www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Pope should drop more titles, Orthodox leader says

Pope should drop more titles, Orthodox leader says [cwnews.com]

Interesting stuff.

Thanks Ray.
I agree that the "more offensive" titles should be dropped.

Also found the last part of the article quite interesting too.

The Russian Orthodox hierarchy has frequently complained about the activities of the Catholic Church in countries that are traditionally Orthodox. Ironically, Bishop Hilarion presides over the Orthodox community in historically Catholic Austria

The whole situation reminds me of a discussion I had with an orthodox priest a year ago... He told me that you can see the error of the Catholic Church by the fact that they back down on some issues in favour of reunion but orthodoxy stands to its beliefs. I then told him the parable of the shepard that leaves all 99 sheep unguarded to go out and look for that one sheep that left the flock...

I'm glad this one came up again. The Pope dropping the title "Patriarch of the West" could actually be an ecumenically good thing. This means that the Pope no longer has to be a Roman Catholic. Cardinals Husar, Ghattas, Daoud, and the rest? could all be Pope someday. After the reunion, any Cardinal (Patriarch) could become Pope.

God hasten the day!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Much Love,
Jonn

The Pope doesn't have to be Roman Rite now. Any Catholic male, Latin or Eastern is eligible. If an Eastern Catholic were elected Pope he would obvioulsy celebrate the Roman Rite for his flock in Rome but he could certainly still celebrate for any Church in any Rite.

Dropping the title Patriarch of the West was a mistake and can be corrected. The Orthodox relate to the Pope as Patriarch of the West, a title they recognize, not as Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, a title they do not recognize.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Good post Deacon Lance - agree with every point you have made. The late Joseph Slypij of the UGCC was identified as a candidate for the papacy in the early 1960's. Had he been elected to the papacy, he probably would have become a bi-ritual Pope - serving a Latin liturgy and Eastern Liturgy depending on the occassion.

UGCC Cardinal and Patriarch Lubomyr Husar was identified as a 'top 10 candidate' (by top Vatican pundits) for the most recent nomination process. My guess is that had he been elevated to the Papacy, he would have been more Eastern than Latin in many aspects church life and would have in his kind and gently manner informed many Latin rite Catholics that "this is how the other lung breathes".

IF

Father Deacon Lance,

I agree with you on this. Dropping the title, while well intentioned, certainly has had the opposite effect - and is easily misinterpreted. The title "Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church" comes much to close to the title rejected by St. Gregory the Great, "Universal Bishop", when it was given to him by - ironically - an Eastern Patriarch! It's deletion would be a welcome one.

The point about the Orthodox bishop's presence in Austria is deeply telling. I see it as profoundly hypocritical for some Orthodox prelates to bemoan the "encroachments" on their territories by Catholics (Latin or Byzantine), when they certainly have no difficulty doing the same in traditionally Catholic territories. It is the same type of posturing that I hear when some Orthodox rant about Eastern "Uniatism" while the Antiochians have and promote Western-rite Orthodoxy. While I recognize that the Western-rite Orthodox movement is not accepted by all jurisdictions, one should be careful about throwing rocks in glass houses.

Gordo

Regarding the first point, yes the Russians have churches and some bishoprics in the canonical territory of the West. I don't consider that particularly telling personally. The fact is they are really there to serve the Russian diaspora. I'm sure they wouldn't turn down somebody who showed up and was intent on converting, but I can guarantee you they aren't going out and seeking non Russians for conversion. In other words I think you would be hard pressed to say in this instance the MP is engaging in proselytism.

Regarding the WR Orthodox, we had a long discussion about them recently. They are accepted as being legitimate by all canonical jurisdictions, though certainly feelings are mixed about their mission. What they are not is a form of Uniatism, and I hold that opinion for several reasons which I outlined in the other thread.

Regarding the article, I fully agree with Bishop Hilarion.

Andrew

Besides the Antiochians, ROCOR also had Western Rite institutions. I agree with Fr. Robert Taft in this excerpt from an interview he gave in 2004:

What realistically can Kasper hope to accomplish?

By talking turkey the way he did in his article in Civilt� Cattolica when the Orthodox complained about the creation of the dioceses in Russia, which was translated into other languages, he could make some headway. He laid it right out. There are over 300,000 Catholics in European Russia, 65,000 of them in Moscow alone. To say that a church doesn't have a right to erect a diocese there is absurd, especially when the Orthodox plant metropolitans wherever they want. Let's take the example of Austria. Vienna has been a Catholic see since the first millennium, yet the Russian Orthodox have a metropolitan, not just "in" Vienna but "of" Vienna, that's his title. Yet there probably aren't 5,000 Russian Orthodox in the whole of Austria. Fair is fair. Is Moscow their canonical territory? Yes, but guess whose canonical territory Vienna is? They come up with the argument, we believe in the principle of "one bishop, one city." Want to guess how many Orthodox bishops there are in New York? I mean, for God's sake. The problem is, nobody talks to them like that because nobody knows what I know. Catholics hear this stuff and say, "Oh, gee, aren't we awful." Give me a break.

So what can Kasper hope for?

What Kasper can hope for is a renewal of the dialogue. What he needs to do is to reassure Moscow once again is that the Catholic church regards the Russian Orthodox church as a sister church, that we are there to take care of Catholics, not to fish in their pond. We've said this a million times. Kirill has been making some good noises lately. He's said the dialogue has never been interrupted, which is true, and that while the official position of both churches is that we shouldn't be fishing in one another's waters, but there are clergy on both sides who don't respect those norms. There are Orthodox clergy who proselytize among Catholics, we know that for a fact. The Russian Orthodox opened up a parish in Palermo! All the Russians in Palermo you could fit into a telephone booth. Who's the priest? He's a converted Catholic. When it was opened up, in the journal of the Moscow patriarchate, it stated quite clearly that this is a step toward recovering the Byzantine heritage of Sicily. Furthermore, there's a Greek monastery in Calabria that's also proselytizing among the Catholics. There are loose cannons all over the place.

In my previous post I accidentally typed Rocor had instead of Rocor has.

This Bishop Hilarion fellow is HILLARIOUS(pardon the play on words.) The Pope IS the Pontiff of the Universal Church. All MUST submit to him. He is the successor of St. Peter, he is the Vicar of Christ. To ask the Pope to deny that he is the Pontiff of the Universal Church is ridiculous. And he is upset about us evangelizing in his country? There is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church. If I were the Pope I would most definitely be outraged by him. If the Orthodox want to come back into communion with the true Church, great, but we are not going to (nor is it possible to) change the teaching of the Church.

Mike,

There is nothing really to be outraged about here. It is to be expected. Bishop +Hilarion doesn't believe what we do. We can't be mad at him for it. Better to respect his and his Communion's beliefs than to make nonsenical statements.

The Orthodox don't agree with us, why is why we're not in communion with them.

Your tone is needlessly abrasive, brother, and will just fuel discontent! Come on!

Logos Teen

Dear Mike,

You posted "but we are not going to (nor is it possible to) change the teaching of the Church."

Well......what about Vatican II and all the bologna that was done "in the spirit of Vatican II?" If changing the direction the Priest faces during Liturgy, allowing Altar Girls, and inserting the Filioque into the Creed without permission from THE CHURCH don't count as changes in "the teaching of the Church," then what does count as Changing the "teaching of the Church?"

And as for no salvation outside the "Catholic" Church, that is rubbish. I will offer a feeble attempt to describe the current state of the "Catholic Church" and the "Orthodox Church." Here it is: One Church uses a Liturgy that is over 1500 years old and was used while the WHOLE CHURCH was together and still having Ecumenical Councils, this Church (Even in America) holds Wednesdays and Fridays as days of Fast and also strictly observes 2 long Fasts throughout the year, one Church requires proper preparation before receiving Communion including fasting and Confession. The other Church uses a Liturgy that is less than 50 years old and was devised to be Protestant (Yes, Protestants change their Faith to meet their whims), doesn't actually hold Wednesdays and Fridays as days of Fast (Although in America it claims to do another penance instead of fasting on Fridays, yeah right), the other Church also gives Communion to anyone that gets in line.

Which Church has changed the Faith? If only one of these Churches was to receive the Gift of Salvation, which would it be?

I wish some of the Catholics I encounter would be half as Holy as some of the Pius and Orthodox Christians that I am privelidged to know.

Ok, InCogneats, take a deep breath.

No official teaching of the Catholic Church was changed by Vatican II. As has had pointed out ad nauseum, the issues with the council had to do with its implementation. May I remind you that the teachings of the council go much further than any previous to it in embracing the pleroma of catholicity (read East and West together)?

And the faith was not changed substatively by the addition of the "filioque", despite the protestations of Lossvky and his ilk. This is an old and very tired territory.

If you have not taken the time to actually READ the documents of Vatican II (I find that many who protest the loudest against the council have absolutely no idea what is written in its documents.) pick up a copy and do so. You will find ample support for your position re: the salvation of those outside of the full communion of the Catholic Church.

Clearly the state of the Latin Church is in disarray in many places, but not in all. Our Byzantine Catholic Church has its own issues to be sure. From what I know from my Orthodox friends, the Orthodox aren't having the easiest time everywhere either. But you are correct - we should look to our Orthodox bretheren and their example of worship and spirituality. They are, after all, our Mother Church (except for the Antiochian Orthodox who actually left their Mother Church and formed their own gig when the original Melkite Orthodox Patriarch entered communion with Rome, but that's another story... )

As far as which Church should receive the gift of salvation, the answer (according to Vatican II) is both - since, if I read Father Louis Bouyer's argument correctly, we are all part of the same ecclesial reality. The extent to which the responses of both churches correspond to this great of salvation will be more fully revealed on the Last Day, when all of us to a person will have to give an account of our stewardship of the Mystery of Faith before the "dread judgement seat of Christ". For now, I'm just trying to manage my own (sometimes stumbling) spiritual walk.

Gordo