not necessary for you Ghazar." That is insulting indeed. Your statement seemed rather across the board without any specifications.

Blessings,
Marduk

Correction: you can replace "necessary" with "essential." My point remains the same.

Marduk

Dear Ray,

I have never denied that the Pope of Rome has an important role to play in Church leadership. But as for "God not being able to control the office he appointed," I think this doesn't hold up. God has granted human freedom to us all. He invites but he does not compel. The Pope of Rome, like all Patriarchs, is free to make a mess of his office (as a few have).

As for Churches Rome seperated from being a minority: Two thirds of the Apostolic Church historically were seperated from him (or recognized that he had seperated from them). That's a substantial percentage. Four out of five of the Pentarcy also parted ways. This says something too. But I don't know why you want to drag all of this up again. What prompted this?

You mention what seems obvious in the "eyes of the world." What is wise or right in the eyes of the world is of little significance to me. For the wisdom of the world is folly to God.

You state that in reference to the Papacy, "All other opinions are null and void." The Pope of Rome seems to disagree with you. He seems very interested in the other Patriarch's understanding of his office.

In reference to your pleas that the Pope deserves honor... agreed. Why do you tell this to me? I have not dishonored any Patriarch, least of all the Roman Pope.

In reference to Paul remaining with Peter at all costs, the same could be said in reverse. Peter recognized that he should remain with the rest of the Church at all costs. It cuts both ways. Again, I don't know why you are writing all this in reference to my posts.

Ray, my brother, you have twice quoted my words but then replied to persons and arguments unknown (once in another thread). I certainly never dishonored Rome nor advocated such an act. I have the highest regard for all the Apostles... and all of their successors. Jesus Christ chose twelve, and I honor them all. You are with Stephanos that Communion with Rome is essential. I agree it is important to be in Communion with all the Apostles Successors. Sadly, this currently remains an impossibility. A choice must be made. My question remains to you both in referrence to your comment about Communion with Rome being essential: "essential to what?"

your brother in Christ's Light,
Ghazar

p.s. Brother Marduk: The difference here is that none of us have said such a thing as "Communion with our Patriarch is absolutely essential."

By the way, I just finished the most even-handed, honest and unpolemical work I have ever read on the issue of the Primacy of Rome in East/West relations. I highly recommend this to all looking for a book which fits such a description. Many of the questions raised on this forum is addressed in this outstanding work. I was thuroughly impressed.

for more info. see:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...102-6756390-1042551?v=glance&s=books

Ghazar

Thank you, Brother Ghazar. The difference between "essential" or "necessary" from " absolutely essential" is essential (no pun intended) to appreciate the differences in ecclesiological understanding between the Orthodox and Catholics.

I do, however, maintain, that on a Catholic website, we should respect the Catholic understanding, and that Athanasius' wording unclarified could be (?mis?)construed as an exhortation to be disobedient to one's patriarch, which is unacceptable to all of us.

Blessings,
Marduk

To be honest with you - Boredom

Yup - I see my post was inmature on my part. Uninformed as to the thread. I jumped into a very long thread without getting its flavor first. I have been sooo tied to my work lately - that I would not mind someone slapping my face! It might make me feel alive! I guess I was looking to sink my teeth into debate as a diversion.

The company I worked for took a nose dive and I am forced to go out on my own and create myself a consulting job and do many things. So here I sit - at 55 - under pressure of my next paycheck. Things look very good - I can not complain against God for not bringing to my door step plenty of opurtunities - but the first paycheck will not roll in for weeks. Much to do in the mean time to lay the ground work for my own 'company'. Most days I trust that God knows full well that my family needs his help and I am relaxed. On a few days I sink into "how the hell am I going to do this??!!". In my opinion God must step up to bat for me - or my cross will be hard to carry indeed. But he knows that. So I do my best, try to remain at peace, and await his desicion on matters. I guess that IS the definition of 'faith'. Not a 'faith' that he will do it my way - but a faith that he will help me do it his way. One can not have real faith until God set the stage for it to come about. The 'stage' looks 'set' to me.

Dear Ghazar - Your dedication to God and his church is always evident - just as evident as my bonehead often is.

I withdraw my post as off base, uninformed, and boneheaded. Thank you for your kind reply.

Cheers
-ray

I pray for the unity of all. In Utopia

The Orthodox would
know the truth of the Immaculate Conception, the denial of which is a cause of pain to Our Lady.
know the truth of NFP
know the truth on Divorce (And not ape annulment scandal)
Eucharist available on a daily basis

The Catholics would
have the full and complete Divine Liturgy
healthy standing
new and better hierarchs
appreciation for beauty and fidelity to tradition
Make the sign of the cross at the invocation of the More Pure and Blessed, the Lady Theotokos
All the feasts
presanctified liturgy, everywhere
matins, everywhere
vespers, everywhere
learn to properly incense
that is my perfect world