P
Peter_J
Guest
I believe in this statement:
Nine_Two meant autonomous as opposed to autocephalous.
- Status
N
Nine_Two
Guest
I wouldn’t say the autocephaly of every single Church is something we particularly desire. I suppose in an ideal situation every country in the world would have its own autocephalous church, but sadly we aren’t dealing with ideals.But isn’t this what the Orthodox want? To have every single Apostolic church independent from one another yet at the same time united by the glorious Faith?
I know the Catholic Church wants that to be in the case of union except to recognize the authority of Rome.
Maybe I’m missing something?
I personally believe that the only reason autocephaly should be denied to a Church is if there is a good reason.
For example, I would deny it to the Japanese Orthodox Church on the grounds that as soon as a See becomes vacant, it lacks the ability to consecrate another bishop on its own.
Similarly looking at the Eastern Catholic Churches, I think it should be denied the Bulgarian Greek Catholic Church on the grounds that it can’t consecrate a bishop on its own.
I hope I’m being clear, I’m worried I might be muddling things a bit.
A
Art321
Guest
I suppose I wasn’t clear in what I meant. Ok from what I’m taking from your post, I really don’t think there should be a Holy See for every country on the planet. For example, I don’t think there should be more than one Latin Patriarch for every country in the West. The Pope is all we need and taking this a bit futher, I don’t believe there should be more than one Patriarch for the Church of Constantinople. If this church was to grow more worldwide, this Patriarch would be all that this church would require.
What I was saying was the current Eastern Churchs keeping their independence. Isn’t this the ideal?
My apologies if I misread your post.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
The ideal would be that all Churches which desire complete independence (autocephaly) should be given it, as long as they can support it.
To say there would be multiple Patriarchs for one church isn’t what I mean, those Churches would split off from their larger, mother churches. The local Churches are much better able to deal with the issues of the locals than is a Church based far off in the Old Country.
A
Art321
Guest
By saying that those churchs split off from their mother churchs, I suppose you mean local churchs dealing with local issues while at the same time in perfect communion within their Mother Church?
If so, I would say these churchs wouldn’t be truly any different than their Mother Church, considering they would be within her.
I suppose it was the terminology that confused me but I think we would agree that the Mother Churchs would keep their independence. That is what I was getting on.
P
Peter_J
Guest
I don’t get what you’re saying here. If a portion of a church splits off and become an independent/autocephalous church, while staying in full communion, then it isn’t within that Mother Church any longer.
A
Art321
Guest
I guess I was just typing wrong. So if independent church splits off from the mother church, it would be a daughter church no?
But if they are an independent church, under which patriarch would they be under?
Sorry, all this is a bit new, considering that I don’t think this has happened ever with the Latin Church.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
No, by split I mean they become completely self governing entities while maintaining communion with their Mother Church.
For example, I’m a member of the Orthodox Church in America, the mother church is the Russian Orthodox Church, who has absolutely no say in our affairs. Similarly their mother church is Constantinople, who again has no say in their affairs.
Generally Jerusalem is considered to be the Mother Church of all Churches, as it was the site of the original church.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
If they are truly independent (autocephalous) they would be under their own patriarch (or Metropolitan, not ever Church has a patriarch). Only Autonomous (latin Sui Juris) Churches are still under the patriarch of the mother church.
A
Art321
Guest
I see. It is very different from the Latin Church structure as I don’t think there has ever been a Latin daughter church. So it would explain as to why I and other Latin Catholics have never been exposed to this kind of structure before.
But would mean say if the Orthodox Church in America was to grow larger, it would get its own Patriarch one day?
Another question. Since the Jerusalem Church was the site of the original Church, shouldn’t its Patriarch have the title of “first among equals”?
N
Nine_Two
Guest
Size isn’t the issue with the OCA, it has considerably more people than the Church of Jerusalem, for example. I don’t particularly want to go into the issues with the OCA, as they are quite complex. Needless to say, the title of Patriarch isn’t that big a deal. Roughly half of the autocephalous Churches don’t use the title, including the ancient Cypriot Orthodox Church.
No because it has always been a relatively unimportant see. After 70 AD the church quickly moved away from it as its centre.
P
Peter_J
Guest
I think the recent posts provide a strong case that
Consider also the case of the PNCC. I have a great deal of respect for them, but if they were to unite with either the RCC or Orthodoxy I seriously doubt they would be allowed to be autocephalous.
isn’t realistic.
Consider also the case of the PNCC. I have a great deal of respect for them, but if they were to unite with either the RCC or Orthodoxy I seriously doubt they would be allowed to be autocephalous.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
The reasoning would be different on both sides, however. For the Orthodox, they would ideally be assimilated into whatever church has jurisdiction over them geographically (of course, the jurisdictional irregularity in America makes that problematic), in accordance with the apostolic canons. In the Catholic Church, they would probably be assimilated into the Latin Church, because that is the Church they broke away from.
A
Art321
Guest
It was really the terminology that was used that confused me. The terms of daughter churchs are something that I had never heard of until recently and as far as I know the Latin Church has never a daughter church. I guess this is just more common in the Orthodox world. Thanks to Nine Two, I caught on with the discussion.
Thank you for clarifying that up Nine Two.
P
Peter_J
Guest
I expect they should be allowed to join any sui iuris church they want (at least out of the ones that are already in the US). This is, of course, strictly hypothetical anyhow.
V
Vico
Guest
From 1964, Lumen Gentium (Vatican II) there is use of the term “daughter churches”:
By divine Providence it has come about that various churches, established in various places by the apostles and their successors, have in the course of time coalesced into several groups, organically united, which, preserving the unity of faith and the unique divine constitution of the universal Church, enjoy their own discipline, their own liturgical usage, and their own theological and spiritual heritage. Some of these churches, notably the ancient patriarchal churches, as parent-stocks of the Faith, so to speak, have begotten others as daughter churches, with which they are connected down to our own time by a close bond of charity in their sacramental life and in their mutual respect for their rights and duties.(37*) This variety of local churches with one common aspiration is splendid evidence of the catholicity of the undivided Church. In like manner the Episcopal bodies of today are in a position to render a manifold and fruitful assistance, so that this collegiate feeling may be put into practical application.
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
A
Art321
Guest
Does this refer as daughter churchs of the Latin Church? Or those of the Eastern Churchs?
Sorry, I’m still learning.
V
Vico
Guest
This excerpt might help more, then.
***ADDRESS OF THE HOLY FATHER
POPE JOHN PAUL II
TO EASTERN CATHOLIC PATRIARCHS ***
Tuesday, 29 September 1998
Within this communion, “it has come about through divine Providence that, in the course of time, different Churches set up in various places by the Apostles and their successors joined together in a multiplicity of organically united groups which, while safeguarding the unity of the faith and the unique divine structure of the universal Church, have their own discipline, enjoy their own liturgical usage and inherit a theological and spiritual patrimony. Some of these, notably the ancient Patriarchal Churches, as mothers in the faith, gave birth to other daughter-Churches, as it were, and down to our own days they are linked with these by bonds of a more intimate charity in what pertains to the sacramental life and in a mutual respect for rights and obligations” (ibid., n. 23).
Although the Council was aware of the divisions which have occurred down the centuries, and despite the fact that communion between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches has not been completely reestablished, it did not hesitate to declare that the Churches of the East “have the power to govern themselves according to their own disciplines, since these are better suited to the character of their faithful and better adapted to foster the good of souls” (Unitatis redintegratio, n. 16; cf. * Orientalium Ecclesiarum*, n. 9)
Does this not apply now to your Churches, which are already in full communion with the Bishop of Rome? And should not the rights and duties of the Patriarchs, who are their fathers and heads, also be reaffirmed? Within the Catholic Church your Churches represent that Christian East to which we continue to extend our arms for the fraternal embrace of full communion. In their own territories and in the diaspora, the Eastern Catholic Churches offer their particular liturgical, spiritual, theological and canonical riches. You, who are their heads, have received from the Holy Spirit the vocation and mission to preserve and enhance this specific patrimony, so that the Gospel may be given in ever greater abundance to the Church and to the world. And it is the duty of the Successor of Peter to assist and help you in this mission.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/j...ments/hf_jp-ii_spe_19980929_patriarca_en.html
***ADDRESS OF THE HOLY FATHER
POPE JOHN PAUL II
TO EASTERN CATHOLIC PATRIARCHS ***
Tuesday, 29 September 1998
- The Eastern Catholic Churches, together with the other Churches of the East, are living witnesses of the traditions that date back through the Fathers to the Apostles (cf. * Orientalium Ecclesiarum*, n. 1); their tradition is “part of the divinely revealed heritage of the universal Church” (ibid.).
Within this communion, “it has come about through divine Providence that, in the course of time, different Churches set up in various places by the Apostles and their successors joined together in a multiplicity of organically united groups which, while safeguarding the unity of the faith and the unique divine structure of the universal Church, have their own discipline, enjoy their own liturgical usage and inherit a theological and spiritual patrimony. Some of these, notably the ancient Patriarchal Churches, as mothers in the faith, gave birth to other daughter-Churches, as it were, and down to our own days they are linked with these by bonds of a more intimate charity in what pertains to the sacramental life and in a mutual respect for rights and obligations” (ibid., n. 23).
Although the Council was aware of the divisions which have occurred down the centuries, and despite the fact that communion between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches has not been completely reestablished, it did not hesitate to declare that the Churches of the East “have the power to govern themselves according to their own disciplines, since these are better suited to the character of their faithful and better adapted to foster the good of souls” (Unitatis redintegratio, n. 16; cf. * Orientalium Ecclesiarum*, n. 9)
Does this not apply now to your Churches, which are already in full communion with the Bishop of Rome? And should not the rights and duties of the Patriarchs, who are their fathers and heads, also be reaffirmed? Within the Catholic Church your Churches represent that Christian East to which we continue to extend our arms for the fraternal embrace of full communion. In their own territories and in the diaspora, the Eastern Catholic Churches offer their particular liturgical, spiritual, theological and canonical riches. You, who are their heads, have received from the Holy Spirit the vocation and mission to preserve and enhance this specific patrimony, so that the Gospel may be given in ever greater abundance to the Church and to the world. And it is the duty of the Successor of Peter to assist and help you in this mission.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/j...ments/hf_jp-ii_spe_19980929_patriarca_en.html
H
Hesychios
Guest
The PNCC is very Latin oriented in it’s spirituality, so naturally they would fit in with the Latin church quite well.
But the reality is, if they manage to keep the legal titles to their property and continue to elect their own bishops they will be autocephalic in reality if not in name. Once they sign over the legal titles to Latin bishops as ‘corporation sole’ they would become a footnote in history.
P
Peter_J
Guest
I agree with the first part but not the second. Consider this: there are several different Eastern Catholic Churches that use the Byzantine Rite, yet they are separate sui iuris churches.
Again, this is all hypothetical anyhow: I’d be quite surprised if the PNCC opted for full communion with Rome. But I would be even more surprised if the PNCC opted for full communion with Rome and joined the Latin Church.
Indeed.
- Status