Chaldean Church article on suspensions

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chaldean_Rite
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The article in the link was very interesting. Thanks for posting it! 🙂
 
This seems to me to be somewhat a case of church politics. Nevertheless, overriding a patriarch doesn’t seem to be just. As a matter of fact, such exercise of authority by Rome is perhaps the kind of thing that gives Orthodox Churches pause in considering reunion with the Latin Church.

Come to think of it, it seems to me that the popes are aware of such resistance. Perhaps that’s why both BXVI and F offered clarifications and the openness to limit the authority of the Patriarch of Rome over other Churches.

Unfortunately, the Church makes molasses look like moving too swiftly.

Pax Christi
 
Augustine said:
This seems to me to be somewhat a case of church politics. Nevertheless, overriding a patriarch doesn’t seem to be just. As a matter of fact, such exercise of authority by Rome is perhaps the kind of thing that gives Orthodox Churches pause in considering reunion with the Latin Church.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t say that, at least not from a non-Byzantine perspective. It seems to me that this is precisely the type of case where the “High Petrine View” (and for those not familiar with the term, the “search” function comes in handy. It has been discussed in detail in a good number of threads in this sub-forum) comes into play.
 
malphono said:
I wouldn’t say that, at least not from a non-Byzantine perspective. It seems to me that this is precisely the type of case where the “High Petrine View” (and for those not familiar with the term, the “search” function comes in handy. It has been discussed in detail in a good number of threads in this sub-forum) comes into play.
Click to expand...
From the outside perspective of the Orthodox Churches, the actions of both Patriarchs might be construed as politicking, one out of jealousy and the other out of ambition. I’m not saying that either did act thusly, just that neither’s actions served as examples of mutual respect, which is crucial to the Orthodox, given the past history.

Pax Christi

PS: I’ll look that term up.
 
One has to be careful about the term “Orthodox Churches” hence my earlier disclaimer. The Byzantines generally do not subscribe to the “High Petrine” view, but OTOH the Oriental Orthodox do.

In re the matter in the OP, the article in the link is an excellent précis of the situation.
 
Augustine said:
This seems to me to be somewhat a case of church politics. Nevertheless, overriding a patriarch doesn’t seem to be just. As a matter of fact, such exercise of authority by Rome is perhaps the kind of thing that gives Orthodox Churches pause in considering reunion with the Latin Church.

Come to think of it, it seems to me that the popes are aware of such resistance. Perhaps that’s why both BXVI and F offered clarifications and the openness to limit the authority of the Patriarch of Rome over other Churches.

Unfortunately, the Church makes molasses look like moving too swiftly.

Pax Christi
Click to expand...
When did Mar Sarhad override the Patriarch??
 
In this particular case, without the Pope’s intervention as “Reesh” Patriarch (to use a Syriac term), I can’t see how it would be resolved. Yes, the Patriarch (especially when acting in conjunction with the Holy Synod) is higher in dignity and right than Mar Sarhad, but Mar Sarhad is rightly head of his Eparchy and has the right of appeal if there is no resolution. If neither backed down and no compromise can be made, there has to be Papal intervention, otherwise there is defacto schism - something that happens too often among Orthodox Churches.
 
Chaldean_Rite said:
This article came out today, and delves specifically into the liturgy
kaldu.org/2015/08/the-2006-reform-of-the-chaldean-mass-and-the-2014-missal-of-patriarch-sako/
Click to expand...
Thank you for posting that link. I wish it were otherwise, but what Fr Andrew says is something of a déjà-vu for me, since a similar destruction has been progressively imposed on the Maronite liturgical books over the past 35+ years. It’s very, very sad, but as Fr Andrew says, we must pray and strive that truth will out in the end. For the Maronites as well as the Chaldeans.
 
Did I understand this development correctly, that the Chaldean Patriarch, though did not get support from the pope in a recent dispute, is now latinizing the Chaldean Liturgy, so to say?

Pax Christi
 
malphono said:
… a similar destruction has been progressively imposed on the Maronite liturgical books over the past 35+ years.
Click to expand...
How does the current Maronite Liturgy compare with the one from 35 years ago? I can certainly spot some intersections with the Roman Liturgy that seem to me to be more than their common origin, but an adaptation. However, there are many other unique aspects that distinguish the Maronite Liturgy. How much of it has been changed towards the Rome, in the last few decades and, if possible, in the last few centuries?

Pax Christi
 
At one time, the Maronite Usage and the Syriac/Malankara usage of the Liturgy of St. James was virtually indistinguishable except for some few peculiarities and Maronite usage of some Eastern Syriac Anaphoro, etc. Today, the normally used Maronite Liturgy virtually resembles the Roman with a few Syriac remnants.
 
malphono said:
Thank you for posting that link. I wish it were otherwise, but what Fr Andrew says is something of a déjà-vu for me, since a similar destruction has been progressively imposed on the Maronite liturgical books over the past 35+ years. It’s very, very sad, but as Fr Andrew says, we must pray and strive that truth will out in the end. For the Maronites as well as the Chaldeans.
Click to expand...
I’ve been reading Abouna Andrew’s critique, and while I agree with his theological positions, I’m not sure I agree with the end conclusions he come to. Why can there not be a cross without the Corpus? This is the Syriac Tradition in both East and West. Also, the hymns of Theotokos and the Saints, these are placed after the consecration in the Western Syriac - how do the Assyrian Churches of the East place them? I agree with Abouna Andrew about the veil, the ad orientem position, and some of his other concerns. Is it possible for the Chaldean Church (along with the Syro-Malabar Church) to work through some of these in Commission with the Assyrian Church (and the Chaldean-Syrian Church in Trichur)?
 
SyroMalankara said:
I’ve been reading Abouna Andrew’s critique, and while I agree with his theological positions, I’m not sure I agree with the end conclusions he come to. Why can there not be a cross without the Corpus? This is the Syriac Tradition in both East and West.
Click to expand...
I had a similar question mark about the cross/crucifix thing, but perhaps his point was simply to say that it’s wrong to impose a “no icon” rule.
SyroMalankara said:
Also, the hymns of Theotokos and the Saints, these are placed after the consecration in the Western Syriac - how do the Assyrian Churches of the East place them?
Click to expand...
Did you mean the diptychs?
 
Augustine said:
This seems to me to be somewhat a case of church politics. Nevertheless, overriding a patriarch doesn’t seem to be just. As a matter of fact, such exercise of authority by Rome is perhaps the kind of thing that gives Orthodox Churches pause in considering reunion with the Latin Church.

Come to think of it, it seems to me that the popes are aware of such resistance. Perhaps that’s why both BXVI and F offered clarifications and the openness to limit the authority of the Patriarch of Rome over other Churches.

Unfortunately, the Church makes molasses look like moving too swiftly.

Pax Christi
Click to expand...
4th Century Church Historian Socrates Scholasticus:
"Church History 2:15:
Athanasius, meanwhile, after a lengthened journey, at last reached Italy. The western division of the empire was then under the sole power of Constans, the youngest of Constantine’s sons, his brother Constantine having been slain by the soldiers, as was before stated. At the same time also Paul, bishop of Constantinople, Asclepas of Gaza, Marcellus of Ancyra, a city of the Lesser Galatia, and Lucius of Adrianople, having been accused on various charges, and expelled from their several churches arrived at the imperial city.* There each laid his case before Julius, bishop of Rome. He on his part, by virtue of the Church of Rome’s peculiar privilege, sent them back again into the East, fortifying them with commendatory letters; and at the same time restored to each his own place, and sharply rebuked those by whom they had been deposed. Relying on the signature of the bishop Julius, the bishops departed from Rome, and again took possession of their own churches**, forwarding the letters to the parties to whom they were addressed.*
 
In 2014, Bishop Sarhad sent an appeal to Rome about the new Chaldean liturgy that Patriarch Sako has implemented. This implementation came from a synod and was voted on. Now that the appeal was sent, does Rome have the authority to side with Bishop Sarhad and force to overturn the decision of the Synod on the changes of the liturgy?
 
Patriarch Sako is really getting on my nerves. He speaks of the Liturgy not being a show, but with barely one year on the see he’s trying to diminish and strip the Qurbana of its natural sollemnity. Then, the suspensions’ issue, protestantized behaviour and vestments, etc. I still wonder if his election was a good one, or even his appointment as Bishop. But well, the pastors are the pastors.
 
rapperelijah said:
In 2014, Bishop Sarhad sent an appeal to Rome about the new Chaldean liturgy that Patriarch Sako has implemented. This implementation came from a synod and was voted on. Now that the appeal was sent, does Rome have the authority to side with Bishop Sarhad and force to overturn the decision of the Synod on the changes of the liturgy?
Click to expand...
CCEO
Canon 657 -
§1. The approval of liturgical texts, after prior review of the Apostolic See, is reserved in patriarchal Churches to the patriarch with the consent of the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church, in metropolitan Churches sui iuris to the metropolitan with the consent of the council of hierarchs; in other Churches this right rests exclusively with the Apostolic See, and, within the limits set by it, to bishops and to their legitimately constituted assemblies.
§2. The same authorities are also competent to approve the translations of these books meant for liturgical use, after sending a report to the Apostolic See in the case of patriarchal Churches and metropolitan Churches sui iuris.
§3. To republish liturgical books or their translations intended even in part for liturgical use, it is required and suffices to establish their correspondence with the approved edition by an attestation of the hierarch referred to in can. 662, §1.
§4. In making changes in liturgical texts, attention is to be paid to can. 40, §1.

Canon 662 - §1. Ecclesiastical approval or permission to publish books may be granted, unless expressly stated otherwise in the law, either by the author’s own local hierarch or by the hierarch of the place of publication, or finally by a superior authority having executive power over these persons or places.

Canon 40 - §1. Hierarchs who preside over Churches sui iuris and all other hierarchs are to see most carefully to the faithful protection and accurate observance of their own rite, and not admit changes in it except by reason of its organic progress, keeping in mind, however, mutual goodwill and the unity of Christians.
 
Vico said:
CCEO
Canon 657 -
§1. The approval of liturgical texts, after prior review of the Apostolic See, is reserved in patriarchal Churches to the patriarch with the consent of the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church, in metropolitan Churches sui iuris to the metropolitan with the consent of the council of hierarchs; in other Churches this right rests exclusively with the Apostolic See, and, within the limits set by it, to bishops and to their legitimately constituted assemblies.
§2. The same authorities are also competent to approve the translations of these books meant for liturgical use, after sending a report to the Apostolic See in the case of patriarchal Churches and metropolitan Churches sui iuris.
§3. To republish liturgical books or their translations intended even in part for liturgical use, it is required and suffices to establish their correspondence with the approved edition by an attestation of the hierarch referred to in can. 662, §1.
§4. In making changes in liturgical texts, attention is to be paid to can. 40, §1.

Canon 662 - §1. Ecclesiastical approval or permission to publish books may be granted, unless expressly stated otherwise in the law, either by the author’s own local hierarch or by the hierarch of the place of publication, or finally by a superior authority having executive power over these persons or places.

Canon 40 - §1. Hierarchs who preside over Churches sui iuris and all other hierarchs are to see most carefully to the faithful protection and accurate observance of their own rite, and not admit changes in it except by reason of its organic progress, keeping in mind, however, mutual goodwill and the unity of Christians.
Click to expand...
Hello Vico,

Thank you for your response. I have read those canons but I am still not sure what the answer to my original question is. What does it mean by “after prior review by the Apostolic Church”? My understanding is that it is the final decision of the patriarch and the synod to make. If the Apostolic See has to review it, does that mean that they have the authority to change it or force the synod to change it by siding with the Bishop in San Diego?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top