www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Papal Priorites and Priviledges & the East

I want to start off by making my intentions clear. I am not starting this thread to create a "gotcha!" thread from an EO to an EC. However, everytime I have posted the following speech in a Catholic forum, no Catholic has ever once (to my memory) responded to it. I am NOT trying to push you into a corner, nor do I post this imagining that I will produce some quandry. Rather, I am honestly curious as to your takes on the content of this speech given by His Beatitude Gr�goire III Greek-Melchite Patriarch of Antioch:

FROM: http://www.vatican.va/news_services/press/sinodo/documents/bollettino_20_x-ordinaria-2001/02_inglese/b10_02.html]

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

H.B. Gr�goire III LAHAM, B.S., Patriarch of Antioch for the Greek-Melchites, Syria

It is incorrect to include the Patriarchal Synod under the title of Episcopal Conferences. It is a completely distinct organism. The Patriarchal Synod is the supreme instance of the Eastern Church. It can legislate, elect bishops and Patriarchs, cut off those who differ.

In No. 75, a "particular honor" given to Patriarchs is mentioned. I would like to mention that this diminishes the traditional role of the Patriarch, as well as speaking about the honor and privileges of the Patriarchs in ecclesiastical documents.

It is not a question of honor, of privileges, of concessions. The patriarchal institution is a specific entity unique in Eastern ecclesiology.

With all respect due to the Petrine ministry, the Patriarchal ministry is equal to it, "servatis servandis", in Eastern ecclesiology.

Until this is taken into consideration by the Roman ecclesiology, no progress will be made in ecumenical dialogue.

Furthermore, the Patriarchal ministry is not a Roman creation, it is not the fruit of privileges, conceded or granted by Rome.

Such a concept can but ruin any possible understanding with Orthodoxy.

We claim this also for our Patriarchal Melkite Church and for all our Eastern Catholic Churches.

We have waited too long to apply the decrees of Vatican Council II and the Encyclicals and letters by the Popes, and notably by Pope John Paul II.

Because of this the good will of the Church of Rome loses credibility regarding ecumenical dialogue.

We can see the opposite occurring: the CCEO has ratified uses absolutely contrary to Eastern tradition and ecclesiology!

[00119-02.03] [in096] [Original text: French]

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

I bolded certain parts that were, perhaps to me, the crux of his speech at the General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops. But all of it is important.

I think this perhaps is what even the more ecumenical of Orthodox (and more open to the concept of one day coming into communion with Rome) find troubling is that we PERCIEVE that the West (even the most charitable to the Orthodox Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches), including Rome, don't understand that it is not so much that we are afraid Rome will act as a tyrant and change us. Rather, we believe that Rome does not have and never could have any priveledge to grant anything or take anything from the East. I get the feeling that it is imagined that "Rome, in Her good will, CHOOSES not to exercise any priorities over you guys. But from our point of view that's not even a priority Rome can have.

It SEEMS to me that this is what your venerable Patriarch is expressing here.

Am I correct in understanding his complaint? And if so, is this compatible with Current Roman teaching?

I apologize if I am not making myself clear. Hopefully through a discussion, I can learn from you guys.

Xpy
PS: I am not trying to convince you guys of how YOU should view anything... in fact, that is, in part, what I am trying to learn. Irish Melkite has helped me a LOT in the past, but I also like hearing new voices (but please I-Melkite... chime in!)

A worthy topic for discussion.

I agree with Patriarch Gregory. Rome has certainly (at times) treated the Eastern Patriarchies as something that exists with the permission of Rome (i.e., tolerated or a concession) rather than something that is equally part of correct Catholic ecclesiology as is the Patriarchate of Rome itself. I don't see anything against current Roman ecclesiology, per say. Rather, I see problems with sloppiness in Roman praxis.

I will quibble with the statement: "The patriarchal institution is a specific entity unique in Eastern ecclesiology." I would drop the word "Eastern" as a correctly functioning patriarchal system is proper for the entire Church - East and West, both as we exist today and as we should exist when the hoped for reunion becomes reality.

I see Patriarch Gregory and the Melkites witnessing the way the Church should function.

I accept the idea that "first among equals" translates to immediate and universal jurisdiction (a major issue for the Orthodox). And I can see every reason for the eldest brother to return to the model of the early Church where he did not micromanage everything but rather only asserted his authority when appealed to or for very just cause.

I also agree with Patriarch Gregory, in that the Patriarchates of the East grew from within the Churches that they lead, not by decision or permission of Rome, either before or after AD 1054.

Rome does assert the authority to erect new Patriarchates when it deems necessary.

I do have a few questions.

How does the Tradition of one Bishop in a city relate to the multiplicity of Patriarchates, especially in Antioch? How did it come to pass that multiple Patriarchs claimed the city?

Is there any ecclesial difference, from the Eastern point of view, between the Patriarchates of the first millenium and the newer Patriarchates, such as Moscow, Serbia, Romania, etc.?

Historically, the Church of Kyiv was part of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, but after the fall of the Byzantine Empire to the Turks, functioning Patriarchal authority shifted to Moscow.

After the fall of the Soviet Empire, Ukrainians are asserting their own Patriarchate. Who has the authority to resolve this situation?

Then, there is the UGCC. At the time of Metropolitan Andrew Sheptytsky, no one seemed to refer to him as Patriarch. Since then, as the Church came out of the catacombs, more and more people seem to assert the UGCC Patriarchate. Even Rome saw a need to recognize a new category, that of Major Archiespiscopal Church. I suppose this was an attempt to avoid stepping on Orthodox toes, but clearly a half step of recognition of a development that was occuring without them.

Just a few observations.

Just wanted to let you know that I am reading.

I can't really respond too well to the excellent questions posed by "Odd Duck". I can say that I know that the Moscow Patriarchate which I am under is actually a Synod. I believe that, more than anything, Patrairch ALEXEI II is more of a representative of that Synod than anything else. As far as I know, he does not have the priviledge to make any grand decisions on his own, although I am sure he holds distinct power in some form within the Synod.

I was told that many of the Patriarchates work this way. However, don't take my word for it. I could very well be wrong on the details.

Anyhow, I am reading and have appreciated your feedback. For right now I am going to lay back and just keep reading as I hope others can add more to this. I do have a few thoughts, but I want to wait because they may be satisfied as others (hopefully) continue to post here.

God Bless,

Xpy

From my understanding, this often had to do with who was pope e.g. Pope St. Pius X was very much for the Eastern Patriarchs using their full authority.

Like many things in life it boils down to politics.

It seems, however, that His Beatitude was speaking more to the issue of of Rome even has any priveleges over Eastern Patriarchates, not so much the current attitude of any one Pope. Am I incorrect in assuming that Pope John Paul II was among the more beloved of the Eastern Catholics due to his great respect for the Eastern Rite? This speech was given during his papacy so it would seem to me that he is referring to a much more fundamental problem in how Rome official views her priveleges in regards to the East, not on any personal infractions or offenses committed by any one Pope.

Are you following what I'm saying. If so, am I misunderstanding His Beatitudes intent and how?

Thank you for your time,

Xpy

As a Latin Catholic, I both agree and disagree with Patriarch Gregory.

I think it is true that the Latin Church does not have the proper respect for the Patriarchal ministry. It is a ministry that flows intrinsically from eastern ecclesiology, and it is fundamental to it, and western ecclesiology has a tendency to simply see it as one particular and solely practical way to govern the Church. It is simply not in our Tradition to see it otherwise. It has been a blessing for the western Church to "rediscover" this ministry over the past century.

However, I must disagree with the following:


Whereas I do think the Petrine ministry can be seen to flow from the Patriarchal ministry, I have a hard time accepting that they are simply "equal". The Petrine ministry, as I see it, is a unique ministry given solely to the bishop of Rome. Yes, I understand the concept of Chrysostom that all bishops exercise the ministry of Peter, but I think there is a uniqueness to the Roman bishop's ministry that no other bishop or patriarch possesses. So to simply put the Petrine ministry on the same level as the Patriarchal ministry is a mistake, in my most decidedly less-informed opinion than His Beatitude.

Thank you for your response.

Thanks to all of you. I look forward to reading any discussion you guys continue to have because it is helping me understand.

Xpy

I, too, am a Latin Catholic and I believe what my Church teaches in relation to thePetrine Ministry.

That being said, if you go to the Syriac Orthodox website, you will find the same claims that are made by Rome as far as being a successor to St. Peter. And though the Syrian orthodox Patriarch does not make universal claims to jurisdiction, he does make claims to having jurisdiction over all the particular sui juris Churches established to the east of him.

So we've got a problem in that in history these ideas on the development of the Petrine Ministry, what it entails and what, if any, rights and privileges it should have, were developed at a time when communication was poor and people did not know that parallel claims were being made worlds apart; not to mention that the way in which the Church's ecclesiology was developing in different parts of the same world was at odds--that would eventually lead to schism.

This last problem is one that we Latin Catholics must come to understand. We may not agree with it. We may find it runs across the grain of what we see or would like to see the Church as being, but we, nevertheless, must come to understand that there are multiple visions that have long histories that have come to the table of the ecumenical diaolgue we hope will bring us back into communion.

This discussion about what we can hope for was already developed on a thread a few months ago and might be a good point of departure.

In Christ,

BOB

Even if you and I may not agree on the end conclusion of what Rome means/meant/always meant to the Church (or must mean, etc...), you did a beautiful job at pointing out what so many of us on both sides of the table forget. History is much more complicated than the black and white picture we both like to present regarding the Pope.

Without going as far as to say that the Eastern Catholic Church has right (because I don't believe that, at least officially, their stance on Rome is right), I do believe that this fact (that history is not as black and white as the Latins and the Orthodox like to believe) is a fact that the Byzantine Catholics are well aware of and even struggle with on a constant basis. I almost feel that for many, this struggle, is part of what defines them. That's my own personal observation and is not at all meant as a criticism or a compliment. A mere observation.

Xpy

As it was explained to me, Rome was eager to begin work on the CCEO once the new CIC had been promulgated, and sought participation by as many ECCs as possible. This wasn't particularly good timing for the ECCs, many of whom were struggling to recover from years of Communist persecution, and thus the CCEO received disappointingly little input from them.

In light of all this, it's not particularly surprising that the CCEO should have significant flaws, such as those pointed out and alluded to by HB Patriarch Gr�goire.

Assuming Rome is indeed serious about full reunion with the East (as opposed to the existing situation of partial unia, not meant to imply any kind of re-absorption), one would expect the Curia to remain open to such possibilities as a wholesale revision of the CCEO or even its outright abrogation.

(A revised CCEO could even serve as a kind of "Constitution" for a reunited Church, although the EOC may not wish to go that route ...)


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Thank you for your reply. I am interested in reading any and all replies anyone has for this thread.

God bless you,

Xpy

This may be common knowledge to you, but just in case:

The Patriarch of Antioch is a successor to St. Peter since this see was founded by him, but it is the Melkite Catholic Patriarch of Antioch who by direct descent represents the original episcopal line of succession of Antioch (regarding the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Jerusalem it is the Greek Orthodox who can claim this).

As for the title Patriarch of All the East, it is my understanding that this is in reference the former Eastern Diocese of the Roman Empire (the Dioecesis Orientis [en.wikipedia.org], part of the Pr�fectura Pr�torio Orientis [en.wikipedia.org]) which encompassed what is now Cyprus, Lebanon, Syria, Palestine/Israel, Jordan, the Sinai, and Arabia.

I am Roman Catholic.

I ask my Orthodox brothers to forgive us. My church hierarchy has made a grave mistake. They have misunderstood the past and when faced with the threat of total collapse during the Reformation ... they solidified the dogmas of Primacy and Infallibility in order to save the Latin church from being ripped apart.

The damage is done.

Rome (under the current Pope) will not reform, but will rather advance, these dogmas (Primacy and Infallibility).

It would probably be wise not to involve yourself with our troubles and the troubles yet to come. You withstood Communism without our help ... surely you do not need Rome now unless it extends true brotherhood and unconditional friendship in Christ.

Peace be with your churches.
-ray

Cardinal Kasper, in an interview published by Zenit, said the following:



Ravenna Was "Breakthrough" in Orthodox-Catholic Ties [zenit.org]