www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Ecumenical Dialogue and Faith

Both my mom and dad were happy to lose their jurisdiction, because as my father used to say, "Now if you do something stupid, I am not legally responsible for what you have done."

I don't know the specifics of the Byzantine Liturgy, but in the Syriac Liturgy of the Malankara Church we pray for the head of the Universal Church Mar Papa (Name), the Head and Father of our Church Moran Mor Baselios (Name) Catholicos, and our bishop our Father Mor (Name) and any other bishops present.

We don't necessarily commemorate every Synodal father nor do we remove our Catholicos' name and commemorate only our bishop.

That would be a non-biblical use of terms. There is no "universal" Church over and above the local Churches. Have Eastern Churches (Eastern Orthodox, Eastern Catholic, Oriental Orthodox, and Oriental Catholic) been influenced by "universalist ecclesiology"? Yes, they have been (to varying degrees). But that type of ecclesiology has no warrant in the New Testament or among the Apostolic Fathers (i.e., the earliest Church Fathers). Do some later Father themselves also have universalist leanings at times? Yes, they do. But again that approach is not biblical, nor is it found among the majority of the Fathers (both Apostolic and later).

Based upon scripture and the earliest patristic tradition the eschatological Church is one reality made manifest in many different places. So the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church exists only in and through the many local Churches, and never in separation from (or above) them.

The one Catholic Church exists whole and entire wherever the Eucharist is celebrated under the presidency of a bishop in apostolic succession. And that means that the local Church is not simply a piece of the Church, any more than the Eucharist celebrated in a specific location is only a piece of Christ. This holds true also for the episcopate, because wherever there is a bishop, the one Catholic Church exists, and so each bishop possesses the whole of the priesthood, and not merely a part of it.

Again, this doesn't mean there is no "universal church", it proves the opposite. It means the Universality/"Catholicity" of the Church is found in its local expression. Why can't the local expressions together have a local and regional manifestation, and together as the whole?

If by "universal" Church (remembering that universal is a poor translation of the word "catholic", which means "according to the whole") you mean a Church that exists within each of the local Churches, while simutaneously rejecting the false notion that there is a "universal" Church that exists in separation from the local Churches, or over and above them, then I am okay with the poorly translated term "universal" to describe the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

I agree. The Eucharist celebrated by any or one manifests the Church Catholic. However, does not the Eucharist celebrated by a priest manifest the same whole and entire Christ, even when a bishop is absent?

Yes, but the local Church is identified with the bishop and the diocese. A parish priest - as a co-worker of the bishop and totally dependent upon him - only manifests the bishop's presence in different locations within the local Church, and his (i.e., the priest's) Eucharist is not separate from that of the bishop, which is why the fermentum or the antimension is used, because it indicates that the parish Eucharist is really one and the same with that celebrated by the local bishop.


Postscript: If this patristic doctrine of the local Church were to be applied to the late medieval Roman Catholic universalist ecclesiology it would have the effect of turning all Roman Catholic bishops throughout the world into vicars of the bishop of Rome. For they would be totally dependent upon him for their priesthood, which would not be truly episcopal, but would in fact be a glorified type of presbyteral ministry.

A lot of people do not want to admit it, but the pre-Vatican II ecclesiology of the Roman Church basically involved the misapplication of the doctrine of the local Church to the Latin Patriarchate. That is why the local bishops had to be granted quinquennial apostolic faculties by the Roman Curia (i.e., from the pope) in order to serve their respective Churches fully (see John M. Huels, Empowerment for Ministry: A Complete Manual on Diocesan Faculties for Priests, Deacons, and Lay Ministers, pages 3-17).

The ancient liturgies have no prayer for the "head of the universal church".

Dear Todd,

And that is exactly the way it is in the Latin Church today . . .

Moreover, this is the main obstacle blocking the UGCC from ever hoping to have its patriarchate confirmed by Rome.

In our (UGCC) case, our bishops signed 33 vague points of union leaving Rome to interpret exactly what was meant by them later.

Roman ecclesiology was imposed on our Church. And Vatican II notwithstanding, the same ecclesiology has remained in place and imposed on the UGCC.

Our bishops talk a good synodal/patriarchal talk. In fact, it is only that - talk.

Alex

It is interesting that the Ambrosian Liturgy has the commemoration of the "pope."

In fact, liturgists discovered that this referred to . . . the Archbishop of Milan.

Alex

Cavaradossi,

In our UGCC, we commemorate the pope as the "Most Holy Ecumenical Pontiff."

In fact, Rome rejects that title. It has actually more to do with the title of the Ecumenical Patriarch and at the Union of Brest "pope" was just substituted for "patriarch."

An anomaly that persists to this day (not to mention the four-fold commemoration of the pope in our liturgy).

Alex

In a effort to prove the points against the Pope, you've ignored the question about commemorating the Catholicos/Patriarch/EP/etc., why is it legitimate for any diocese/eparchy to commemorate any bishop except for their immediate eparch? I agree that the addition of the Pope is a recent phenomenon, but how many Patriarchs will agree to have their names stripped from the Liturgical prayers and replaced with the local eparch alone - Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Oriental Catholic, or Church of the East?

Because the patriarch of each autocephalous church possesses the normative right of episcopal confirmation within his patriarchate. But I should point out that commemorating the patriarch is in fact not necessary, as Greek (or really Rum/Melkite would be the better descriptor) practice, as far as I am aware, does not involve commemorating the patriarch unless one is within his metropolis.