|
0 members (),
1,799
guests, and
106
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,508
Posts417,509
Members6,161
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,334 Likes: 96
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,334 Likes: 96 |
Chrsit is Born!! Glorify Him!!
The suspicion creeps up on me that no one can be trusted to be orthodox or Catholic enough unless he has friends in Rome.
Forgive me. It is one of my suspicious days when everyone's motives seem to have an ulterior agenda. Maybe it was too many bowls of chili last night.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 65
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 65 |
As regards the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches, the present methods of appointment and confirmation leave much to be desired for Churches that are described as sui iuris - 'of their own law'. That the Synods of the Patriarchal and Major Arch-episcopal Churches cannot elect eparchial bishops to jurisdictions outside their 'historical territory' is a matter of much concern and was raised by several participants at the recent Middle East Synod. The exercise of Papal approval in these instances, through the Congregation (often referred to, derisively, as the Colonial Office or the Bureau of Indian Affairs), is seen as paternalistic and infringing on the traditional prerogatives of the patriarchal office. Neil, Those are good points. I guess it comes down to how one interprets the term sui juris. Does it mean that the Church is autocephalous or autonomous? If the later, than it definitely is offensive, but if it's the former, than it is understandable that Rome would want to have a say in how things are run in the diaspora. As it has been mentioned here before, all the Eastern Churches in communion with the Bishop of Rome are considered autonomous Churches by Rome and not autocephalous. Fr. Fred Saato hit the nail on the head when he said that unless Rome restores autocephaly to the Eastern Churches, reconciliation will continue to be difficult. Also, isn't this very similar to the disputes the Orthodox have with the Ecumenical Patriarch about the disapora? Peace and blessings, Scott P.S. I did want to add that I am in agreement with Neil and Stuart regarding everything they have said thus far.
Last edited by Melkite Convert; 01/12/11 12:26 PM. Reason: I added the PS.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 714 Likes: 5
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 714 Likes: 5 |
Also, isn't this very similar to the disputes the Orthodox have with the Ecumenical Patriarch about the disapora? Very interesting analogy.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 396
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 396 |
As a member of the EOC (Greek archdiocese), I thought I might comment. Stuart and Neil have pretty much laid out the ECC rules. The EOC rules differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The EP claims the same rights as the bishop of Rome when it comes to controlling the diaspora. Moscow of course objects to this. Also consider the situation involving the way the Antiochan Orthodox handle bishops; I am referring to the story elsewhere on this blog where a bishop due local issues moved from the AOC to the OCA (I do not remember all the details). in fact, one could compare the way the Greek Archdiocese is organized now with the way it was under Archbishop Iakovos. If I understand its structure, it is more decentralized than it was in the past. In a word, the episcopal structure of the EOC seems more flexible than that of any part of the RCC, but that is my personal opinion. Some would consider this a weakness, others a strength. Count me among the latter.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,953
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,953 |
As regards the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches, the present methods of appointment and confirmation leave much to be desired for Churches that are described as sui iuris - 'of their own law'. That the Synods of the Patriarchal and Major Arch-episcopal Churches cannot elect eparchial bishops to jurisdictions outside their 'historical territory' is a matter of much concern and was raised by several participants at the recent Middle East Synod. The exercise of Papal approval in these instances, through the Congregation (often referred to, derisively, as the Colonial Office or the Bureau of Indian Affairs), is seen as paternalistic and infringing on the traditional prerogatives of the patriarchal office. Neil, Those are good points. I guess it comes down to how one interprets the term sui juris. Does it mean that the Church is autocephalous or autonomous? If the later, than it definitely is offensive, but if it's the former, than it is understandable that Rome would want to have a say in how things are run in the diaspora. As it has been mentioned here before, all the Eastern Churches in communion with the Bishop of Rome are considered autonomous Churches by Rome and not autocephalous. Fr. Fred Saato hit the nail on the head when he said that unless Rome restores autocephaly to the Eastern Churches, reconciliation will continue to be difficult. Also, isn't this very similar to the disputes the Orthodox have with the Ecumenical Patriarch about the disapora? Peace and blessings, Scott P.S. I did want to add that I am in agreement with Neil and Stuart regarding everything they have said thus far. I think that autonomous would be the correct expression to a point as I believe that the Church of Rome views herself as the only autocephalous Church having planet-wide jurisdiction, as opposed to the Eastern view. However, the autonomous Orthodox Churches may select their own hierarchy, with only their Primate being subject to approval of the autocephalous church. As to the Orthodox Churches in the diaspora, to differing extents, they are dependent upon the old world See to either provide or approve Episcopal selections. While the Eastern Catholic Churches in theory have the power to select their own hierarchs to serve under their Primate, in practice this has not been the case, at least as I understand it. If I have this wrong, please excuse me as I am not trying to be argumentative on the subject.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,090 Likes: 15
Global Moderator Member
|
|
Global Moderator Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,090 Likes: 15 |
Both John and David make valid points and I have no disagreement with either. I would note, however, that as regards the EP (and the MP and other EO and OO Patriarchates, for that matter), any issue between them and their Church's jurisdictions in the diaspora is still within the confines of the single Church that is involved.
In the case of the EC and OC, the Pope - formerly also the Patriarch of the West, though HH has declared that he will no longer use that title - is acting with regard to the jurisdictions and incumbents of Churches, albeit Catholic ones, other than his own Latin Church. And, there is the point of difference. The EP and others are acting as regards jurisdictions and hierarchs who are of their own patriarchate.
MS,
I'm working on a more detailed reply to the specific question ('Why?') that you asked of me before the forum went on vacation. Should post it tonight.
Many years,
Neil
"One day all our ethnic traits ... will have disappeared. Time itself is seeing to this. And so we can not think of our communities as ethnic parishes, ... unless we wish to assure the death of our community."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 39
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 39 |
Neil,
I'm looking forward to it. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,953
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,953 |
This is true. Although it has not happened in the seventy five years since ACROD came under the omophor of the Ecumenical Throne, the Holy Synod of the EP would indeed have the final say if any internal dispute within ACROD required a 'higher authority' to resolve in that ACROD (and, for that matter, the UOCUSA) is neither autonomous nor autocepholous. However, the exercise of that power would require extraordinary circumstances and would be wielded by the Synod with great caution due to, for lack of a better word, political implications.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 288
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 288 |
As regards the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches, the present methods of appointment and confirmation leave much to be desired for Churches that are described as sui iuris - 'of their own law'. That the Synods of the Patriarchal and Major Arch-episcopal Churches cannot elect eparchial bishops to jurisdictions outside their 'historical territory' is a matter of much concern and was raised by several participants at the recent Middle East Synod. The exercise of Papal approval in these instances, through the Congregation (often referred to, derisively, as the Colonial Office or the Bureau of Indian Affairs), is seen as paternalistic and infringing on the traditional prerogatives of the patriarchal office. Neil, Those are good points. I guess it comes down to how one interprets the term sui juris. Does it mean that the Church is autocephalous or autonomous? If the later, than it definitely is offensive, but if it's the former, than it is understandable that Rome would want to have a say in how things are run in the diaspora. As it has been mentioned here before, all the Eastern Churches in communion with the Bishop of Rome are considered autonomous Churches by Rome and not autocephalous. Fr. Fred Saato hit the nail on the head when he said that unless Rome restores autocephaly to the Eastern Churches, reconciliation will continue to be difficult. Also, isn't this very similar to the disputes the Orthodox have with the Ecumenical Patriarch about the disapora? Peace and blessings, Scott P.S. I did want to add that I am in agreement with Neil and Stuart regarding everything they have said thus far. Christ is born!!! Glorify Him!!! Excuse my ignorance, but what exactly is the difference between autocephalous and autonomous? Kyrie eleison, Manuel
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,953
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,953 |
As regards the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches, the present methods of appointment and confirmation leave much to be desired for Churches that are described as sui iuris - 'of their own law'. That the Synods of the Patriarchal and Major Arch-episcopal Churches cannot elect eparchial bishops to jurisdictions outside their 'historical territory' is a matter of much concern and was raised by several participants at the recent Middle East Synod. The exercise of Papal approval in these instances, through the Congregation (often referred to, derisively, as the Colonial Office or the Bureau of Indian Affairs), is seen as paternalistic and infringing on the traditional prerogatives of the patriarchal office. Neil, Those are good points. I guess it comes down to how one interprets the term sui juris. Does it mean that the Church is autocephalous or autonomous? If the later, than it definitely is offensive, but if it's the former, than it is understandable that Rome would want to have a say in how things are run in the diaspora. As it has been mentioned here before, all the Eastern Churches in communion with the Bishop of Rome are considered autonomous Churches by Rome and not autocephalous. Fr. Fred Saato hit the nail on the head when he said that unless Rome restores autocephaly to the Eastern Churches, reconciliation will continue to be difficult. Also, isn't this very similar to the disputes the Orthodox have with the Ecumenical Patriarch about the disapora? Peace and blessings, Scott P.S. I did want to add that I am in agreement with Neil and Stuart regarding everything they have said thus far. Christ is born!!! Glorify Him!!! Excuse my ignorance, but what exactly is the difference between autocephalous and autonomous? Kyrie eleison, Manuel from Wikipedia: Autocephaly (pronounced /ˌɔːtəˈsɛfəli/, from Greek: αὐτοκεφαλία), in hierarchical Christian churches and especially Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches, is the status of a hierarchical church whose head bishop does not report to any higher-ranking bishop. When an ecumenical council or a high-ranking bishop, such as a patriarch or other primate, releases an ecclesiastical province from the authority of that bishop while the newly independent church remains in full communion with the hierarchy to which it then ceases to belong, the council or primate is granting autocephaly. For example, the Cypriot Orthodox Church was granted autocephaly by the Council of Ephesus and is ruled by the Archbishop of Cyprus, who is not subject to any higher ecclesiastical authority, although his church remains in full communion with the other Eastern Orthodox churches. Similarly, the Georgian Orthodox Church was granted autocephaly (independent) in 466 by the Patriarchate of Antioch, the Tewahedo Church of Ethiopia was granted autocephaly by the Coptic pope in 1950, and the Orthodox Church in America was granted autocephaly by the Patriarch of Moscow in 1970. (The Greek Orthodox Church in North America is not autocephalous, but is subject to the Patriarch of Constantinople).
Autonomy: One step short of autocephaly is "autonomy". A church that is autonomous has its highest-ranking bishop, such as an archbishop or metropolitan, appointed by the patriarch of the mother church, but is self-governing in all other respects.
While autocephalous does mean self-governing, it literally means "self-headed". Kephale (κεφαλή) means "head" in Greek. Hence, autocephalous (αὐτοκέφαλος) denotes self-headed, or a head unto itself, while autonomous literally means "self-legislated", or a law unto itself. Nomos (νόμος) is the Greek for "law'.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 714 Likes: 5
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 714 Likes: 5 |
while autonomous literally means "self-legislated", or a law unto itself. Nomos (νόμος) is the Greek for "law'.[/i] Can Eastern Catholics then technically be considered autonomous if our "cannon law" wasn't self-created?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 65
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 65 |
while autonomous literally means "self-legislated", or a law unto itself. Nomos (νόμος) is the Greek for "law'.[/i] Can Eastern Catholics then technically be considered autonomous if our "cannon law" wasn't self-created? It's true that the Eastern Code of Canon Law was not self created, but we are still called Churches sui juris because each Church can technically create its own law that is separate from other Churches. Am I correct about that?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 65
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 65 |
from Wikipedia:
Autocephaly (pronounced /ˌɔːtəˈsɛfəli/, from Greek: αὐτοκεφαλία), in hierarchical Christian churches and especially Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches, is the status of a hierarchical church whose head bishop does not report to any higher-ranking bishop. When an ecumenical council or a high-ranking bishop, such as a patriarch or other primate, releases an ecclesiastical province from the authority of that bishop while the newly independent church remains in full communion with the hierarchy to which it then ceases to belong, the council or primate is granting autocephaly. For example, the Cypriot Orthodox Church was granted autocephaly by the Council of Ephesus and is ruled by the Archbishop of Cyprus, who is not subject to any higher ecclesiastical authority, although his church remains in full communion with the other Eastern Orthodox churches. Similarly, the Georgian Orthodox Church was granted autocephaly (independent) in 466 by the Patriarchate of Antioch, the Tewahedo Church of Ethiopia was granted autocephaly by the Coptic pope in 1950, and the Orthodox Church in America was granted autocephaly by the Patriarch of Moscow in 1970. (The Greek Orthodox Church in North America is not autocephalous, but is subject to the Patriarch of Constantinople).
Autonomy: One step short of autocephaly is "autonomy". A church that is autonomous has its highest-ranking bishop, such as an archbishop or metropolitan, appointed by the patriarch of the mother church, but is self-governing in all other respects.
While autocephalous does mean self-governing, it literally means "self-headed". Kephale (κεφαλή) means "head" in Greek. Hence, autocephalous (αὐτοκέφαλος) denotes self-headed, or a head unto itself, while autonomous literally means "self-legislated", or a law unto itself. Nomos (νόμος) is the Greek for "law'. Thanks for this, DMD. Based on these definitions, most of the Eastern Catholic Churches are autonomous, but it would seem that the Patriarchal Churches in union with Rome fall somewhere in the middle. Not being completely autocephalous but having more independence than the autonomous Churches. It's complicated and not easily categorized. Am I correct about this as well? Peace and blessings, Scott
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,953
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,953 |
from Wikipedia:
Autocephaly (pronounced /ˌɔːtəˈsɛfəli/, from Greek: αὐτοκεφαλία), in hierarchical Christian churches and especially Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches, is the status of a hierarchical church whose head bishop does not report to any higher-ranking bishop. When an ecumenical council or a high-ranking bishop, such as a patriarch or other primate, releases an ecclesiastical province from the authority of that bishop while the newly independent church remains in full communion with the hierarchy to which it then ceases to belong, the council or primate is granting autocephaly. For example, the Cypriot Orthodox Church was granted autocephaly by the Council of Ephesus and is ruled by the Archbishop of Cyprus, who is not subject to any higher ecclesiastical authority, although his church remains in full communion with the other Eastern Orthodox churches. Similarly, the Georgian Orthodox Church was granted autocephaly (independent) in 466 by the Patriarchate of Antioch, the Tewahedo Church of Ethiopia was granted autocephaly by the Coptic pope in 1950, and the Orthodox Church in America was granted autocephaly by the Patriarch of Moscow in 1970. (The Greek Orthodox Church in North America is not autocephalous, but is subject to the Patriarch of Constantinople).
Autonomy: One step short of autocephaly is "autonomy". A church that is autonomous has its highest-ranking bishop, such as an archbishop or metropolitan, appointed by the patriarch of the mother church, but is self-governing in all other respects.
While autocephalous does mean self-governing, it literally means "self-headed". Kephale (κεφαλή) means "head" in Greek. Hence, autocephalous (αὐτοκέφαλος) denotes self-headed, or a head unto itself, while autonomous literally means "self-legislated", or a law unto itself. Nomos (νόμος) is the Greek for "law'. Thanks for this, DMD. Based on these definitions, most of the Eastern Catholic Churches are autonomous, but it would seem that the Patriarchal Churches in union with Rome fall somewhere in the middle. Not being completely autocephalous but having more independence than the autonomous Churches. It's complicated and not easily categorized. Am I correct about this as well? Peace and blessings, Scott That strikes me as a correct observation. Again, it has been said that Rome views herself as the only true autocephalous church with all others in union with her being to some degree only autonomous. Certainly that would be the Orthodox point of view. I can't speak for my Eastern Catholic brothers on that point however.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132 |
from Wikipedia:
Autocephaly (pronounced /ˌɔːtəˈsɛfəli/, from Greek: αὐτοκεφαλία), in hierarchical Christian churches and especially Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches, is the status of a hierarchical church whose head bishop does not report to any higher-ranking bishop. When an ecumenical council or a high-ranking bishop, such as a patriarch or other primate, releases an ecclesiastical province from the authority of that bishop while the newly independent church remains in full communion with the hierarchy to which it then ceases to belong, the council or primate is granting autocephaly. For example, the Cypriot Orthodox Church was granted autocephaly by the Council of Ephesus and is ruled by the Archbishop of Cyprus, who is not subject to any higher ecclesiastical authority, although his church remains in full communion with the other Eastern Orthodox churches. Similarly, the Georgian Orthodox Church was granted autocephaly (independent) in 466 by the Patriarchate of Antioch, the Tewahedo Church of Ethiopia was granted autocephaly by the Coptic pope in 1950, and the Orthodox Church in America was granted autocephaly by the Patriarch of Moscow in 1970. (The Greek Orthodox Church in North America is not autocephalous, but is subject to the Patriarch of Constantinople).
Autonomy: One step short of autocephaly is "autonomy". A church that is autonomous has its highest-ranking bishop, such as an archbishop or metropolitan, appointed by the patriarch of the mother church, but is self-governing in all other respects.
While autocephalous does mean self-governing, it literally means "self-headed". Kephale (κεφαλή) means "head" in Greek. Hence, autocephalous (αὐτοκέφαλος) denotes self-headed, or a head unto itself, while autonomous literally means "self-legislated", or a law unto itself. Nomos (νόμος) is the Greek for "law'. That strikes me as a correct observation. Again, it has been said that Rome views herself as the only true autocephalous church with all others in union with her being to some degree only autonomous. Certainly that would be the Orthodox point of view. I can't speak for my Eastern Catholic brothers on that point however. I've read through the thread and I find that I agree with most but not all the comments. The thing I disagree with is the perception that Rome (i.e., the Pope) stands apart from the rest of the Church. As I've noted in other places in this website (and others), I don't accept the excesses of the Absolutist and Low Petrine views which separates the body from the head and vice-versa. In this light, I dont' agree with the notion that "Rome is the only true autocephalous Church." The only truly autocephalous Church is the Catholic Church herself, and all other particular Churches, including the Latin Catholic Church, are autonomous Churches with respect to the Catholic Church as a whole. This is quite evident from the fact that all particular Churches are subject to the dogmatic decrees of an Ecumenical Council. Blessings, Marduk
|
|
|
|
|
