www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Infallibility Issues in the Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches

Thanks, Anastasios.

I didn't want to bring up the issue--again--since I am a sometime guest in a foreigner's land. But it is this Latin-Vatican-Curia heavy handedness that, more than even slight variations in doctrinal interpretation, frightens and alienates Orthodox.

Bill

Dear Bill,

Yes, I think we would all do well to follow the old adage with respect to church jurisdictions:

Rome and room enough (for all).

Alex

A little hard to prove a negative. Can you show me where in the frequent and detailed discussions between the two communions, the Catholic Church has asserted the need for jurisdiction over the Orthodox Church or even suggested such a topic for dialogue? I find the topic absolutely absent from discussion.

On the India question, I think the matter Dustin mentioned is not the issue in India. The Latins were the first to evangelize North India and to set up a Catholic hierarchy. As always, pastoral solutions are the best response to a situation and I am not sure this has always been done in North India. But from a canonical standpoint, the actually existing episcopate and the Universal Pastor would be the proper authority to resolve a situation. My understanding is that jurisdictions for the Malabar Church have now been set up for the pastoral needs of the migrants.

The issue has been that the Syro-Malabar Church is somewhat bitterly and evenly divided between two elements (a Chaldean and an Indian). The dilema for the Holy See is how to concurrently help resolve this issue while respecting autonomy.

K.

Dear Kurt,

The topic has come up whenever ecclesiology is discussed, although it is treated in the most general of terms.

The Filioque and other topics are more germane for the talks right now, and this is as it should be.

Both sides know that papal jurisdiction is a stickler issue. Both sides have yet to formulate how eventual reunion, in God's good time, will impact the dogma of papal jurisdiction and infallibility.

I am, humbly, yours

Alex

Dear Dustin,

You have the historical problem right...the Syro-Malabar Church couldn't evangelise in North India without permission from Rome; and even then, they were obliged to use the Latin rite in mission territory. But now things are different. The Syro-Malabar Church has quite a number of dioceses in North India and, if I'm not mistaken, Latins in those dioceses come under Malabar jurisdiction, just as Easterners here without an eparchy come under the Latin Ordinary.

The problem now is what Kurt has mentioned. "The issue has been that the Syro-Malabar Church is somewhat bitterly and evenly divided between two elements (a Chaldean and an Indian). The dilema for the Holy See is how to concurrently help resolve this issue while respecting autonomy."

Basically, since the Holy See desires that the Catholic Eastern Churches return to their Eastern roots and patrimony, the Malabar Church has a bunch of things to restore and a bunch to remove. The Holy Synod of the Malabar Church wants to make the Church more Eastern, more Chaldean, since that's their true patrimony. I suppose that in an ideal situation, their renewal would be inspired by the Assyrian Indians who are a very small group in India, but under the Assyrian Church of the East. The Holy Synod, the Holy See, and a group of Malabars are in support of this.

The other faction is composed of a vocal bunch of priests and laity who want nothing to do with this. They say that the original St. Thomas Church was Indian, and that the Chaldean influence came later. So any renewal of the Church should be Indian, and not Chaldean. After this forum came back online, I copied and pasted an article from the Indian press about this very situation...you can read it at: https://www.byzcath.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=000444

These priests want nothing to do with "Chaldeanisation", but prefer that the Church be true to its Indian roots. It makes sense, and I'd ordinarily be all for it. The problem with this, however, is that there is no record at all (to my knowledge) of a specifically Indian theological or liturgical patrimony, as there is of Syriac theology and liturgy in India. So any "Indian rite" would, in my opinion, be a cut and paste operation with not too much of a historical foundation.

I feel it's possible to be completely Indian and completely Chaldean/Syriac...the Orthodox in India have done it for centuries, and it works. The solution of this problem lies, I suppose, with the Holy See. If the Holy See goes in favour of "Chaldeanisation" as I suspect it will, a lot of people will claim there's no authority to impose that, either from Rome or Ernakulam. The alternative, i.e. letting them do as they please, I don't see as happening either, but if it does, I don't know how optimistic I'd be. At any rate, the Malabar Church towers in size over the Assyrian-Indian Church, so the numbers and situation aren't the same there as it might be here where allowing Byzantines to be "Orthodox in union with Rome" is the desired way. There is, in my opinion, not too much of a pastoral advantage in this particular case for having three million Malabars (or maybe five...I am a bit foggy on the numbers here) become "Orthodox in union with Rome" to promote union with Rome to the Indian Assyrians, who aren't many (I don't know the numbers at all, except to say that there are very few in comparison); for the vast majority of the Orthodox and Catholics in India, there isn't the O. versus C. bickering that is sometimes seen west of India. We are able to live among each other in peace, attending each other's churches, inter-marrying, etc., and we get along fine.

Incidentally, while I'm at it, the "Syriacs" in India, properly speaking, are the Syrian Orthodox and the Malakara Catholics. The Malabars and others would be "Assyrians". It's also problematic to say that Rome "did the Easterners a 'favour' by raising their Church to a major archbishopric." Rome raised the Syro-Malabar Church to major archiepiscopal rank. The Syro-Malankar Church is still a Metropolitan Church.

And finally a question...in India, historically, we've never had patriarchs, but catholicoi: is it proper that if the Indian Churches are to be elevated in status, they should be given catholicoi rather than be raised to patriarchal status? Or is patriarchal status generally more desirable?

I will now keep quiet and listen...

Alex,

With all due respect, the topic has not come up and both sides know it is not a dogmatic roadblock. If some statement exists I have not seen, please share it.

fondly,

K.

Dear Kurt,

I don't have the reference handy as this is an issue I haven't visited for quite some time.

Again, it was only a general statement recognizing the difficulty of harmonizing the two ecclesiologies and it was Fr. Serge Keleher who originally lent me the document when he lived in Toronto.

The point is, as you say, that it hasn't really been treated in any sort of depth by either side.

That could mean that neither side thinks it is a terrible roadblock.

Or it could mean that both sides feel some trepidation about papal jurisdiction and don't want to raise it for fear of losing the ecumenical ground they've won thus far.

As it is a dogma of the Roman Church, papal jurisdiction and infallibility I mean, then it will have to be resolved sooner or later.

The Orthodox would definitely have a problem with Rome's central control of their church jurisdictions. They would also have a problem with infallibility.

As currently defined, these dogmas would absolutely prevent Catholic-Orthodox unity from being achieved.

With all due respect here too!

Alex

Alex,

I will still maintain that jurisdiction, defiend as Rome's central control of their church jurisdictions, is not a dogma of the Catholic Church. The current US bishop's conference meeting is discussing right now new forms of Catholic teaching in a time in which jurisdiction is a dead letter. Infalability, of course, is another issue.

K.

Dear Kurt,

May it truly be as you say.

But papal jurisdiction is still a defined dogma of the Church, infallible and all that.

It could be adapted etc. But how? And so what if a national bishops' conference is gathering to discuss it? This would have to come from Rome to have any universal applicability.

I agree with what you are saying. I am just saying that we're not there yet, dead issue or not.

If such central authority by Rome can be modified with respect to the Eastern Churches (who are outside the Roman Patriarchate anyway) then that will be an excellent starting point for such conversations.

Until then, the East will continue to be suspicious of all such Western initiatives . . .

Alex

Alex,

I hate to be argumentitive, but papal jurisdiction, as mentioned, is NOT a defined dogma. I feel I am at a disadvantage as one cannot prove a negative.

The discussion at the bishop's conference is at the request of the Holy See.

I think you have been mislead or ill-informed by some who are either anti-ecumenical or feel challegned if ecumencial initiatives don't go the way they want for other purposes.

One wise bishop once said (I update his remark slightly) "We do not have to resolve how we SHOULD have lived in communion from 1054 to 2001, we only have to figure out how to live in communion from today forward."

I think lovers of history get trapped into reconciling the past rather than the future.

K.

Kurt,

What you say is tempting, but what about the "clarification" to the Melkites where Rome clearly states that we can't (in its opinion) junk the 2nd millenium developements in primacy?

What about Unam Sanctum of Urban VIII?

Are these not official Catholic teachings?

in Christ,

anastasios

Dear Kurt,

I agree.

I have been misled.

The culprit is really, to tell the truth, the First Vatican Council where Papal jurisdictional primacy and infallibility were defined as dogmas to be received as part of the Catholic Faith.

If one does not, one is not a Catholic.

This is the second time today that I have been misled.

First, it was about Bishop Paul Gojdic's ethnic identity.

And now papal jurisdictional primacy.

I've clearly had a bad start on this renewed Forum.

Back to my New Testament readings. . .

At least I won't be misled there!

Alex

Anastasios,

You've hit on my point. First, we need to recognize that we are talking about a highly nuanced matter. The phrase "we can't junk the 2nd millenium developements in primacy" never appears in the Congregations' response.

What did happen is that the Melkites asked the Congregations (among others) for their observations as to the principles of the Melkite initiative.

The Initiative made the radical and ecumencial yet obvious and orthodox point of the legitimacy of first millenium practices of the petrine ministry. I and many others think it was very helpful in being reminded of this fact. Certainly if one's only priority is Orthodox-Catholic reconciliation, this was a powerful and challenging statement to say this without further elaboration. This may be why certain anti-ecumenists reacted so negatively.

The Congregations (who have duties beyond Catholic-Orthodox relations) responded not by disputing the point of the Melkite initiative, but by offering the additonal observation that the what was appropriate for the 1st millienium might not be appropriate for the 2nd.

Yes, for those of us singularly concerned about Catholic-Orthodox reconciliation, the Congregations reponse mitigated some of the impact of the radical truth of simply making the statement as to the 1st millinium and saying nothing more.

But one should not ignore, in turn, the Congregations' silence as to the third millenium. Ahhhh! The Petrine ministry adapts itself to the needs of God's Holy people at any given time!

So the brave among us ask: If we can come to an undrstanding of the petrine ministry for the third millenium, even though we have not agreed as to how it should have operated during the second and we realize we may not agree as to how it operates during the fourth, do we restore communion and concord?

This is a very challeging question which I don't mean to minimize. We would be establishing communion among peoples with unresolved historical differences and possibly future differences.

However, among us Catholics, we have one among us to likes to say:

"BE NOT AFRAID"