www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Chaldean Patriarch suspends 12 priests/monks

Really...A fascinating piece of history, brother. Thanks!


This one is still making no sense to me. "The Buddha" was a man by the name of Siddhartha Gautama, who lived five or six hundred years prior to Christ...

Dear Talon,

Yes, you are more than correct. The story of the Buddha came to Greece and Mt Athos via the trade routes with the Far East. In the version that was received in the West, the Buddha is referred to not as "Buddha" (since he did not receive enlightenment yet in the story), but as "Bodisaf" or "the Buddha to be."

How he left his wife on their wedding night etc. was considered by the Greek monastics as something that only a Christian would do (!) and so, if the theory is correct, they placed the main character of the story (which they did not doubt to be true) into the Christian calendar under the closest name to "Bodisaf" . . . which was "Joasaph."

Again, that is what the Bollandists and a number of others have concluded.

As I wasn't there, I don't know . . .

Alex

I feel like Abraham. "Let not my Lord grow angry with me if I but press just a little further..."

Do the Bollandists not understand the concept of chronology?

How does one reasonably draw the conclusion that someone who was born to a man who persecuted the Christian Church was, in fact, a man who lived five or six centuries prior to its existence....???

Wow! You really don't get it. Let me try again.

If the Latin Catholics in Constantinople at the time back in the day were under the omophor of their own bishop (or exarch), and not under the omophor of the local bishop from another Rite, then that would not have happened. It was not the living together that was causing the bad side effect. It was the fact that they were under the omophor of a bishop from a different Rite that caused the bad side effect.

In ancient times, that was the norm. Any groups of Christians of a certain Rite who came to live in the jurisdiction of a bishop of different Rite automatically fell under the jurisdiction of that local bishop. That's the whole concept of territorial jurisdiction. In the early second millennium, the Oriental Orthodox were the first to introduce the idea of personal jurisdictions within territorial jurisdictions. This was necessitated due to conflict. It was settled that, for example, if Syriac or Armenaian Orthodox moved to Egypt, they would still be under the omophor of a Syriac or Armenian hierarch, not the local Coptic bishop. Of course, the Syriac or Armenian hierarch would not have any territorial jurisdiction in Egypt -- it's just that they had personal jurisdiction over their own flock. That's how it is in the OOC, and it has preserved peace among the OOC's.

In the 20th century, the Pope of Rome did the same in his territorial jurisdiction for Eastern/Oriental Christians, but went a step further by actually granting them their own bishop of their own Rite within his territory.

You are correct that the idea that the mere fact of them living together will cause bad side effects is "absolute garbage," but that garbage is not coming from me, but rather from...

Blessings

I believe it will be a lot harder to sell that to Eastern Orthodox, in particular, rather than to the CC's or OOC's. The ROC would definitely be opposed to such an idea.

As noted, that's only because when Latins feel they need an hierarchy in a particular country, they will directly appeal to the Pope of Rome. It's simply never been tried that the Latins will appeal to the local Patriarch to give them some sort of ecclesiastical structure. I believe sincerely that it's not because it can't be done, but only because it's never been tried.

Alex, if you are reading this, pass it on to HB Sviatoslav. I think he might be willing to give this idea an ear.:)

Most were instituted at a time when there was no Catholic hierarchy in the region at all, and the existing religious authorities couldn't care less for the Latins. Someone had to take care of the Latins in that country to give them cohesion and order. I hope no one begrudges them that.

Further, these structures reflect personal jurisdiction, not territorial jurisdiction.

I'm pretty sure all of Ethiopia is territorially under the omophor of a an Oriental head bishop, both the Oriental and Latin sections.

I hope my Eastern brethren don't judge too harshly the Latinized state of many Oriental Churches. One has to remember that when Latin missionaries came to our lands, they came with an assumption that our Christology was heterodox. Even our liturgies were regarded as deficient. Hence, greater change was mandated (initially) with respect to the Orientals than with respect to the Easterns.

Humbly,
Marduk

So, forgive me if I'm betraying a terribly embarrassing level of ignorance in asking this, but...

What of the prospects of the Church ordaining..."sub priests", if you will. Iraqi men who can validly lead the Divine Liturgy and hear confessions, but are not allowed to do much else (until they receive further formal seminary training at a later date).

Some might see this as a terribly American suggestion ("If you don't have enough priests, just quickly make some new ones! Poof! Just like that!")...But, sincerely...???

Actually this has been done before. They are called priests simplex and they can say mass but not hear confession. I think it unlikely the utilize them again.

No, almost uniformly these Latin jurisdictions were erected in territories that already had Eastern Catholic jurisdictions and they were erected quite late, mid 1800s for the earliest ones.
And the Metropolia of Addis Ababa includes only the Geez Rite Eparchies of Ethiopia and Eritrea. The president of the Ethiopian Episcopal Conference is currently the Metropolitan of Addis Ababa, but this has nothing to do with his jurisdiction as first hierarch of an Eastern Catholic Church.

Why is that?

Dear Talon,

I'm not pre-empting Lance's response to you, but nowadays to be a regular deacon it seems the bishop wants you have the knowledge of an M.A. in theology!

In fact, when I was sitting with our bishop at a school graduation ceremony, a fellow there asked the bishop about the Ecumenical Council of 325 AD.

At this, the bishop looked at me and said, "I'll leave it to Alex to explain such a fundamental question . . ."

Alex

I understand that's what you believe -- in fact, you said so in two different posts on Saturday (I don't mind you saying so a third time, but that doesn't somehow make it true), and both times I responded that I consider that idea absolute garbage:

 
which I could have made even clearer by saying, rather than "having them", "having churches of a different rite under his omophor", and 

 
I think that's ^^ pretty clear, but for good measure I guess I'll say it one more time: the idea that the closing of Latin-Rite parishes in the 11th century was caused by them being under a Bishop of a different rite is absolute garbage.

Oh, I know that's the ideal. And, of course, if things were to settle over there any time soon, the intention would of course be to send them to further seminary studies and to become "full" priests in time. But, for the moment, in an emergency setting of that sort that exists over there...??

Isn't it a Greek tradition, at least in Greece, to do just that . Train men to serve, send them to village churches with little real pastoral or theological training and have travelling confessors come and preach and hear confessions occasionally? (Personally I would think that as a long term 'solution' that is a bad idea as it sort of elevates rote worship to a higher level than having at least an elementary catechism...unless I'm missing something.)

I don't think they want yo create the perception of having 1st and 2nd class priest. although Ven Solanus Casey was ordained a priest simplex because his grades in seminary were not good.

I hope my bishop doesn't consider me a candidate for a new category altogether "Simplex Deacon . . ."

Alex