Amount of Rome's Control on Eastern Catholics

[ERose]

I am talking with some Orthodox Christians about unification and one of the things they brought up for the excessive control of Rome over the Eastern Particular churches as a reason for maintaining separation. Here is my question. How much influence does Rome have over your Church? Does Rome get involved in raising and deposing Bishops, canon law, liturgy, etc. and if so how much?

 

[Nine_Two]

You get all sorts of comments from Eastern Catholics about how much power the Pope has. Some see his word as binding on all, while others feel they can freely ignore him. Fact of the matter is that the Churches are autonomous branches of the RCC, rather than Autocephalus churches in their own right, and the power to name/veto a churches head is already the power to affect its direction and development.

 

[ConstantineTG]

There’s really two things, whats on paper and what’s practiced. I think whats on paper is what frightens most Orthodox about unification and accepting Papal supremacy. I don’t see whats to be frightened about whats actually practiced, especially in recent times. Though not perfect, the trend shows that its on a postive trend for the Eastern Churches.

 

[mardukm]

I am talking with some Orthodox Christians about unification and one of the things they brought up for the excessive control of Rome over the Eastern Particular churches as a reason for maintaining separation. Here is my question. How much influence does Rome have over your Church? Does Rome get involved in raising and deposing Bishops, canon law, liturgy, etc. and if so how much?

That’s the million dollar question. I wish I had time right now to participate in what promises to be a very prolific thread.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

There’s really two things, whats on paper and what’s practiced. I think whats on paper is what frightens most Orthodox about unification and accepting Papal supremacy. I don’t see whats to be frightened about whats actually practiced, especially in recent times. Though not perfect, the trend shows that its on a postive trend for the Eastern Churches.

What’s on paper as far as the papal dogmas are concerned is perfectly fine, IMO. It’s interesting that even though Absolutist Petrine and Low Petrine advocates are on polar ends of the ecclesiological spectrum (as far as apostolic Churches are concerned), they both misinterpret the Vatican Decrees in the same way! I’ve noticed over the years while debating people from both camps that their misunderstanding is based on a myopic and legalistic focus on the definitions alone contained within the Vatican 1 Decrees, instead of the entire context of the Decrees, not to mention the context of Sacred Tradition, as well as what actually went on “behind-the-scenes” of Vatican 1.

I recall that Pope St. Cyril of Alexandria was criticized by the Council Fathers of Ephesus for not sticking solely to prior conciliar definitions in his remonstrances against Nestorius. St. Cyril rightly shot back that the Faith is not contained in definitions alone, but in the whole witness and Tradition of the Church. Myopically and legalistically focusing on dogmatic definitions, while neglecting their proper context, is always a dangerous and erroneous practice.

What’s on paper as far as the Canons are concerned is a different thing. There are several Canons that should be changed, and others that need to be taken away altogether. I theorize that certain canons exist simply because of the extant schism with the Orthodox, and that these particular canons will automatically lose relevance and disappear when unity is fully established. And therein lies the Catch-22.

In practice, it is indeed very hopeful, as you say.

I don’t have much time, so that’s all I can say for now.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[malphono]

I am talking with some Orthodox Christians about unification and one of the things they brought up for the excessive control of Rome over the Eastern Particular churches as a reason for maintaining separation. Here is my question. How much influence does Rome have over your Church? Does Rome get involved in … and if so how much?

Well … as [post=7429184]mardukm[/post] said, it is the million-dollar question. But, I’m willing to offer a few brief remarks for the time being.

raising and deposing Bishops

It depends. Not so much in the “home territories” but definitely yes in the diaspora.

canon law

The CCEO is purely a Roman invention. OTOH, each Church does have its own Particular Law, although it, as everything else, is ultimately subject to Rome (although not to the CCEO).

liturgy

In the sense of imposing latinizations, no, they don’t really do that. (The bigger question here is, I suppose, regarding the various latinizations that affected any of the Eastern and Oriental Churches in the past, and whether they were “imposed” by Rome or whether they were adopted from within. There are a variety of answers to that, some of which depend on the particular Church involved.) Rome does, though, involve itself in some juridical matters concerning liturgy, and also (and more importantly) in reiterating the call for de-latinization which, in some cases, goes totally unheeded.

etc.

The “etc” is much too broad for me to even attempt.

 

[dcointin]

What’s on paper as far as the papal dogmas are concerned is perfectly fine, IMO. It’s interesting that even though Absolutist Petrine and Low Petrine advocates are on polar ends of the ecclesiological spectrum (as far as apostolic Churches are concerned), they both misinterpret the Vatican Decrees in the same way! I’ve noticed over the years while debating people from both camps that their misunderstanding is based on a myopic and legalistic focus on the definitions alone contained within the Vatican 1 Decrees, instead of the entire context of the Decrees, not to mention the context of Sacred Tradition, as well as what actually went on “behind-the-scenes” of Vatican 1.

I recall that Pope St. Cyril of Alexandria was criticized by the Council Fathers of Ephesus for not sticking solely to prior conciliar definitions in his remonstrances against Nestorius. St. Cyril rightly shot back that the Faith is not contained in definitions alone, but in the whole witness and Tradition of the Church. Myopically and legalistically focusing on dogmatic definitions, while neglecting their proper context, is always a dangerous and erroneous practice.

What’s on paper as far as the Canons are concerned is a different thing. There are several Canons that should be changed, and others that need to be taken away altogether. I theorize that certain canons exist simply because of the extant schism with the Orthodox, and that these particular canons will automatically lose relevance and disappear when unity is fully established. And therein lies the Catch-22.

In practice, it is indeed very hopeful, as you say.

I don’t have much time, so that’s all I can say for now.

Blessings,
Marduk

Could you describe what the canons are you’re referring to, and why the should be changed or removed? Thanks!

 

[5Loaves]

How much influence does Rome have over your Church? Does Rome get involved in raising and deposing Bishops, canon law, liturgy, etc. and if so how much?

There was certainly discussion about this at the recent Synod of Bishops for the Middle East . See also

And Fr Loya recently talked about some of these issues raised at the synod.

Churches. We are 22 Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches.

 

[Cecilianus]

I’m not aware of the Pope ever imposing Latinizations on the Eastern Churches. Since usually the only thing the Pope does is urge us to get rid of them, I would welcome a much more aggressive, active role on the Pope’s part in governing us.

Doctrinally, we have not had any major heresies in the East since the Triumph of Holy Orthodoxy and there have not been major disputes over doctrines such as the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, so practically speaking the Pope has had no need to interfere - hence the more hands-off approach. There have been real doctrinal developments in the East - the doctrine of the divine energies, for example - and I look forward to the day when dialogue between the Eastern and Western branches of the Church reaches the point when the West comes to a similar understanding. It would be silly for the Pope to simply adopt them by Papal decree; the dogma needs to be extended to the Western Church by the Western synods.

On the other hand, the Pope has taken a direct jurisdictional role in the case of the Greek Church in Italy, where he is the local primate. (It’s not really clear whether to call this church “Orthodox” or “Catholic”, because it remained in communion with both the Pope of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople until the Council of Florence, and in Venice it maintained its dual communion through the 18th century when it produced theologians like Nicolas Bulgaris, who is usually considered Orthodox but constantly quotes Popes, Cardinals, and Thomas Aquinas as authorities in his “Catechism”.)

The usual example of the Pope exercising jurisdiction over the Italo-Greek Church would be when Calabrian monasteries would appeal to the Pope to be granted independence from their (Greek) bishops. St. Bartholomew of Simeri petitioned the Pope for this, for example; he founded his monastery immediately after returning home from Greece where the Ecumenical Patriarch had sent him to Mount Athos to reform one of the monasteries. This was in the 14th century.

Outside of Italy the Pope treats us pretty much the same way he did before 1054. The idea that the Eastern Catholics are “subjugated” to Rome is simply a piece of propaganda, and it is a LIE, and Orthodox ought to be ashamed of themselves for repeating it. We are under the Pope, but that simply means we are under his fatherly care.

 

[Augustus24]

I am talking with some Orthodox Christians about unification and one of the things they brought up for the excessive control of Rome over the Eastern Particular churches as a reason for maintaining separation. Here is my question. How much influence does Rome have over your Church? Does Rome get involved in raising and deposing Bishops, canon law, liturgy, etc. and if so how much?

According to canon law, the Pope has jurisdiction over all churches, how this jurisdiction is carried out is different for each Eastern Church. The Pope is the visible head while Christ is the real Head of the Church. The Pope works though the curia, in this case it would be the Congregation for Oriental Churches.

The Eastern Catholic Churches are in communion with the Pope, that means that the Pope recognizes the sacraments of the Eastern Rites, and that we share the same faith. However, according to Church theology, each bishop is a successor to the Apostles, and the head of their own diocese, or “eparchies” in the east. Therefore the Pope, being first and foremost the Bishop of Rome is not the formal head of various Eastern Rite Churches, for example, Patriarch Gregory III is the head of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, and Stephanos II is the head of the Coptic Catholic Church.

On top of that, there are different Church hierarchies for each Eastern Rite Church. There are 4 hierarchies, patriarchal, major archepiscopal, metropolitan, and “other”. A Patriarchal Church is one headed by a patriarch. For example the Chaldean, Armenian, Coptic, Syriac, Maronite, and Melkite Catholic Churches. A Patriarch is elected by a synod of his own churches bishops without approval from the Pope, but the Pope is informed of the decision. Major Archepiscopal are churches headed by an Archbishop, for example, the Romanian, Ukrainian, Syro-Malabar, and Syro-Malankara Catholic Churches. The Archbishop is elected by his own bishops but the decision must be confirmed by the Pope.

The Metropolitan Churches are headed by a Metropolitan Bishop who is appointed by Rome. These churches have their territorial boundaries defined by the Pope through the Congregation for Oriental Churches. These Churches include the Ruthenian and Ethiopian Catholic Churches. Lastly, there are churches with none of their own hierarchy, these include the Greek, Bulgarian, Hungarian, Slovak, Belarusian, Albanian, Georgian, and Russian Catholic Churches. Since they have no hierarchy of their own, they are oversaw by the local Latin Rite Bishop.

So, in the Eastern Catholic circle, there are various views of the Pope as he relates to our own hierarchy. And the Pope takes various roles, ranging from very active, to virtually non existent roles in governing the Eastern Catholic Churches.

 

[malphono]

There are a variety of threads in this forum where the same issue has come up. One from a while back that I think is notable is [thread=349702]here[/thread]. It’s a bit long (and somewhat windy in parts), but it might be worth a look.

 

[BrotherPaulMary]

Sometimes I shake my head in wonder at these things.

St Peter was given the keys. The eastern tradition testifies to this just as much as the west. The west has suffered from having imprudent Popes just like the East.

However we are Christian so we obey Our Lord’s will and get on with it. The East is Christian too, so why are they so afraid of the Pope? Are they going to tell us that their patriarch’s are always perfect?

I do not think so.

Br. Paul

 

[Cecilianus]

Sometimes I shake my head in wonder at these things.

St Peter was given the keys. The eastern tradition testifies to this just as much as the west. The west has suffered from having imprudent Popes just like the East.

However we are Christian so we obey Our Lord’s will and get on with it. The East is Christian too, so why are they so afraid of the Pope? Are they going to tell us that their patriarch’s are always perfect?

I do not think so.

Br. Paul

I’m not afraid of the Pope.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Sometimes I shake my head in wonder at these things.

St Peter was given the keys. The eastern tradition testifies to this just as much as the west. The west has suffered from having imprudent Popes just like the East.

However we are Christian so we obey Our Lord’s will and get on with it. The East is Christian too, so why are they so afraid of the Pope? Are they going to tell us that their patriarch’s are always perfect?

I do not think so.

Br. Paul

Its not that. One of the concerns is that the Pope is the Bishop of Rome, and therefore a Bishop of the Roman Rite. One of the concerns is him imposing Western traditions on the Eastern Churches. Imagine if Obama is meddling with Illinois or California local politics. While he is the head of the entire United States, local governance should go to the governor of the State.

There’s other concerns as well beyond that.

 

[BrotherPaulMary]

There are,

However there are things that are proper to Bishop’s, can the Pope meddle in a Bishop’s running of his diocese? He can in certain circumstance’s.

It is the same in the East, the Pope has the power of jurisdiction over the Eastern Patriarch’s it is just that he would exercise it in a different way than the jurisdiction he has over a latin rite diocese.

In practice this was seen when often the Patriarch of Constantinople would write to Rome to give the final answer and even Photius did so many times because he understood that the Pope had that power of jurisdiction.

The point I am making though is Peter has the power to bind and loose and this is the Christian Faith. Look at the poor Jesuits who got disbanded. They got re-instated. If the east has to put up with an imprudent pope, chances are we in the west have even more to put up with.

We as ordinary christians have no right to leave communion with the Holy Father, while we can legitimately resist him to his face - after St Paul’s example but following the same example we do not leave the Church.

What do orthodox priests do when they have a bad Bishop - or their Monk’s put up with a bad abbot? Leave the Church? So why does an entire set of people decide to leave the Church over the possibility of a bad Pope?

What would I do if my Novice-Master or Prior was a nasty peace of work? Leave the order? Leave the Church?

It just does not hold up under examination.

Br. Paul

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Paul,

However there are things that are proper to Bishop’s, can the Pope meddle in a Bishop’s running of his diocese? He can in certain circumstance’s.

If the Bishop of Rome intervened for an actual good reason, and according to the Canons, I wouldn’t call it “meddling.”

It is the same in the East, the Pope has the power of jurisdiction over the Eastern Patriarch’s it is just that he would exercise it in a different way than the jurisdiction he has over a latin rite diocese.

In practice this was seen when often the Patriarch of Constantinople would write to Rome to give the final answer and even Photius did so many times because he understood that the Pope had that power of jurisdiction.

The point I am making though is Peter has the power to bind and loose and this is the Christian Faith. Look at the poor Jesuits who got disbanded. They got re-instated. If the east has to put up with an imprudent pope, chances are we in the west have even more to put up with.

We as ordinary christians have no right to leave communion with the Holy Father, while we can legitimately resist him to his face - after St Paul’s example but following the same example we do not leave the Church.

What do orthodox priests do when they have a bad Bishop - or their Monk’s put up with a bad abbot? Leave the Church? So why does an entire set of people decide to leave the Church over the possibility of a bad Pope?

What would I do if my Novice-Master or Prior was a nasty peace of work? Leave the order? Leave the Church?

Great points.

However we are Christian so we obey Our Lord’s will and get on with it. The East is Christian too, so why are they so afraid of the Pope? Are they going to tell us that their patriarch’s are always perfect?

And why shouldn’t we trust our own patriarchs to perserve the Faith? The Pope is not the only bishop of the world, but Latin Catholics sometimes say things as if that was the case.:tsktsk:

Blessings

 

[dvdjs]

However we are Christian so we obey Our Lord’s will and get on with it. The East is Christian too, so why are they so afraid of the Pope? Are they going to tell us that their patriarch’s are always perfect?

The answer is simple. We are enamored of our own judgment - however it is informed - and thus find obedience difficult or just impossible if it conflicts with our own thinking. “Here I stand…!” We value pride and brvado; we ridicule deference and humilty. We fear even the possibility that we may have to subordinate our own desires to another’s. We admire kenosis only when others practice it to our benefit.

The answer is simple: sin; and it’s the oldest sin of all - the sin of Lucifer, and of Adam and Eve.

 

[FredM]

It sure seems that quite a few Eastern Catholics dislike the Pope as much as the Presbyterians. I guess they have to dissent to prove how Orthodox they are.

 

[malphono]

It sure seems that quite a few Eastern Catholics dislike the Pope as much as the Presbyterians. I guess they have to dissent to prove how Orthodox they are.

Maybe I’m just being dense, but I’m not quite sure I know what that’s supposed to mean.

 

[kitkatty]

Im not quite sure what its supposed to mean but sounds like he isimplying Eastern Catholics hate the Pope. Who here has expressed hatred or dislike of the Pope? All I have seen so far in this thread are view points of the role of the Pope within the Eastern Catholic Churches. If you dont like the idea of a pope and are Eastern you have the option of joining the Orthodox Church and there are those who have done just that. Point is Fred that those Eastern Christians who really feel that way dont usually remain in, or join, the Catholic communion. And I`m not accusing the Orthodox of hating the Pope either!