www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Orthodox Leaders Could Accept Papal Primacy

Oh. I didn't realize it had to be either/or.

I thought perhaps one could make the statement that there have long been distinctions made between nature and grace in Church teaching, but that one makes those conceptual and pastoral distinctions realizing that without God, without grace, then there is nothing at all.

Eli

Yes. I would be happy for someone to tell me something about the Orthodox reading of St. Paul when he speaks of sin coming into the world to all men through one man.

I have done as you suggested and found several interesting things on first readings. The first is that Father John Romanides should never put himself forward as an historian. He is a poor one, factually.

And the second is the fact that it appears as though, given the readings you suggested and the various on-line catechisms from Orthodox sources that Orthodoxy posits both that sin came into the world through Adam and the consequences of that sin have been passed on through Adam's seed, the other Orthodox teaching claims that there is no heritable consequences of the ancestral sin, passed on through Adam's seed.

So I am left, not as ignorant as before, but no less enlightened in terms of what it is that Orthodoxy does teach. If Orthodoxy actually has one agreed upon teaching concerning the heritable nature of original sin or the ancestral sin, I could not find it.

Eli

Infallibility, while problematic, I would not say is as difficult. We believe in an infallible church, so any bishop that is part of a council that makes dogmatic declarations is really exercising a form of personal infallibility (although one tied intrinsically to his brother bishops).

UOJ is I think extremely problematic. The reason is the CC does not look like a communion of autonomous churches. It looks like a single church governed from Rome with a massive central bureaucracy at its core. How would the CC reorient itself to be in communion with a completely autonomous church that accepts a primus inter pares that is mediatory and appellate in nature, all with a governing synodal structure that supercedes the Roman Curia (a body which obviously the Orthodox would not participate in)? I have honestly never seen a concrete proposal of how that would happen. I would also have to wonder if this type of change was made, in whatever form it happened, what would be the ramifications internal to the CC? Might that not be a roadblock in and of itself? I have to wonder if Rome is really ready to be in communion with a church that ultimately it does not control. What would that say to its own flock or bishops who themselves may itch for increased autonomy, especially in areas where the CC and Orthodoxy exist side by side?

It seems to me there is a lot of complexity here that sometimes goes underappreciated.

Andrew

Because we all live with the consequences of the Fall [home.it.net.au] . We are all subject to the effects of the sin of Adam (including the Theotokos as St. Paul says), though we bear no personal guilt for it. It is not passed to us through procreation, but by our birth we enter a world of disorder and shattered communion with God.

Andrew

Dear Eli,

Well, I don't know your EC jurisdiction, but in the UGCC, Rome approves and O.K.'s ALL the bishops directly - with very little input from the Patriarch/Major Archbishop.

Pat. Husar and his Synod are now just going ahead and doing what they need to do within Ukraine for the Church - and then they just inform Rome.

Rome didn't really like the UGCC moving to Kyiv ("Kiev" for those who don't understand Ukrainian! ).

Rome INDEED has given us our current crop of UGCC bishops. We've never had so many Basilians and Redemptorists among the episcopal ranks - and other similar "men of Rome."

In the UGCC "Easternization" goes hand in hand with "Ukrainianization" - the two combined wreaks havoc with the Vatican's ecumenical efforts with the ROC.

They are trying to "tame" us - but we're like wild monkeys - we don't do well in captivity (especially the ecclesial kind).

I've followed Rome's ventures in this manner for about 30 years now and I've close contacts with clergy.

Rome has a firm grip on our Church that it will not give up easily.

In fact, one could easily argue that Rome gets involved with Latin Catholic episcopal conferences less than it does with the UGCC . . .

Alex

Dear Andrew et al,

Good point.

It's also important to keep in mind that not everything believed by Catholics is dogma.

Concerning infallibility, Catholics believe, for example, that the 1854 statement on the IC was ex cathedra, and hence infallible by Vatican I.

But is all of this dogma? I don't think so. Vatican I stated that the Roman Pontiff possesses infallibility when he "speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church" (emphasis added). In other words, the dogma of papal infallibility -- by itself -- does not necessarily mean that the IC dogma was ex cathedra, because that depends on whether or not it was "in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians". (The other two conditions, i.e. "concerning faith or morals" and "to be held by the whole Church", are obviously satisfied.)

Many years,
Peter.

Perhaps I have been misinformed.

It has been my understanding that a kind of trivium or ranked list of three men's names were presented to the appropriate curial office and that, unless there was something very wrong with the first choice of candidates, the man bearing the first name on the list became bishop.

Is this not the case?

IF it is the case how many times in the history of the UGCC has Rome selected names from down the list, or off the list during, let's say, the decades of the last century to the present?

Eli

My understanding and information is the same as yours Eli re the UGCC.

Indeed, I heard that within Ukraine, Rome is just "informed"; while outside Ukraine, Rome basically rubber-stamps.

Herb

Yes, we just don't quite see things that way, hence the issues with the dogma.

Andrew

Dear Herb and Eli,

Outside of Ukraine, Rome rubber-stamps what?

Rome appoints the bishop-candidates through its Apostolic Nuncios and if there is input from the Patriarch and his Synod, there has been very little or no word ont his recently.

When our current Eparch was consecrated, there was quite the "tug of war" when the Patriarch affirmed HE had appointed him and then the Apostolic Nuncio affirmed that it was HE, the Nuncio, alone who contacted the bishop and "convinced" him to take on the responsibility.

The people in the pews were just shaking their heads at all this.

As for candidates' lists, I am not privy to them.

The point is that Rome's heavy hand is felt when bishops from outside the Eparchies are appointed, bishops who are clearly "Rome's men."

Then again, why should Rome be involved in appointing our own bishops for us? Did not Vatican II affirm that Major Archbishops are equal to Patriarchs?

Is this how Rome wants to build bridges to the Christian East and promote ecumenism with the Orthodox? By continuing to keep a short leash on the largest EC Church in communion with it?

The UGCC has gotten to a point where it is self-governing and acknowledges its own primate as "Patriarch" with or without Rome's approval.

The next step would therefore be for the UGCC to appoint bishops for the Diaspora as it does for Ukraine - and simply let Rome know AFTER it happens.

Alex

As far as I am lead to understand the triviuum or list of three names is intended to be absolutely secret. And also from my experience that secrecy is not always respected, nevertheless, we in the pews should not be privy to them. But that does not mean that they do not exist.

I would prefer to have some hard data before I spoke to surely about the heavy hand of Rome and thus far I've seen no factual data to indicate that Rome has employed a heavy hand at all in the election of bishops over the past fifty years at least. Rather the contrary. We seem to be getting what we have asked for, or what the hierarchs have asked for as their replacements. I think that is a bit of a problem.

It seems to me that Met. Judson from the Byzantine Church was an exception to what I have observed here, and from what I can tell it was a happy fault. His death seems to have been a bit untimely.

At any rate I still am tempted to conclude that the entire process could use a bit of revision, and that Rome, currently, is not the real problem.

Thanks very much for your comments, though. I always enjoy hearing other opinions.

Eli

Dear Eli,

If you enjoy hearing opinions, here are a few more for your reading enjoyment . . .

I don't know what the situation is in the Ruthenian Catholic Church (and frankly, I don't care right now since it doesn't affect me).

In the UGCC, we've been in a kind of hissing match with Rome over the issue of self-government.

It all started with Patriarch Josef the Hieroconfessor - and you know the rest of the story.

My Eparchy was especially affected when our Bishop, Vladyka Kyr Isidore, received an "Apostolic Administrator" from Rome - not an assistant but an AA, as if we were some sort of mission field or something.

For five years, there was a stand-off here and the division in the Eparchy deepened - our Vladyka did not resign and the majority supported him.

Finally, Rome did such a crappy job of mismanagement here that it had to bring in another bishop from the outside altogether - then and only then did our beloved Vladyka agree to resign for peace in the Eparchy.

Rome is far away from the things of our Church and her eparchies. There is no reason for Rome to become involved in things when our Patriarch and his Synod have bureacracy aplenty to deal with them.

No, the problems the UGCC is facing in this respect are "Rome-grown."

We EC's have been well-trained to blame ourselves - but ultimately, the fish smells from the head - at the head of the Tiber, that is.

Alex

How about from the words of the Melkite Patriarch

But the Eastern Churches themselves are sometimes troubled as regards the nominations of bishops.
GR�GOIRE III: For a hundred and fifty years we have elected our bishops without interferences from Rome, though nobody has ever denied Rome the right to intervene, and to us the right to apply to Rome. Simply, Rome doesn�t intervene de facto. For all that time we have elected good bishops. I don�t understand why we can�t do it now.
And when did all this change?
GR�GOIRE III: The practice was changed by Vatican II. It�s very strange. It�s strange that after Vatican II, instead of there being more freedom and autonomy for the Eastern Churches, the space has narrowed.

The interview is here [30giorni.it] .

Andrew

Dear Andrew,

It is always good to have you in one's corner!

Whenever I need to critique Rome, I'll know who to ask for support in future!

At least YOU won't get into trouble with your bishop for doing so . . .

Alex

It seems to me, in the larger context of the interview itself that I cut and paste below, that GR�GOIRE III is saying something much closer to what I was saying about the selection, rather than the election of bishops, being more of the problem than the "heavy hand" of Rome. So I fear I don't take this as proof of Rome's heavy hand.

Eli

Cardinal Husar has proposed devoting the next Synod to the Eastern Catholic Churches. Do you agree?
GR�GOIRE III: It would be a good opportunity for dealing from a new perspective with many important matters, such as child communion, or the primacy itself. And for checking whether our traditions can represent a wealth of solutions for the Latin Church also.
For example?
GR�GOIRE III: For example, some people in the West also would like the local Churches to be more involved in the choice of bishops. It could be checked whether in our traditional practices there are elements adaptable to the socio-cultural structure of the Latin Church.
But the Eastern Churches themselves are sometimes troubled as regards the nominations of bishops.
GR�GOIRE III: For a hundred and fifty years we have elected our bishops without interferences from Rome, though nobody has ever denied Rome the right to intervene, and to us the right to apply to Rome. Simply, Rome doesn�t intervene de facto. For all that time we have elected good bishops. I don�t understand why we can�t do it now.
And when did all this change?
GR�GOIRE III: The practice was changed by Vatican II. It�s very strange. It�s strange that after Vatican II, instead of there being more freedom and autonomy for the Eastern Churches, the space has narrowed.
You once said: �With all respect for the Petrine office, the patriarchal office is equal to it�.
GR�GOIRE III: Really I always say: I am cum Petro but not sub Petro. If I were sub Petro, I would be in submission, and I couldn�t have a true frank, sincere, strong and free communion with the Pope. When you embrace a friend, you are not �below�. You embrace him from the same height, if not it wouldn�t be a true embrace. Unita manent, united things last.
But do you mean to say that the link with the Church of Rome is a bit tight on you?
GR�GOIRE III: On the contrary! The papacy, since John XXIII, is the most open authority in the world. In no other Church is there such openness and such democratic praxis as in the Church of Rome. But then there are those who want to appear as the super-Catholics, and they then insist and always only on the sub Petro and sub Roma. And so, according to me, they contradict the true sense of the papacy itself, its office to confirm the brethren in the faith. We have suffered for our communion with Rome. For a hundred and fifty years we have said mass in the catacombs, in Damascus, because we were forbidden do it in public because of our communion with the bishop of Rome. We�re more Roman than the Romans! That�s why we want to benefit from this communion as from a treasure, a gift, a help for our faith. As Saint John says, our faith is our sole victory.