www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Multiple Jurisdictions - 'One Bishop, One City'

An Ecclesiology closer to the East's for the Church of Rome?

While we are considering these possibilites here is another..... what chance is there that the Roman Catholic Church may move closer to an Orthodox ecclesiology?

When the Pope was yet Joseph Ratzinger he pointed out the need to disentangle the confusion between the patriarchal and primatial roles of the bishop of Rome and to break up the Latin patriarchate, replacing it with a number of "patriarchal areas," that is, regions with an autonomy similar to that of the ancient patriarchates, but under the direction of the episcopal conferences.

In an essay entitled "Primacy and Episcopacy," Ratzinger developed the theme at greater length:

"The image of a centralized state which the Catholic church presented right up to the council does not flow only from the Petrine office, but from its strict amalgamation with the patriarchal function which grew ever stronger in the course of history and which fell to the bishop of Rome for the whole of Latin Christendom.

"The uniform canon law, the uniform liturgy, the uniform appointment of bishops by the Roman centre: all these are things which are not necessarily part of the primacy but result from the close union of the two offices.

"For that reason, the task to consider for the future will be to distinguish again and more clearly between the proper function of the successor of Peter and the patriarchal office and, where necessary, to create new patriarchates and to detach them from the Latin church.

"To embrace unity with the pope would then no longer mean being incorporated into a uniform administration, but only being inserted into a unity of faith and communion, in which the pope is acknowledged to have the power to give binding interpretations of the revelation given in Christ whose authority is accepted whenever it is given in definitive form."

After exploring the ecumenical implications of this vision, Ratzinger concluded: "Finally, in the not too distant future one could consider whether the churches of Asia and Africa, like those of the East, should not present their own forms as autonomous 'patriarchates' or 'great churches' or whatever such ecclesiae in the Ecclesia might be called in the future."

-oOo-

Playing the optimist, I hope that this is the beginning of a long-term vision, a node point for the future, to bring these ideas quietly into reality, but quietly without causing alarm to the "hawks" and ultramontanists in the Roman Catholic Church.

Who knows, but now the Pope is no longer Patriarch of the West we may one day see a Patriarch of Dublin leading a Patriarchate of Ireland. The West will begin to assume the patriarchal form of Church governance which has always been that of the East but in the West its development was interrupted by the necessary role of supremacy which Rome had to adopt in the first millennium in order to hold the Western Church safe from the political forces and the barbarian invaders which threatened its stability and good order.

For Ireland, please make that a Patriarchate of Armagh! Otherwise the proposals appeal to me.

Fr. Serge

Ok, Father, pledge to bring back the Lorrha Missal and we'll nominate your good self!

I was reading Fr Hunwicke's Blog Liturgical Notes
http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com:80/2008/11/celtic.html
and he has a small article on things Celtic.

A commentator on the Blog confirms the gulf between the modern and the ancient when he described reactions to a service celebrated according to the Stowe Missal 'One friend of mine was simply appalled and walked out. One other just sat frozen and unable to receive. It wasn't the eco-friendly/feminist/theology light service they were expecting.' Rather says it all.

Indeed yes, Pope Saint Gregory is writing to Pope Euloghius of Alexandria and he is strong in his assertion that all three Bishops of Rome and Antioch and Alexandria are equally Petrine and of one authority with the same Petrine prerogatives... It's an astounding reversal for the unique claims of modern Rome!

If I may bring Pope Gregory's text onto the Forum...

Gregory of Rome to Eulogius of Alexandria:

"Your most sweet Holiness [Eulogius of Alexandria] has spoken much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, Prince of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors. And indeed I acknowledge myself to be unworthy, not only in the dignity of such as preside, but even in the number of such as stand. But I gladly accepted all that has been said, in that he has spoken to me about Peter's chair who occupies Peter's chair.

"And, though special honour to myself in no wise delights me, yet I greatly rejoiced because you, most holy ones, have given to yourselves what you have bestowed upon me.

"For who can be ignorant that holy Church has been made firm in the solidity of the Prince of the apostles, who derived his name from the firmness of his mind, so as to be called Petrus from petra. And to him it is said by the voice of the Truth, To you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven Matthew 16:19. And again it is said to him, And when you are converted, strengthen your brethren (xxii. 32). And once more, Simon, son of Jonas, do you love Me? Feed my sheep John 21:17.

"Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one . For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life [Rome]. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist [Alexandria]. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years [Antioch]. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside,

Source: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360207040.htm

Speaking of breaking up the Western Church into separate Patriarchates, I think that a good step towards this would be to restore the authority and prestige of the great Primatial sees.

Spain and the Hispanic churches have Toledo, the Germanic churches have Salzburg, France has Lyons, Portugal has Braga, Poland has Gniezno, Hungary has Esztergom, etc. etc.

The primatial sees were often characterized by having unique liturgical uses, and had strong quasi-Patriarchal trappings (if not authority). These primatial sees, whilst maintaining communion with Rome and jealously safeguarding this union, also guarded the distinctive character, traditions and dignity of the "national Churches."

In addition to the primatial sees, some archdioceses practically functioned as parallel primatial sees (Paris for France, Lisbon for Portugal, for example).

Unfortunately, at present, this decentralization would not be feasible. Heterodoxy and laxity have become so entrenched in the West that, at present, granting greater decentralization and liberty to the local churches will only lead to the perpetuation of current abuses. The restoration of greater autonomy to the local churches of the Latin Church will only be possible when Rome has managed to reestablish liturgical peace and disciplinary reform -- and for that to happen, Rome will have to flex its muscles.

Unfortunately, the local churches of the Latin West seem unable to maintain doctrinal orthodoxy within their own borders. How the local churches lost this capacity greatly puzzles me. In contrast, even the smaller Orthodox patriarchates have maintained mechanisms to condemn heresies and generally maintain a strong level of orthodoxy amongst their clergy.

Something I noticed on page 1.


and later.


Apotheoun's post I think just adds another dimension


I've also always found Constance an interesting case.

On another topic.


I think you're ignoring the contradictory evidence in your own church as outlined here.

How then does the Patriarchate of Constantinople explain its "primus inter pares" status in Orthodoxy?

Yes, I was going to note also that Constantinople is, of course, not mentioned. I was considering, however, that the post is so interesting that a thread doing a close reading of the contents, to determine exactly what it is saying, would be justified.

The result of the councils. I consider political jostling myself.

A great post, asianpilgrim!

Some will see your proposal as a victory for "nationalism." I see it as a defeat for the MacChristianity which is the face of the Western Church.

It actually has no such status by any grant of an ecumenical council or any pan-Orthodox council. It is simply a convention and outside of Orthodox ecclesiology.

The status of "primus inter pares" is meaningless. If someone is first, then the rest are not equal. If all are equal then no one is first.

Shlomo Apotheoun,


I would say brother that you do not know the correct history of North America. The very first organized Orthodox Community in North America was started in 1784. The very first Catholic Diocese in Puerto Rico for example was established in 1511 (almost three hundred years prior to any Eastern Orthodox presence). And the very first Eastern Orthodox parish in the United States (excluding Alaska) was not until the late 1800's. I can not see how you could claim that any Byzantine Bishop would have standing under your supposition of one city - one bishop in any part of the New world excepting Alaska. And I would argue that since Alaska is part of the United States, and all bishops within a country should be from the same Liturgical Tradition that no Byzantine Eparch should serve anywhere in either North and South America and most of Oceania. I would further argue that Eastern Orthodox eparchs should be removed from Japan, China, and most other Asian nations in a unified Church, using your supposition.

Personally, I feel that the Church would loose a lot by not having eparchs of the different Liturgical Traditions serve the faithful of that Tradition.

Fush BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

I know my history.

The British Colonies, which became the United States, were Protestant settlements, and the Catholic Church has no right to claim jurisdiction there, and the Russians entered North America (by this I mean what we would call continental Anglo-America) in the mid-eighteenth century. The California missions and Fort Ross are contemporaneous, and in fact it is important to remember that the Spanish crown and later the Mexican government were always concerned about the Russian activity just north of their territory. So I look forward to the day that Latin bishops throughout the United States step down from their sees and recognize the authority of their Orthodox brothers.

YES, finally a patriarchate for all the British Isles! You can't argue with that since Armagh does lie in Northern Ireland. God bless you Fr Serge for that wonderful suggestion.

Some more information that may be pertinent:

Archdiocese of Baltimore [archbalt.org]

Bishop Carroll's cousin, Charles Carroll of Carrollton, was a signer (and the only one a Catholic) of the Declaration of Independence.

Even earlier:

link [newadvent.org]

Concerning the arrival of the two ships, the Ark and the Dove:

link [marylandtheseventhstate.com]

link [east85.com]

[Linked Image]
Cross on St. Clement Island