and hopefully will turn it down if offered, as has become increasingly common.
Western half.The phonex Eparchy (formerly Van Nuys) is pretty much the eastern half of the US. I think there is a parish in NJ with about the population fo our Eparchy
You’re continuing the trend I started a while back.don’t the cardinals vote for the Pope? I thought all EC heads would be cardinals.
@PilgrimMichelangelo I meant 1,100 sorry
it seems contagious. We better shelter in place . . .Western half.
more specifically, they vote to select the bishop of Rome, who in turn is the pope.
It’s increasingly been seen as a sign of dependence/lapdog to the latin church, and diminishing their own roles. Most could have the hat if they wanted it.
That’s the counter argument. The reason is that each church should be running its own affairs, and this is the the Roman church choosing its leader. And making the point that he shouldn’t try to influence who are leaders are, either.
I guess truly independent EC churches work like that. But there are other ECs that are heavily latinized and the majority of the clergy and laity prefer that they are latinized (ex. Maronites, Chaldaens, Syro-Malabars).
Well is that not what they are doing though? That’s the only reason why I think the Syro Malabar church and Ukrainian Greek Church should be Patriarchal. We don’t need to rely on the Pope as much. What’s even worse is the fact that outside “territory” making eparchies is very difficult. Ever notice why Syro Malabareans in the Arabian Peninusla don’t even have a diocese their and their itself, we only have 1 parish? There are 100,000s of us their and still…What about our communities in Southeast Asia and Africa?These demands are ignored. So many migrant Syro Malabareans have had to go to Latin parishes because of this…and what happens after that? They eventually become Latin. How many priests and nuns are now under/part of the Latin church? So many! Being under Rome can be a disadvantage at times!
“head” of EC churches is over-stating it.
so how is a EC different from it’s Orthodox counterpart? Say for example the Melkite Church and the Orthodox Church of Antioch?
At the core it’s matter about identity. Gets a bit complicated with the East Syriac Rite (Chaldean/SyroMalabar). As their counterpart is the Assyrian Church of the East (ACE). The ACE is not considered to be Orthodox by both the Eastern Orthodox (EO) and Oriental Orthodox (OO).
if that happens, the more Orthodox ECs like the Melkite Church would probably join back with their respective counterpart Orthodox church.
I’m reminded of those Byzantine Catholics who immigrated over to the US in the late 19th century. The American Latins tried to latinize them (I guess the married clergy thing put the Latins off). Many of these Byzantine Catholics joined with the Orthodox Church in America (OCA). At the time I think the OCA were under the jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox.
I think the Latin Church’s liberal attitudes of now are as a result of the Vatican Council II. Back in the days, like the 16/17th centuries, I think many of the ECs of that time were somehow brought (forced?) in communion with Rome. Or some Eastern bishop decided to join Rome.