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

Mor Ephrem wrote:
But what will Rome accept as a redefinition of this role?

This question cuts to the heart of the discussion.

Mor Ephrem wrote:
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.

There is no official declaration by anyone in the Roman Catholic Church that the latter fourteen councils are ecumenical in the same sense as the Seven Ecumenical Councils. In fact, Pope Paul VI is on record as putting them into a different category. It is true that many Latin-centered theologians consider them to be ecumenical.

It is my guess that Rome will not cede the right to universal jurisdiction and infallibility, as there is plenty of historical and Scriptural evidence supporting the nature of these. What is on the table, I think, is the structure of governance in the Church. Rome would probably cede �daily management� of the various Churches in favor of the model of governance in the early Church while keeping the right to intervene for any reason (as it had in the early Church). Despite the many relational issues between Rome and the Eastern Catholic Churches we are much more self-governing today than we were even ten years ago. If, over the next generation, we can attain a model that would be acceptable to the rest of Orthodoxy it will be a solid step forward towards the restoration of full communion.

Dear Administrator,

Thanks for this, I'm glad to hear it, but it does raise questions.

1. What canons does the Melkite Patriarchate say are not acceptable and binding on the Melkite Church?

2. If the Zoghby Initiative says what you say it says and still stands today, then how does the Melkite Church reconcile the papal office according to its first millenium limits with Vatican I, which I think I read the Melkite Patriarch at the time signed?

3. The Zoghby Initiative, from what you've told me about it here, professes believe in 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". But that, from all I can tell, is how the Orthodox Church would also recognise the role of the Bishop of Rome.

What are we to make of the response you cite from Rome? "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." What does that even mean? How would the Melkite bishops not be "working together with Rome" in this instance?

The only conclusion I can come to is that the way they may not have been working together with Rome is by seeming to ignore (or even call into question) the post-schism developments in the Catholic understanding of the papacy, including Vatican I.

Furthermore, if Vatican I's papal infallibility is as the Roman Catholics say it is, and is only a formal definition of something that has always been believed by the Church, then why wouldn't the testimony of the "Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation" not be enough for Rome, since theoretically these should witness to belief in papal infallibility?

Dear Mor Ephrem:

Responding to my post, above, you asked:

Assessing the present situation in Eastern Orthodoxy, especially the Orthodox Churches in Ukraine, I am concluding, perhaps wrongly, that the Patriarchal system of Church governance, by its nature(?), is fractional and factional and invariably leads to "truncated" jurisdictions.

AmdG

There is no official declaration by anyone in the Roman Catholic Church that the latter fourteen councils are ecumenical in the same sense as the Seven Ecumenical Councils. In fact, Pope Paul VI is on record as putting them into a different category. It is true that many Latin-centered theologians consider them to be ecumenical.

But my copy of the Vatican II documents has Vatican II call itself the "Second Vatican Ecumenical Council", if I am not mistaken.

It is my guess that Rome will not cede the right to universal jurisdiction and infallibility, as there is plenty of historical and Scriptural evidence supporting the nature of these.

My studying of the issue has led me to conclude otherwise. There is support for Petrine primacy, but not for infallibility and jurisdiction as currently defined; at least I have never read anything convincing me of the truth of the Roman Catholic position.

What is on the table, I think, is the structure of governance in the Church. Rome would probably cede �daily management� of the various Churches in favor of the model of governance in the early Church while keeping the right to intervene for any reason (as it had in the early Church).

Did Rome have the right to intervene on its own, or did it have the right to intervene upon request?

Mor,

I said the same thing about a week ago and was pegged for seeing things in "black and white" and was called ignorant due to my chronological limitations (read: young age).

Personally, I believe that the last 14 councils are indeed ecumenical, but what do I know? I'm just an ignorant kid tainted with latinizations apparently.

I think the thing that so many people are ignoring/forgetting is that there is a development of the doctrines and dogmas surrounding the Petrine Ministry. We are continually being led into deeper Truths about it. I think this is part of the problem with returning to how the pre-Schism Church viewed the Papacy; more has been revealed to us since then. It's like stepping back 1,000 years, which in some cases is very helpful, but in other cases can be quite hurtful.

Alex, didn't you know?! Eastern Catholicism is already part of the Orthodox Faith, as is Western Catholicism.

The problem is the Russian Orthodox Church egregiously attacking the Catholic Church for supposedly "proselytizing." Maybe ROC should check up on the Protestants in Russie before it attacks its Apostolic brethren.

ChristTeen287

One could also see the fruit of the Papal system of Church governance and see quite a few things wrong with it.

I don't think the Patriarchal system of Orthodoxy is as you say it is. It certainly can be, if it is abused. So, too, could the Papacy.

Oriental Orthodoxy uses the same Patriarchal system Eastern Orthodoxy uses, and is getting along fine.

True, we have problems -- for example in India -- but 1) I think that is *the major problem* these days, and 2) is not as bad as it looks (to my knowledge, both factions are still in communion with every other OO Church, except that the IOC is not in communion with Antioch, and our problems with Antioch are based on the Antiochene Patriarchs' developing a more Roman Catholic view of their office and its limits and powers).

Overall, I would dare to say that the Oriental Orthodox communion is a better example of how the Patriarchal system can work than the Eastern Orthodox. Of course, the Catholic Church is the only one that can show to us an example of how the Papal system works, and that system has its own set of problems.

I said the same thing about a week ago and was pegged for seeing things in "black and white" and was called ignorant due to my chronological limitations (read: young age).

Don't worry about it, CT287. I don't think any of us are as old as Vatican I anyway.

Dear Mor Ephrem:

You asked of the Administrator:

This might provide a glimpse at how Rome exercises her "right of intervention."

When the USCCB presented its "Dallas Policy" to the Vatican for a "recognitio," Rome initially withheld its approval and then required this national Episcopal Conference the "revision" or "amendment" of certain provisions of the policy which were not in accord with the "universal" policy on the matter.

The USCCB "deferred" to Rome's instructions (some say obeyed) and, after revising or amending the "offending" provisions, the "Dallas Policy" was granted by the Vatican the required
"recognitio."

AmdG

May I just say that this is a wonderful thread!

The question of this issue comes down to who has the right to define what it means to be an Eastern Catholic. Rome or our own Patriarchs? Increasingly our leadership is saying our Byzantine heirarchies are the one's who reserve the right to interpret dogma for their membership.

What is dogma for the Roman Catholic is not dogma for Eastern Catholics.

To be Catholic you do not need "unity" of belief.

You can disagree with dogmas such as Vatican 1 and still remain an Eastern Catholic. There are examples of disagreements with dogmas for centuries in the Catholic Church.

To be Orthodox means you except all the dogmas of Orthodoxy. Accepting anything less means you are outside Orthodoxy (Correct me if I am wrong). To be Eastern Catholic is a continual march and definement of our own Byzantine Orthodoxy and heritage.

Steven

Dear Alex,

If Ukrainian Unity did happen I would immediately nominate Archbishop Vsevolod as Metropolitan of Central and South America .

Steven

Lauro- It is my understanding from the bishops of our church whom I have personally spoken to, was that all of the Bishops in our church, WORLDWIDE, agreed to establish the patriarchate for our church at the Holy Synod of Kyiv in July, 2002.

All of the bishops have agreed to commemorate Patriarch Lubomyr as "Patriarch" in their respective Cathedrals. By extension, this should also apply to any parish in the juridsiction of the local Church. There should be no reason for your priests to refuse the title in Liturgy, other than the fact that they belong to the Basilian Rite of the Catholic Church!


I would ask your bishop point blank, in a cordial manner of course, if he was a part of the UNANIMOUS decision of the Church, why "patriarch" is not commemorated at least in the Cathedral parish.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

If anyone is suprised by the Moscow Patriachate's KGB ming games and manipulations, well . . . then, I am suprised at their suprise!

You can' t blame a dog for being a dog.

The question is, will Rome cater to the whiny panter of the Muscovites in their quest for imperial power, or will they show true pastoral care for the Church of martyrs who gave all for their Catholicity at the hands of the evil Russian empire and its Church?

The Russian Church has no business calling the shots in Ukraine. They can have all the "canonical" authority from world Orthodoxy they want, whatever that is worth. But they will NEVER have the MORAL AUTHORITY to be the ecclesial head of the Ukrainian Church. Such structures can only stand in a world of injustice. I, for one, will not take part in that injustice.

I agree with the sentiments conveyed here that Pope John Paul II should elevate Lubomyr, canonically, to Patriarch. Who knows who the next Pope will be. This should be the top priority of our dealings inside the Vatican Bureacracy before the Pope passes to his eternal rest.

Alex

Dear ALity,

words to pray with and commerate Patriarchs by.

Steven

I don't think this is really true. The Eastern Catholic Patriarchs at the time HAD to accept the Dogma of Infallibility as Revealed Truth with no freedom to "dissent". Look at the experience of the Melkite Patriarch at the time who had reservations about this and was humiliated by the Pope and the Curia. It was expected that all Catholics, Roman and Eastern, had to accept this, different emphasis placed on it or not.
In Orthodoxy, one does have to accept the decisions of the 7 Ecumenical Councils. But otherwise, Orthodoxy does not tend to define dogmas in the Juridical sense and always emphasizes that it must be done in COuncil not by the act of one Hierarch in the Church.

Peace,
Brian in Sacramento

WHAT?? Someone please explain that one to me, please...

Mor Ephrem writes:

Precedent. The EP has acted at various times in history with breathtaking authority "over" other Churches. The EP has apppointed Partriarchs in other Churches, and has even dissolved Patriarchates.