www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Moscow Patriarchate says no way for UGC Patriarchate

Dear Fr. Mark:

I am talking about the Church visible here on earth, the Kingdom of God here and now.

Only the Pope can approximate the office and title of being a Universal Pastor in this sense.

AmdG

Dear Alex:

I stand corrected.

Imperialist leanings do indeed die hard.

Vosso caro amigo
Jos� Jacinto de Freitas-Lopes

Dear Jose,

No problem, Big Guy!

Alex

Dear Alex:

Perhaps, theoretically, all Patriarchs are equal.

But, in reality and in practical terms, I don't think a Partriarch of any Particular Church could equal the Patriarch of the WEST, who is, unfortunately, also the POPE.

AmdG

Dear Amado,

O.K., so what can the Patriarch of the West do that any other Patriarch cannot?

The matter of canonizing saints is something we should hold in abeyance, since this is a right of all Patriarchs - and bishops for that matter, although the West has reserved this right to the Pope alone.

The Pope is "first among equals" according to the mind of the Church of the first thousand years.

Being "first" doesn't mean being "more than" the others.

We are used to thinking of the Pope as a super-something and the West may do as it likes in this regard.

The Pope's role has changed over the centuries, and it will doubtless change more.

The Pope may speak to the entire Church - but another Patriarch may take a position on something that is seen as being a great Christian position that could be recognized as such by the entire Church as well.

The same difference between Ecumenical and Local Councils.

There are instances when the rulings of Local Councils became uniform for the entire Church.

But this is all a function of being "First" and not of "being more than."

The Patriarchs are indeed equal in every which way.

And, let me add, that the Pope himself doesn't agree with you!

When he formally met the First among Equals in the East, the Patriarch of New Rome, in St Peter's, the Pope ensured that he was seated on an even level with the Ecumenical Patriarch.

The Church has always held the Patriarchs of Old and New Rome to be equal and His Holiness the Pope took special pains to underline the canonical tradition in this regard.

But don't accept my and the Pope's word on the matter!

Alex

Amen! And who would dare want a better Universal Pastor than Christ?

With that said, for all the stuff being said against Amado's position by Eastern Catholics and Roman Catholics alike, you've got to admit that he's right.

The current Roman Catholic system says (indeed, dogmatises) that the Pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals when he speaks ex cathedra, and this is whether or not he speaks in union with the entire episcopate of the Church. They could all be against him in defining something, and he still could, and it would stand. That is something no other Patriarch, Catholic or Orthodox, can do. Arguing for or against the truth or validity of this "dogma" is pointless. According to the current view, in at least this one way, a Pope of Rome will always be superior to an Eastern Patriarch.

In addition, one can easily see other things which the Pope can do, but which Eastern Catholic Patriarchs either a) can't do, or b) can do, but only in a limited way. Eastern Catholic canons, as referred to by Orthoman once upon a time, always seem to reserve all of the rights of the Roman Pontiff "over" the other Churches, even if he doesn't necessarily choose to exercise them all the time. Can anyone point to anything that assures this kind of privilege to other Patriarchs?

And have any Eastern Catholic Churches officially rejected some or all of these things I've just mentioned, and went along with their ecclesial lives as if they did not apply to them? In my time here, I don't think I've ever come across something like that...I don't think any of the Eastern Catholic Churches have ever rejected any of these things; with regard to papal infallibility, you can't get rid of something that's been proclaimed by an "ecumenical council" as a universally applying dogma without also being "outside the Church", with regard to universal ordinary jurisdiction, EC canons provide for it, and the other things seem to follow through from these.

I guess there is more that could be said from this perspective, but it is not necessary. I don't think any Catholic can honestly deny what Amado said:

Perhaps, theoretically, all Patriarchs are equal.

But, in reality and in practical terms, I don't think a Partriarch of any Particular Church could equal the Patriarch of the WEST, who is, unfortunately, also the POPE.

I don't think it is unfortunate that the Pope is also Patriarch of the West. If there was no papal infallibility, universal jurisdiction, etc., what would be the problem with this? Surely there are other things which should be considered unfortunate, but not this.

Just my opinion.

Dear Qathuliqa,

Surely your point on the hypothetical situation concerning the Pope defining something even if all the bishops were against him - is just hypothetical.

When has that ever happened in the history of the Latin Church?

Even when the Pope defined the two Western Marian doctrines, he asked for the views of the world's bishops in union with him.

And Pope Honorius I is one instance where a Pope was declared a heretic for supporting the Monothelite controversy.

Vatican II declared the right of the Eastern Catholic Churches to govern themselves.

The rest is basically "style of government" and Rome's often heavy-handed bureaucratic style that simply must be opposed by the Eastern Catholic Churches if they are to get anywhere.

And they do want to get somewhere - and will.

Something similar occurs with the heavy-handed treatment of churches like that in Ukraine by the Moscow Patriarchate that simply doesn't want to let go - resulting in the "uncanonical" movement.

I don't really see much difference here between Rome and Moscow, Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

Do you, Big Guy?

Our Patriarch is trying hard to ignore Roman bureaucracy and we are with him, at least most of us are.

We take at face value the statements coming from Rome encouraging us to be "Orthodox in communion with Rome" etc.

And it is really difficult to arrive at what an "honest Catholic" really does believe about Papal Primacy, especially Eastern Catholics.

Perhaps you feel that Eastern Catholics who assert their Particular rights aren't being honest?

This goes back to our looking at Rome through our Eastern Church prisms.

Patriarch Josef Slipyj challenged Pope Paul VI quite voraciously on the latter's refusal to acknowledge a Patriarchate for our Church.

But how many RC churchmen could measure up to what Josef Slipyj suffered for his loyalty to Rome at the hands of both the Soviet State with its loyal "Soviet Orthodox Church" remaining silent at its side?

I don't really pretend to understand what you are getting at here - and now I'm being really honest.

Forgive me a sinner,

Alex

Dear Mor Ephrem:

Thanks for your clearer explanation of the Roman view, which, without being polemical, I am trying to convey.

I might be exaggerating if I suggest that non-emasculation of present Papal powers becomes a necessity in a "unified" Church, given the diversity of ritual Churches developing from different cultural milieus.

Believing that there is yet no alternative form of governance in a "unified" Church that can replace the Papal system, the Patriarchal system of the East should, for the time being, be complementary (or augmentative) to that of the Papal system of the West.

Of course, this does not preclude a re-definition of the role of the Papacy and/or of the Petrine Ministry, which is the present desire of Pope John Paul II. We, Romans, might not have a Pope like him in the near future.

Particular Churches of the West, more than a billion strong, have been able to "submerge" their own ethnic or national identities for a "more universal" Church, centered in Rome.

AmdG

Dear Amado,

O.K. so you want to deliberately avoid talking to me on this issue - fine .

Submerge identities for a more universal Church in Rome?

Are you serious?

Has not Rome been "culturally imprisoned" within the Latin cultural orbit?

And what about how Rome forcibly imposed its Rite on other Churches and traditions in the West?

How is Rome "universal" in any way, save for papal pronouncements on world affairs - the Eastern Patriarchs are getting better at doing that.

The current Pope has brought his own Slavic/Polish background to bear on Rome, but that won't last forever.

The notion of Rome's "universality" is an old one, one that we of the East have heard repeated frequently.

And frankly, it is a legend in Rome's own mind.

And, by the way, I think Mor Ephrem's statements were more along the lines of "This is Rome, this is not, if you don't obey Rome in terms of what it tells you to do, you are out - period."

I interpreted that to mean that Particular Eastern Catholic Churches have no place else to turn for a freer expression of their rights than to . . .Orthodoxy.

And that could very well be . . .

But the problems Rome is currently experiencing in Russia has to do with its inability to transcend the self-imposed limitations of its own jurisdictional closet and ecclesiology.

O.K. I've said my peace - now I'll leave this alone and concentrate on Basilians in Brazil.

Forgive me a sinner and please don't send me an internet excommunication for schismatic tendencies.

Alex

Mor Ephrem wrote:
And have any Eastern Catholic Churches officially rejected some or all of these things I've just mentioned, and went along with their ecclesial lives as if they did not apply to them?

In 1995 the bishops of the Melkite patriarchate issued a two part official declaration professing everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches and acknowledged the �Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation�. Rome�s response to this initiative was to remind the Melkite bishops that they should work together with Rome to further the cause of unity. The Zoghby Initiative (as it is called) is still an official declaration of the Melkite Church.

There are also parts of the Eastern Canons that the Melkite Patriarchate has stated are not acceptable and will not be binding upon the Melkite Church.

My dear Alex:

Yes, I am serious.

In the West, we refer national Churches as: the Church in Brazil, the Church in Mexico, the Church in the Philippines, the Church in the U.S., the Church in Poland, and so on.

As opposed to, for example, the Church of England.

It's as simple as subsituting the preposition "of" with "in." And this how we, in the West, have cast our lot with the See of Peter.


AmdG

Dear Alex,

Surely your point on the hypothetical situation concerning the Pope defining something even if all the bishops were against him - is just hypothetical.

When has that ever happened in the history of the Latin Church?

Even when the Pope defined the two Western Marian doctrines, he asked for the views of the world's bishops in union with him.

The Pope declaring something independently and even in opposition to the rest of the episcopate may be something that hasn't happened so far. It may very well be hypothetical. But the possibility and the authority for him to exercise this power, based on the "infallible" definition of Vatican I, are both there. The Pope could do these things, even if he chooses not to. And that's what I have a problem with.

And Pope Honorius I is one instance where a Pope was declared a heretic for supporting the Monothelite controversy.

True, which certainly would seem to cast infallibility in a bad light to some degree.

Vatican II declared the right of the Eastern Catholic Churches to govern themselves.

The rest is basically "style of government" and Rome's often heavy-handed bureaucratic style that simply must be opposed by the Eastern Catholic Churches if they are to get anywhere.

And they do want to get somewhere - and will.

I don't doubt what you've said, and support it and you.

But it all depends on what you define as "style of government". The Roman Curia has no authority over your Churches other than what the Pope delegates to it. The Pope can delegate this power to it because the Pope has universal, ordinary jurisdiction over all (per the Catholic view). Some say the Roman Curia is a problem that the Eastern Catholic Churches have to deal with when they try to govern themselves (as they should) in certain instances, and I would agree with them. But the Curia could be disbanded tomorrow and that would be that; in essence, the Curia has no power of its own. The power comes from that which the Pope gives it (so it seems to me). Now what?

It all comes back to the role of the Pope, and all that comes with that role.

Something similar occurs with the heavy-handed treatment of churches like that in Ukraine by the Moscow Patriarchate that simply doesn't want to let go - resulting in the "uncanonical" movement.

I don't really see much difference here between Rome and Moscow, Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

Do you, Big Guy?

In this instance that you relate, Alex, I see no difference at all. In India we endure this same sort of thing.

Our Patriarch is trying hard to ignore Roman bureaucracy and we are with him, at least most of us are.

We take at face value the statements coming from Rome encouraging us to be "Orthodox in communion with Rome" etc.

I support him and you guys too. You know that I have no animosity whatsoever towards Catholics of whatever Church, even if we may disagree on this or that point.

And it is really difficult to arrive at what an "honest Catholic" really does believe about Papal Primacy, especially Eastern Catholics.

It may be difficult to find out in actuality, but in theory, there should be no problem. Before Vatican I, you could disagree with these things; after it, you cannot. No Pope or "ecumenical" council after Vatican I ever revoked its statements. They still stand, whether or not people pay attention to them. It's kinda like what ChristTeen287 was getting at in talking about artificial birth control in the Roman Catholic Church: it doesn't matter, really, what the will of the majority is, because the teaching is clear.

Perhaps you feel that Eastern Catholics who assert their Particular rights aren't being honest?

I don't understand how you might conclude this. All I tried to say in my last post was that, if you really look at everything, it is one thing to say that His Holiness, the Patriarch of Kyiv is equal in dignity to His Holiness, the Patriarch of the West. But this Patriarch, the Pope of Rome, will always be above any other Patriarch in the current setting, because he will always have powers no other Patriarch has, powers that are defined as matters of faith for Catholics.

Patriarch Josef Slipyj challenged Pope Paul VI quite voraciously on the latter's refusal to acknowledge a Patriarchate for our Church.

But how many RC churchmen could measure up to what Josef Slipyj suffered for his loyalty to Rome at the hands of both the Soviet State with its loyal "Soviet Orthodox Church" remaining silent at its side?

I would think very few, if any at all. But why would Rome have to acknowledge a Patriarchate for your Church at all? The answer to that question, in however great or small a way, will have to deal with things which the Catholic Church considers as matters of faith.

I don't really pretend to understand what you are getting at here - and now I'm being really honest.

There is no need for me to forgive you, for you haven't offended me. All I meant by the previous post was that, for all the rhetoric against Amado's position, one cannot but conclude that he is right in what he has said, and that a Pope of Rome will always be a higher position than an Eastern Patriarch, in at least some ways, for as long as Vatican I stands.

I am sorry that I didn't make myself clear last time. I hope I did in this post.

Dear Administrator,

Excellent point, Sir!

Thank you for coming in with some reason. It's terrible when people get hot under the collar .

And Patriarch Joseph Slipyj declared himself Patriarch against the commands of Pope Paul VI to leave the matter alone.

He maintained his title until death in filial disobedience to Rome.

(Do you think Mor Ephrem wants to become Catholic?)

Alex

Thanks for your clearer explanation of the Roman view, which, without being polemical, I am trying to convey.

No problem, Amado. I might not agree with you myself on this point, but I must agree that your position in this regard seems to be the only logical one.

I might be exaggerating if I suggest that non-emasculation of present Papal powers becomes a necessity in a "unified" Church, given the diversity of ritual Churches developing from different cultural milieus.

Believing that there is yet no alternative form of governance in a "unified" Church that can replace the Papal system, the Patriarchal system of the East should, for the time being, be complementary (or augmentative) to that of the Papal system of the West.

Why do you see things this way? I am not sure I can agree with you here.

Of course, this does not preclude a re-definition of the role of the Papacy and/or of the Petrine Ministry, which is the present desire of Pope John Paul II. We, Romans, might not have a Pope like him in the near future.

But what will Rome accept as a redefinition of this role? Certainly it won't buckle on an "infallible" dogmatic pronouncement of one of its "ecumenical" councils. But that very pronouncement is one of the first things that would need to go, I would think, from the Orthodox perspective.

Has not Rome been "culturally imprisoned" within the Latin cultural orbit?

Of course.

And what about how Rome forcibly imposed its Rite on other Churches and traditions in the West?

Horrible, especially considering (from my perspective) that, were it not for this policy, the majority of Christians in India would be Eastern (either Catholic or Oriental Orthodox), and not Western as it is today.

How is Rome "universal" in any way, save for papal pronouncements on world affairs - the Eastern Patriarchs are getting better at doing that.

It is universal probably because of your second point, Alex.

And, by the way, I think Mor Ephrem's statements were more along the lines of "This is Rome, this is not, if you don't obey Rome in terms of what it tells you to do, you are out - period."

In a way, yes, but you make me sound so harsh!

All I meant to say in the original post was that the Catholic Church, at Vatican I, defined infallibly, as a matter of faith, the dogma of papal infallibility (and maybe jurisdiction, but I'm not sure). Hence, in at least this way, the Pope is of a higher rank and has greater authority than any Eastern Patriarch.

I interpreted that to mean that Particular Eastern Catholic Churches have no place else to turn for a freer expression of their rights than to . . .Orthodoxy.

And that could very well be . . .

Perhaps...I cannot say. What I do know is that I can't recall reading anywhere that Vatican I and its decrees applied only to the West. As far as I can tell, it applies to all. Are those rights of which you speak perfectly compatible with papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction? I don't know...