www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News O Bishop, Where Art Thou?

Indeed! Unfortunately, this sort of stuff has a large following in some quarters. I always stayed away from the Indiana list and would subscribe to Orthodox Forum (a bit tamer list). Even while I was Orthodox I still didn't feel I could publically state that I personally felt that Catholics had grace-filled mysteries on Orthodox Forum...I felt I would be tarred and feathered.

For Brendan,

Yes, Constantinople is the "Mother Church" of the Greek Archdiocese and rightly so. Why she is also the "Mother Church" of the Johnstown Diocese and the Ukrainian Orthodox in this country is a bit harder to understand (as is the multiple jurisdictions in both Orthodoxy and Eastern Catholicism in this country.)

There doesn't seem to be any real hope that Constantinople will soon willingly relinquish control of the Greek Archdiocese nor the other dioceses. It is from this angle that I compare the situation with the Ruthenian Church and Rome. I don't see any chance that soon the Ruthenian Church will freely elect its own Bishops. The current Eastern Code even gives Rome the right to approve the nominating list for Bishops in Patriarchal Churches within their own territory. This is a real problem, I admit. And if Rome currently approves the nominating list for all Bishops even in Patriarchal Churches within their own territory I doubt we will see freely elected Bishops in our Metropolia in the near future.

As I've said before...if we had been electing our own Bishops all along I think our Churches would be much more latinized and resistant to the restoring of Eastern tradition. So, despite the loss of this right in our Churches there has been some good come from the current practice.

The Greek Archdiocese (and those other jurisdictions) should not have to look to Constantinople for the appointment of their Bishops. Ideally, we should not have to look to Rome for ours either. The current status of the Eastern Churches (both Orthodox and Catholic) is far from the ideal it should be. I remain convinced that the Petrine ministry is vital for the Church but I also believe that we need to find a way to heal the schism between East and West. The non-Catholic East will never accept the idea of Rome appointing all their Bishops (and I believe Rome knows this too). Has the time come for Rome to give greater autonomy to the Eastern Catholic Churches? I think so. This is a process which should begin soon. It should proceed with some caution but begin it should.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Bob (OrthoMan) wrote:


I rejoice to be a part of the Communion of Churches which recognize the Bishop of Rome as the Successor of St Peter excercising the Petrine Ministry. That does not make me part of the Roman Catholic Church, however. To begin with, the term "Roman Catholic Church" is not the proper name for the Church.

As to your comment:


I have to ask:

Does that apply also to the takeover of control of the Russian Church when Peter the Great abolished the Patriarchate and instituted the Holy Synod (which he controlled all appointments to and was a concept he had borrowed from Protestantism?)

Bishop Kallistos in _The Orthodox Church_, while admitting the irregularity of this concept and some problems with it, also maintains that much good happened in the Russian Church despite the Holy Synod arrangement.

Church governance may not always be accomplished in the best way...but God is still in control.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

[ 01-07-2002: Message edited by: DTBrown ]

Lance makes an important distinction about which Churches have autonomy within the Catholic Church. It is the right of the patriarchal and major archepiscopal Churches to select their own bishops. The Synod of Bishops within Patriarchal and Major Archepiscopal Churches proposes their respective bishops to the Patriarch and Major Archbishop. Metropolitan Churches do not have a Synod of Bishops, thus the Council of Hierarchs proposes the candidates to the Roman Pontiff, who for all intents and purposes acts as the patriarch/major archbishop for metropolitan Churches. I'm not saying that this is the best situation for the metropolitan Churches, but the CCEO does recognize the rights of the patriarchal/major archepiscopal Churches to select their own bishops. To allow metropolitan Churches to do so violates the rights of the patriarchal/major archepiscopal Churches. Thus Lance is right in saying that the Ruthenian Catholic Metropolitan Church of Pittsburgh would have to be elevated to the rank of at least a major archepiscopal Church.

John


BTW, wouldn't the mother Church of the Johnstown Diocese be the Ruthenian Catholic Church in the USA? Just a thought.

[ 01-07-2002: Message edited by: bisantino ]

[The current Eastern Code even gives Rome the right to approve the nominating list for Bishops in Patriarchal Churches within their own territory. This is a real problem, I admit. And if Rome currently approves the nominating list for all Bishops even in Patriarchal Churches within their own territory I doubt we will see freely elected Bishops in our Metropolia in the near future.]

It amazes me how you can state the above and then become insulted and accuse me of a slur against your church when I remind you that you are indeed still part of the Roman Catholic Church!
If you aren't part of the RCC, why does ROME have to approve the nominating list? For Gods sake use some logic or are you that brain washed?
From my Baba's knee - If you make yourself a doormat don't blame people for stepping on you.

OrthoMan

[BTW, wouldn't the mother Church of the Johnstown Diocese be the Ruthenian Catholic Church in the USA? Just a thought.]

The mother church of the Johnstown Diocese is, and always has been, Constantinople. As she is the mother of the Ruthenian Catholic Church. Rome is the surrage mother of the Ruthenian Catholic Church.
When the Johnstown Diocese made the decision to return to Holy Orthodoxy they went back from whence they came. They were under Constantinople when the Unia came into being.

OrthoMan

Bob

Interesting words from a man-in-the-know, in an October 21, 2001, National Catholic Reporter interview article:

Husar explained that the Catholic church remains unwilling to adopt the structural reforms, above all in favor of local autonomy, necessary for reunion to be a realistic option. As for the Orthodox, Husar said that a Bolshevik-era psychology of fear and suspicion make it impossible to trust anybody. �When we look at these people today, they are good people, and they wish good for themselves and their children,� Husar said. �But they have been so maltreated by that system that they are victims of it. Before we can talk about unity, this generation has to die out. It is a sad truth, but it is the fact.�
When�s the last time you heard that kind of hard-nosed assessment, in public, from a church leader?
Given his identity as an Eastern Catholic, Husar feels the case for collegiality and decentralization in his bones. �I come from a priestly family, and I remember that my grandfather had to write to Rome to ask permission to grow a beard,� Husar said. �Really, I�m not joking. This sort of thing is ridiculous and must be reformed.� An example from the present: Husar�s synod elected an auxiliary bishop almost two years ago, and they are still waiting for confirmation from Rome.
�This does not assure the quality of candidates, it simply creates another layer of bureaucracy,� he said. �We being on the spot, knowing the person first-hand, can judge much better.�

[ 01-08-2002: Message edited by: durak ]

[ 01-08-2002: Message edited by: durak ]

Patriarch Lubomyr is probably right — reunion probably won't happen in this generation.

(It also won't happen while Amchurch is still around.)

NCR is Amchurch's house paper. Ugh.

Very scary, kids. (Blood-Sucking Modernists from Frackville, Pennsylvania! Owooooo!*) Exactly what Roman traditionalists fear: the Amchurchers using us Easterns as tools to further their agenda. Suuuuure, they want "autonomy' and "decentralization' but NOT for the same reasons Patriarch Lubomyr does.

Asking Rome for permission to grow a beard?! Ugh. But are things really better, other than that a few cosmetic changes now are tolerated?

Maybe the Vatican should read my Q&A page...

*Joe Flaherty as "Count Floyd', Melonville's newsreader moonlighting as presenter of "Monster Chiller Horror Theater' on "SCTV'

http://oldworldrus.com

[ 01-08-2002: Message edited by: Serge ]

And wouldn't it be something if a reform-minded next pope says, "married priests for the Latins!"
and the Byzantine ex-Latin, Anti-N.Ordo types say - "Not for us!"

Dear Friends,

Patriarch Lubomyr isn't afraid to stand for his Rites and he isn't afraid to stand up to Vatican bureaucrats either.

Another person he isn't afraid of is the Moscow Patriarch.

Patriarch Lubomyr takes seriously the charges of violence continuing violence committed against the Orthodox in Western Ukraine made by the Moscow Patriarch.

Patriarch Lubomyr has asked the Moscow Patriarch to cite him one actual case of such violence so he can review it and act on it.

No response has been forthcoming, however.

As for the Toronto case again, I don't know what the circumstances that haven't been mentioned that Kurt cites are.

I'm sure they exist. But no circumstances could change the fact that Rome imposed an "Apostolic Administrator" on one of the largest Eastern Catholic Eparchies where the married Priesthood flourishes and, having failed to achieve its goal, withdrew him after five years of internal strife that could all have been avoided. I know a number of people who became Orthodox during that period and said so publicly in the press.

Alex

Alex,

What is the current situation in your eparchy? Is the married priesthood still flourishing? Does the current bishop ordain married men to the priesthood?

Anthony

Dear Anthony,

I really like you. You are determined and have a clear perspective on things. You aren't unfocused like some say I am . . .

The current situation is that the bishop will not ordain any married candidate to the priesthood.

The route of travelling to Ukraine to get ordained there as a "missionary to Canada" is over and done with.

Married priests from Ukraine are here, but the authorities are trying to stop that saying that those priests are "out of touch with North American realities and our way of life - no more" etc.

There was one situation where a married priest with children was being assigned to another parish. He asked for clemency to stay since he didn't want to take his children away from their (Catholic) school.

The answer? "Then you shouldn't have gotten married ..."

Alex

I heard, not too long ago, that a Ukrainian B.C. Bishop came to the USA and had a four day crash session with six married Deacons and then ordained them to the Priesthood. If the B.C. Ukrainians can do it, why not the other Eastern Rites? Is it a situation of politics with Rome and jockeying for position, or no guts?

Dear nwappleseed,

(Your first name doesn't happen to be "Johnny" does it?)

And a former Bishop of Saskatchewan, who was the pastor at St Josaphat's in Toronto, also ordaind a married deacon to the priesthood some years back.

The reaction? Roman Catholic priests called him up to congratulate him and say, "Good for you!"

When asked what was Rome's reaction, the Bishop simply said, "I haven't gotten any letters, but then again I am retiring anyway."

The guts issue is an important one, too. I don't know what to suggest by way of increasing their presence in some churchmen's constitutions.

Is there a vegetable juicing recipe for this, perhaps?

Alex

“We being on the spot, knowing the person first-hand, can judge much better.” (Husar)

I'm glad they know better. :rolleyes:

There was one situation where a married priest with children was being assigned to another parish. He asked for clemency to stay since he didn't want to take his children away from their (Catholic) school.

The answer? "Then you shouldn't have gotten married ..."

I wouldn't be surprised if such added more souls to the Orthodox communion.

The ghost of John Ireland still haunts the halls of the Catholic Churches, metaphorically speaking.

nwappleseed, I think the difference in approach among the Eastern Catholic Churches really is a question of guts.

http://oldworldrus.com