www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Eastern Code and Eastern Catholics

>>>It seems to me that one of the causes of the real productivness of these meetings is that the Church in the
Middle East has serious pastoral, social and educational issues. This authentic work of the Church keeps
them focused on their common endeavor rather than inventing issues to part company on.<<<

As Samuel Johson wrote, "Nothing so concentrates the mind as the knowledge that one is to be hanged in a fortnight".

Perhaps what the comfy, cushy Church in the West needs is a good dose of persecution (and not of the "somebody made an anti-Catholic remark on Seinfeld" variety). The Christian Churches of the Middle East are in a struggle for survival that has been ongoing since the 7th century. It keeps their minds focused.

Spending my time being Roman Catholic and ignorant of what was going on in the East.

JoeS

>>>Spending my time being Roman Catholic and ignorant of what was going on in the East.<<<

Dear Joe,

Welcome to the Byzantine Tradition, and may the Holy Spirit attend you on your spiritual pilgrimmage to theosis.

Sorry to be so snippy. It is all too common that those in Western Christianity, whether Catholic or Protestant, have little knowledge and less interest in the Eastern Churches. And we in the East, for our part, tend to get rather defensive and wrapped up in our own interests, to pay much attention to the West except when it acts like the elephant in the bed.

The dialogue between the divided Churches of Antioch is indeed a cause for cautious optimism. It has been ongoing for some time, beginning with a proposal for dual communion by Kyr Elias Zoghby, Archbishop Emeritus of Ba'albek. This grew into the notorious Melkite Initiative that so scared everyone that no less than three Latin dicasteries wrote a joint letter to Patriarch Maximos V, while the entire Orthodox communion likewise leaned on Patriarch Ignatios IV "not to do anything hasty". Despite this, discussions continue, along with increasing degrees of cooperation, including joint construction of new churches in the Middle East.

Similar cooperation can be found between the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (i.e., the Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine) and the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, as witnessed by the activities of the Ukrainian Church Studies Group. Contrary to the fulminations of the Moscow Patriarchate, relations between Orthodox and Greek Catholics in Ukraine are quite cordial (except in the case of rabid adherents of Moscow, who tend to be Russians, and not Ukrainians), and the longing for unity is palpable.

That much was also seen during the Pope's visit to Romania, and in his discussions with Patriarch Teoctist. Again, it was from the faithful that we saw the most tangible desire for unity.

Even here, in the United States, we have unprecedented cooperation between the Eastern Catholic and the Orthodox jurisdictions (nothing like being a minority of a minority to make one long for friends). Long rent by schism, the Carpatho-Rusyn Churches have finally begun to heal the rift created by the Latin Church's insistence on clerical celibacy in the 1930s, with Metropolitan Nicholas of the Johnstown Diocese traveling to the Pittsburgh seminary of the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church, together with his seminarians, for a pilgrimmage of prayer and fellowship.

The schism began at the top, and worked its way down. It may very well begin to heal at the bottom, among the common people, and then move up to the hierarchy. In either case, it will be the work of the Holy Spirit, and not of man's will, that effects this long-delayed reconcilliation.

Stuart wrote:
Similar cooperation can be found between the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (i.e., the Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine) and the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, as witnessed by the activities of the Ukrainian Church Studies Group.

Actually, I think you meant to say between the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church & the Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Kyiv Patriarchate, and the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, since the Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Moscow Patriarchate is not represented on the Kyivan Church Studies Group, nor would they be likely to participate if invited. The Moscow Patriarchate barely acknowledges the lawful existence of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church in Ukraine, much less the competing Ukrainian Orthodox jurisdictions.

The Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A. is now being torn internally between the factions who see their communion with Constantinople as the right thing to do (not coincidentally, they are also tacitly acknowledging the Moscow Patriarchate's role in Ukraine's church life), versus those who wish to sever communion with Constantinople (in their terms, "the Patriarch of Istanbul") and unite with one of the Ukrainian Orthodox Churches in Ukraine. Of course, which one that would be is up for debate as well -- the UOC-USA leans heavily toward the UOC-Kyiv Patriarchate, but now the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church in Ukraine has recently announced that in the wake of the repose of their Patriarch they are acknowledging Metropolitan Constantine of the UOC-USA as their spiritual leader!

Contrary to the fulminations of the Moscow Patriarchate, relations between Orthodox and Greek Catholics in Ukraine are quite cordial (except in the case of rabid adherents of Moscow, who tend to be Russians, and not Ukrainians), and the longing for unity is palpable.

The lone stronghold of the Moscow Patriarchate Ukrainian Orthodox Church in western parts of Ukraine is in the Zakarpatska Oblast (Transcarpathia, Subcarpathian Rus') where the faithful are ethnic Rusyns. The other Ukrainian Orthodox churches have practically no adherents in Transcarpathia. But also, the relations between the local Orthodox and Greek Catholics are frigid if they exist at all. There is some reconciliation on informal bases, but overall this region represents some of the highest interconfessional tensions in Ukraine.

[This message has been edited by RichC (edited 10-31-2000).]

i might add that Metropolitan Judson with the faculty and students of the Byz Cath seminary returned the visit and were at Johnstown this week* Metropolitan Judson was welcomed into the Cathedral there and the two groups celebrated Vespers together. And the Orthodox treated the Catholics to a fine dinner and tour. The Exarchate referred to the two churches as "sister" churches. tiny steps by tiny groups but steps. there can be only one church as long as church means the Body of Christ. our differences are insignificant in view of that fact. ecclesia means a gathering together. let us gather. how these "sister" churches can NOT be in communion is the miracle to me. they recognize each others clergy and sacraments, they use the same texts, in this case, have the exact same heritage. i should say WE, as my grandparents came form europe as greek catholics about one hundred years ago.

Dear David Ignatius,

Interesting that the Roman Catholic view of Papal authority should be declared so strongly in the eastern code. In this, it is clearly a departure from the canonical tradition of the Eastern Churches, both Orthodox and Catholic. Were not the disciplinary and canonical traditions of the Eastern Churches supposed to be respected at the various re-unions of Orthodox Churches with the Pope? Is it too harsh to suggest that it is not true that they are respected, if they are to be replaced by 20th century Roman Catholic formulations?

I am pleased by the 'silence' with which most Eastern Catholic Churches have responded to the new code. Most Eastern Catholic Churches have recongnized that not only is it entirely inadequate, but it is a scandal to the Orthodox Churches, and a clear example why any hope of reunion seems distant.

Alone among all the Eastern Catholic Churches (correct me if I am wrong) only the Byzantine Catholic Church in America, has rushed to formally "accept" the new code. This was done this year in the "particular law" published by Metropolitan Judson. Perhaps they regret their haste, and their decision to act out of step again with all the other Eastern Catholic Churches? (Another example of this solitary stance is being discussed elsewhere in the forum.) The Byzantine Church seems to be the only Eastern Catholic Church in America which still feels obligated to imitate Roman discipline. Acts like this one, earn them the title, "most latinized of the Byzantine Churches".

The "Particular Law" of the Byzantine Catholic Church was a hasty and poorly formed attempt at legislation, betraying an entirely Roman mentality. Among the many mistakes in it, the unreserved embrace of the new Code of Eastern Canon Law is probably its most disappointing.

It would have been much better if the Eastern Catholic Churches had waited to consider together how best to answer the many flaws in the new Eastern "Code".

In the end, contrary to its own self assertion, the Eastern "Code" has to be seen as a Papal and Roman Catholic Document, rather than a statement by the Eastern Church belief in the Papal primacy. The mere fact that it was imposed, is contrary to Eastern tradition. The fact that it has not been formally accepted, is a credit to those Churches that still think and act with an eastern mentality.

Christian

All the Eastern Catholic Churches operate under the canons of the _Code of Canons of the Eastern Catholic Churches_. So, in that respect they all accept it as authoritative. For that reason, it is extremely unfortunate that the Code is not online.

Having said that, almost all the clergy I've ever talked to about the Eastern Code have also indicated they view it as an interim document. The current discussion on "the exercise of the primacy" of the Bishop of Rome shows why the Code would be such. Much of it is cast in the current mode of exercise of the primacy. If and when there is a change in the exercise of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome (differentiating the exercise from the actual primacy itself) then much of the Eastern Code would need to be revised.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Dear David Ignatius,

You say that all the Eastern Catholic Churches operate under the canons of the "Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches".

That may be true in the minds of Roman Canon lawyers (and those trained by them), but I am not sure that this is true in reality. I do not accept (as you affirm) that in this respect they "all accept it as authoritative".

I think the situation is much more complex. Could it be fortunate (and deliberate) that the Code is not online? It is a very problematic and flawed document.

I am not a lawyer, and do not have access to the "scholarly journals" which must exist where canonists meet. But I would be surprised if they were not filled with articles critical of many aspects of the Code. To suggest that the Code is 'interim' is to grant it too much dignity.

Christian

There are criticisms of the Eastern Code, to be sure. But, the Eastern Catholic Churches do not operate without canons. How is a Bishop selected? What is the minimum age a presbyter or deacon should be at ordination? How is a Patriarchal Church different than a Metropolitan See? These and many more questions are dealt with by the _Eastern Code of Canons_ and followed by the Eastern Catholic Churches.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

An interesting article regarding the Eastern Code from the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church perspective can be found at:
http://malankara.net/

Under "Articles" there is an article entitled: "Metropolitan Church _sui iuris_: Juridical Status and Governance."

While it acknowledges that the Eastern Catholic Churches "are governed according to the norms of this Code" it proposes (at least my understanding of the article is) that the way the Metropolitan Church is constituted according to the Code is not historically appropriate for the Malankara Catholic Church.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Dear David Ignatius,

All these Churches existed before the new Code, and functioned adequately. The questions you raise (age of ordination etc.), were all governed by older canons (not codified) and by custom.

Christian

Amen to that, Christian. When issues arose, the bishop and community determined what should be done. That became 'custom' and eventually: 'law'. When new issues arise, we have to deal with the issue in the best way we can. And this will become custom and law for future generations. It can, and should be amended, when circumstances require it. This is true 'tradition'.

Again, whatever your opinion is of the _Eastern Code of Canons_ it is the current codification of canon law for the Eastern Catholic Churches.

There are some things in the Eastern Code I'd like to see changed. As it stands, however, I accept what it says.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

>>>There are some things in the Eastern Code I'd like to see changed. As it stands, however, I accept what it
says.<<<

You can accept what it says, but much depends on whether you approach canon law as a Latin, and view it as an "objective" code of law whose precepts are binding on all except in cases of formal "dispensation", or if you take a Byzantine-Orthodox approach that views canon law as prescriptive but subject as a matter of course to the oikonomia of the local bishop. The former course objectifies the individual person by treating him as an interchangeable cog in the great machine. The latter deals with the person as a person by making the bishop, guided by the Holy Spirit, and not an abstract code of law, the ultimatejudge in matters pertaining to the good governance of the Church.

I was wrong about you and I apologize. You DO understand the Orthodox or Eastern mindset. Unfortunately, I believe the vast majority of "converts" from the Latin Church, and even a good many cradle Byzantines, are so permeated with the Latin mindset that they will never be authentically "Orthodox." They will live their lives as bizarre hybrids. It would be better for these folks to return to the Latin Church. Cognitive dissonance is destructive and not conducive to a rich and authentic spiritual life.