Are Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox the same?

[Aelred_Minor]

But you were saying the title of Patriarch was unimportant because it in itself has been without meaning. The title of Pope should be subject to the same criteria, should it not?

The title of Patriarch is historically much more important than that of Pope, those who held it had roles which were quite meaningful and historical.

It just seems to me to be on par with the EP rejecting the title “Patriarch of Constantinople”, or the Patriarch of Alexandria rejecting that title.

My point being that you’re arguing that giving up the title is supposed to help relations with the East, and yet you make it clear that surrendering the title is something that only makes it clear in the context of the West.

It’s not that the title “Patriarch” is meaningless in and of itself. Indeed, I take your point that isolated from historical and cultural context “Patriarch” has much more meaning than “Pope”. The latter literally just means “Father”, which is what we call all priests. Also the Patriarch of Alexandria is still called “Pope.”

I meant specifically the title “Patriarch of the West.” Based on the reading I’ve done, this title was, in the West, used extremely rarely and haphazardly prior to the Counter-Reformation (this use likely due to exposure to Eastern statements labeling the Pope as such). After that it was used to make the Pope sound that much more impressive, during the era when Western Christendom was in chaos and the Popes were trying to re-impose order. This title finally was added to the long list of Papal titles in 1863, I’d hazard to guess mainly out of cultural values that in the English speaking world we would call Victorian or Gilded Age: the fancier and more opulent we can be the better, so let’s add extra titles if we can.

But the real authority of the Pope was and is in his older, historically substantial role as Supreme Pontiff. Elsewhere in the ecclesial West, the title Patriarch is also practically meaningless, just an extra honor. The Patriarch of Venice, for example, is in the end pretty much just another archbishop, but for historical reasons he’s honored with the title Patriarch.

If the West holds that the Bishop of Rome has a unique role in the Church shared by no other bishop, and the East (or at least the non-Catholic East) holds that he’s just another Patriarch, even if potentially the first in honor, who is claiming undue authority over other Patriarchs, then it makes sense to me to remove the source of confusion that the use of the word “Patriarch” in one of the Pope’s titles brings to the discussion. The Latin Church is organized differently than the Eastern Churches, and title “Patriarch” just doesn’t have much meaning in that Latin context. Calling the Pope “Patriarch of the West” or, worse, “Patriarch of Rome” distracts us from the real subject at hand: the Pope as Supreme Pontiff for the whole Church.

By the way, I think there was an additional, internal reason for the change: Latin Rite Catholics in places like Asia are sometimes uncomfortable with being called “Western,” so we are moving away from use of that word.

 

[Peter_J]

And also, actions speak louder than words, and the actions of the Roman Church show them to be much more in tune with Protestant sensibilities (e.g., Roman Catholic criticisms of VII as “Protestantizing” the RC Church) than Orthodox ones, at any rate.

I see what you’re saying, to an extent, but that seems like an odd example to use – RCs criticizing VII as “Protestantizing” the RCC is hardly complementary to Protestants!

 

[Nine_Two]

It’s not that the title “Patriarch” is meaningless in and of itself. Indeed, I take your point that isolated from historical and cultural context “Patriarch” has much more meaning than “Pope”. The latter literally just means “Father”, which is what we call all priests. Also the Patriarch of Alexandria is still called “Pope.”

I meant specifically the title “Patriarch of the West.” Based on the reading I’ve done, this title was, in the West, used extremely rarely and haphazardly prior to the Counter-Reformation (this use likely due to exposure to Eastern statements labeling the Pope as such). After that it was used to make the Pope sound that much more impressive, during the era when Western Christendom was in chaos and the Popes were trying to re-impose order. This title finally was added to the long list of Papal titles in 1863, I’d hazard to guess mainly out of cultural values that in the English speaking world we would call Victorian or Gilded Age: the fancier and more opulent we can be the better, so let’s add extra titles if we can.

But the real authority of the Pope was and is in his older, historically substantial role as Supreme Pontiff. Elsewhere in the ecclesial West, the title Patriarch is also practically meaningless, just an extra honor. The Patriarch of Venice, for example, is in the end pretty much just another archbishop, but for historical reasons he’s honored with the title Patriarch.

If the West holds that the Bishop of Rome has a unique role in the Church shared by no other bishop, and the East (or at least the non-Catholic East) holds that he’s just another Patriarch, even if potentially the first in honor, who is claiming undue authority over other Patriarchs, then it makes sense to me to remove the source of confusion that the use of the word “Patriarch” in one of the Pope’s titles brings to the discussion. The Latin Church is organized differently than the Eastern Churches, and title “Patriarch” just doesn’t have much meaning in that Latin context. Calling the Pope “Patriarch of the West” or, worse, “Patriarch of Rome” distracts us from the real subject at hand: the Pope as Supreme Pontiff for the whole Church.

By the way, I think there was an additional, internal reason for the change: Latin Rite Catholics in places like Asia are sometimes uncomfortable with being called “Western,” so we are moving away from use of that word.

But to our minds, the title of Patriarch is the highest he can ever hope to claim. He may see himself as the Western equivalent of the Georgian Catholicos, but even he’s ultimately just a patriarch.

 

[Catherine_Grant]

Note from Moderator:

This debate is not adhering to the Eastern Catholicism debate guidelines.
It’s a fasting time. Please let us see the fruit of your self-restraint and prayer.

A new thread may be started to continue the debate. Anyone who violates the debate guidelines in that thread will receive a suspension.

Debate Guidelines for Eastern Catholicism
These guidelines are the same as CAF’s long-standing religious discussion guidelines and charity guidelines, but they re-state the general guidelines taking into account the specific nature of debates and the style of posters frequently seen in the Eastern Catholicism forum. All debates in the Eastern Catholicism forum are held to these guidelines, which were developed from trial and error by Eastern Catholicism posters from diverse backgrounds.

No direct or implied you statements unless it is genuine praise.

• You said…
• You need to…
• You don’t get it.
• Why don’t you…
• If only you…
• It is you who…
• You are wrong.
• You misunderstood.
• I’m not the one who…
• Some people here…

No indication of what the other needs to do unless it is genuine praise.

• You need to…
• Why don’t you…
• If you’d only…
• Those of us who have…

Use non-controversial words which have meanings everyone can agree on whenever possible.
Spend your time discussing the substance of the topic and not arguing tangents on words that instigate or inflame the other side.

Use bolds, underlines, font size increases, or other emphases very sparingly.

No hyperbole and no sarcasm in a debate.

• This conversation always…
• Every single time this comes up…
• Aren’t you a saint?

Remember: your goal in a debate on the Eastern Catholicism forum is to sound like an encyclopedia robot. If you think you sound like a robot, that means you’re probably discussing the topic and not each other.
Please remember that there are many people lurking who are judging your position and all those who are in your communion by your behavior alone. It does not matter what anyone else says; you should be a model of charitable dialogue. If someone else is not, please do not respond in kind. Let the moderator know and it will be handled as necessary.

CAF’s General Guidelines for Posting in a Religious Discussion

• Always abide by the forum rules.
• Civility and a respect for each other should be foremost.
• Posters are expected to treat each other as equals with equal expectations of each other in terms of research, logic, challenges, and portrayal of Catholic teaching.
• Questions are a better approach than assertions, unless the latter are framed in a non-confrontational and non-accusatory manner.
• Don’t answer a question with a question. If you don’t know the answer, say so.
• Rhetorical questions may be used to introduce a new aspect of inquiry but not to evade challenges or to call into question the intelligence, education, or any other personal qualities of another poster.
• It is acceptable to question policies and practices.
• It is never acceptable to question the sincerity of an individual’s beliefs.
• It is never acceptable to assume or say you know what another person thinks or needs.
• If you aren’t going to go into the discussion with the resolution that you could just possibly have your view broadened, you may as well not go into it.
• Terms of derision, derogatory remarks, baiting, and inflammatory statements are prohibited.
• Avoid categorizing people by a term which could be considered derogatory (e.g., Nazi or neocon) unless they have embraced that title. In which case, you may qualify them with the term as long as you preface it with the word “avowed.” Posters are asked to use their best judgement when posting articles using such terms. Do not abbreviate terms.

Sarcasm, Making Corrections and Jumping Threads

• On the use of sarcasm: Use emoticons when possible to convey your intent. A smiley-face or a wink can demonstrate that you are not intending malice. End the post on a positive note, devoid of sarcasm. A pleasant ending can act like sugar helping the medicine go down. Think of sarcasm like salt. Just as you wouldn’t dump a shakerful on your food, don’t dump a load of sarcasm into a post. Use it sparingly.
• Don’t jump threads. If you get involved in an argument in one thread, it’s considered poor manners to restart the previous argument in the middle of an unrelated thread. Also, if the moderator closes a thread, consider the subject closed and do not begin it anew in another thread.
• It is easy to stray from the rules in the heat of battle. Try to make corrections gently, with the assumption that no offense was meant. It usually is not. Also, keep in mind that some people are thick-skinned. What seems a vicious attack to you may seem a light-hearted spar to them.

Praise

• When you agree with a part of what someone said, tell them. It doesn’t hurt your position to agree with some part of an opposing argument. In fact, it lets others know that you are listening.

What to look for in your post before you press submit:

• Is the post civil and charitable?
• Does the post challenge those to whom it is directed or does it bash them?
• And remember: always, do unto others as you would have them do unto you.