Eastern Catholics defending Orthodoxy vs Roman Catholics

[OrbisNonSufficit]

If an Eastern patriarch or major archbishop became Pope, he would have to switch to the Latin Rite correct? As the Pope is the head of the Latin Church? In this Roman/Latin context, this shows the Latin rites are superior or the modus operandi rite of the Catholic Church.

Actually no. He would head Latin diocese and Latin Church but his own Rite wouldn’t need to be changed.

Sometimes Latin Bishops care for Eastern Catholics when there is no Eastern Catholic Bishop present. It’s similar scenario but on a much bigger scale. I actually think that it is somewhat impractical to have Eastern Catholic Latin Patriarch but nothing forbids it. Technically though it’s a double edged sword- what if Latin Bishop got elected as Eastern Catholic Patriarch? Eastern Catholics wouldn’t approve and Eastern Orthodox would take it even worse. Latin Church not being too much into it doesn’t show superiority of Rites.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

There shouldn’t be such things; the bishop in a see is supposed to minister to his flock of whatever rites, see that they have clergy of their rite, and so forth.

That is what Eastern Orthodoxy holds to. Though lack of this practice in Catholic Church actually dates back to Pre-Schism Church when Maronites and Melkites coexisted having two Patriarchs of one city. Though one was … uhm… less legitimately recognized…

This became a thing in Central to Eastern Europe too though; you have Latin Bishop of and Eastern Catholic Bishop of . They coexist and care for their flocks. Since Eastern Catholic Churches aren’t territorial (Bishops are, yes) but universal, and Latin Church works the same, one can easily see that universal and universal overlap. If they overlap in their jurisdiction, Bishops somewhat have to overlap in their jurisdiction. Rites are no more local thing and as such Churches of the East and the West developed in this way where their Bishops overlap territory-wise but they care for different faithful.

 

[Alexandria2020]

what if Latin Bishop got elected as Eastern Catholic Patriarch? Eastern Catholics wouldn’t approve and Eastern Orthodox would take it even worse.

that has happened in history before. Latins taking over an Eastern territory.

Anyway in that case I don’t think making ECs Cardinals makes sense then. As being a Cardinal becomes a Latin affair. It’s best to make each church as independent as possible. ECs don’t have to meddle in Latin affairs and vice versa.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Anyway in that case I don’t think making ECs Cardinals makes sense then. As being a Cardinal becomes a Latin affair. It’s best to make each church as independent as possible. ECs don’t have to meddle in Latin affairs and vice versa.

Yes, in reality that is actual case. Latin Church has right (not obligation) to ask other Patriarchs to assist in election of their Patriarch, and they have right to accept or refuse. Note that EC Patriarchal Cardinals are not actually normal Cardinals- they have office of “Cardinal-Patriarch”. They are Cardinals not to assist Latin Church in internal affairs but to help govern the Church on universal level. Church is now much more centralized than it has been before.

Also, there are some ECs that are technically under Latin Patriarchate. Those are ECs that do not have Patriarch of their own… so their Patriarch is technically the Pope. If they are standard Cardinals then I see no problem with it either, as they are technically part of Latin Patriarchate (but not Latin Rite).

 

[Alexandria2020]

Note that EC Patriarchal Cardinals are not actually normal Cardinals- they have office of “Cardinal-Patriarch”. They are Cardinals not to assist Latin Church in internal affairs but to help govern the Church on universal level. Church is now much more centralized than it has been before.

plus there are Cardinal-priests. I think the Syro-Malabar, Syro-Malankara, and Romanian Greek Catholic churches are all headed by Major Archbishops who are Cardinals making them Cardinal-priests.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

plus there are Cardinal-priests. I think the Syro-Malabar, Syro-Malankara, and Romanian Greek Catholic churches are all headed by Major Archbishops who are Cardinals making them Cardinal-priests.

Major Archbishops might technically be “under” Pope. They aren’t Patriarchs after all… though I am unsure about how that really works.

 

[Alexandria2020]

Major Archbishops might technically be “under” Pope

quite possibly yes. Though post like 2010, my own Syro-Malabar Church has gotten more independent as our synod makes a lot of the major decisions now. compared to before. Mar George Alencherry (2011-) was the first Major Archbishop voted by the synod.

 

[Anesti33]

Yes, in reality that is actual case. Latin Church has right (not obligation) to ask other Patriarchs to assist in election of their Patriarch, and they have right to accept or refuse.

But the Pope is not a “Patriarch of the Latin Church”, he holds a unique position. This is why Eastern Catholic bishops are created cardinal, because they assist in the election of their Universal Pastor, and they have a right to accede to the Throne of Peter.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

But the Pope is not a “Patriarch of the Latin Church”, he holds a unique position

He is, but not “just” Patriarch of Latin Church, true.

This is why Eastern Catholic bishops are created cardinal, because they assist in the election of their Universal Pastor, and they have a right to accede to the Throne of Peter.

Problem is that they don’t usually like this post as it suggests that they are somewhat subordinate to Church of Rome. Electing Eastern Catholic Patriarch as Pope wouldn’t actually mean promotion, but transfer. It would mean that Patriarchate has lost it’s elected head which was somewhat “usurped” by Latins and now they need to elect someone else. It isn’t how Church used to work Pre-Schism or … ever.

Which is exactly why Pope Paul VI reworked this post of Cardinal into Cardinal-Patriarch. There is clear distinction between Petrine Ministry where Papacy exists to guide the Church whenever necessary, to infallibly defend doctrine and to confirm unity of the Church and actual ordinary ministry of the Patriarchate … be it Latin, Melkite or any other.

 

[Alexandria2020]

This is why Eastern Catholic bishops are created cardinal,

not all of them. some of them don’t want to. like the Patriarch of the Melkite Church is not a Cardinal.

 

[Vico]

… They bombard me with quotes from Church Fathers and Popes and different councils that condemn the idea that anyone who isn’t in communion with Rome can be part of the Church. …

Catechism of the Catholic Church

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

 

[Hookly1]

This is correct, and Pope Francis seems to agree with these patriarchs.

The Summer 2020 issue of Sophia, published by the Melkite Eparchy of Newton in the US, said that Pope Francis expressed a wish to include the Patriarchs in future conclaves, but that they should not have to be cardinals since “Patriarchs have jurisdiction over particular self-governing churches, unlike cardinals.”

Quote is from the article written by Bishop Nicholas Samra, it is not the Pope’s actual words.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

The Summer 2020 issue of Sophia, published by the Melkite Eparchy of Newton in the US, said that Pope Francis expressed a wish to include the Patriarchs in future conclaves, but that they should not have to be cardinals since “Patriarchs have jurisdiction over particular self-governing churches, unlike cardinals.”

Technically this is what Cardinal-Patriarch office was created for by Paul VI.

Patriarchs should NOT have this prerogative by default. Church of Rome has right to select it’s own electors (and it has right to ask Eastern Patriarchs to be such electors, but not duty to do so). Pope Paul VI hence created office of Cardinal-Patriarch which is basically “hey I am Eastern Patriarch who can assist in election of Bishop of Rome and I accept to assist them”. Perhaps name “Cardinal” is somewhat wrong as it signifies something Latin and Red Clothing is also somewhat misleading… but this office is NOT Latin at all. Latins can never be Cardinal-Patriarchs.

What Patriarchs should by default be included in is regular government of the Universal Church. As it was put at Vatican II; Church is not ruled by Peter and his Clergy but by Peter and Apostles - not by Pope and Roman Clergy (Cardinals other than Cardinal-Patriarchs are all Roman Clergy) but by Pope and all other Bishops in communion with him.

 

[Alexandria2020]

*St. Pius X allowed for Russian Greek Catholics to keep the saints on their calendar (presumably included saints after the Council of Florence) when they converted and Ven. Pius XII [specifically] approved 21 “Orthodox” saints for veneration and St. Paul VI added 4 more and in total added 25 “Orthodox” saints to the 1969 calendar revision

Source for those wondering:

Fr. Alphonse Raes, SJ’s “La première édition romaine de la liturgie de S. Jean Chrysostome en staroslave,” Orientalia christiana periodica 7 (1941): 518-526.

This article states (p. 518) that, in a 12/21/1934 motu proprio, Pope Pius XI commissioned the Sacred Congregation for the Oriental Church to publish liturgical books for Russian Catholics (AAS 1935:66). On the same page, Fr. Raes says that the first Roman edition of the Russian Greek Catholic Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom was published in published in “Rome, Typographie de Grottaferrata 1940. In-8º, 112 pages.” That is the only relevant Acta Apostolicæ Sedis citation in the whole article.

The liturgical calendar for Russian Greek Catholics omitted Peter of Moscow (1308-1326) and Alexis of Moscow (1354-1378) because they were consciously dependent on the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople when he was clearly in schism from Rome (art. cit., p. 521). It also omitted Jonah of Moscow (1448-1461) and Philip of Moscow (1566-1568) because they rejected the Ecumenical Council of Florence (p. 521).

Why did the Liturgy include Nicetas of Novgorod (†1108), Leontius of Rostov (†1077), Barlaam of Khutyn (†1192), and Sergius of Radonezh (†1392)? Fr. Raes theorizes that they did not express schismatic sentiments (i.e., exhibited no pronounced anti-Catholic prejudices) and in their state of eremitic wilderness life, were probably never posed the question “for or against Rome?” (p. 521).

Some post-1054 saints common to Orthodox and Catholic calendars were, in fact, in communion with the Apostolic See, such as many 11th- and 12th-century holy monks from Kiev, according to Yves Cardinal Congar, OP in his, “A propos des saints canonisés dans les Eglises orthodoxes,” Revue des sciences religieuses, 22 (1948), p. 246.

The following excerpt from the Roman Martyrology would verify the fact that Rome performed very thorough investigations into these post-schism individuals before determining whether they were to be called saints of the universal church.

“In monasterio Sanctissimae Trinitatis in Mosquensi Russiae regione, sancti Sergii de Radonez, qui, primum in silvis asperis eremita, dein vitam coenobiticam coluit et hegumenus electus propagavit, vir mitis, consiliarius principum et consolator fidelium” (Martyrologium Romanum, page 536).

“In the monastery of the Most Holy Trinity in the region of Moscow of Russia, of the holy Sergius of Radonezh, who was first a hermit in savage woods,…”

 

[Alexandria2020]

Pope Pius XII permitted 21 saints for veneration and they are from among the following 25 post-schism saints who appear in the General Roman Calendar of 1969:

1. St. Sava of Serbia (January 14) [1174-1237]
2. St. Nicetas of Novgorod (January 31) [†1108]
3. St. John the Martyr of Vilnius (April 14) [†1342]
4. St. Anthony the Martyr of Vilnius (April 14) [†1342]
5. St. Eustace the Martyr of Vilnius (April 14) [†1342]
6. St. Stephen the Enlightener of Perm (April 26) [1340-1396]
7. St. Stephen Pechersky (April 27) [†1094]
8. St. Cyril of Turov (April 28) [1130-1182]
9. St. Ignatius of Rostov (April 28) [†1288]
10. St. Isaiah the Wonderworker of Rostov (May 15) [†1090]
11. St. Euphrosyne of Polotsk (May 23) [†1173]
12. St. Leontius of Rostov (May 23) [†1077]
13. St. Nicetas the Wonderworker of Pereaslavl (May 24) [†1186]
14. St. German of Valaam (June 28) [†1353?]
15. St. Sergius of Valaam (June 28) [†1353?]
16. St. Anthony of the Kiev Caves (July 10) [983-1073]
17. St. Theodosius of the Kiev Caves (July 10) [†1074]
18. St. Theodore the Black of Yaroslavl (September 19) [†1299]
19. St. David of Yaroslavl (September 19) [†1299]
20. St. Constantine of Yaroslavl (September 19) [†1299]
21. St. Michael the Martyr, Wonderworker of Chernigov (September 21) [†1246]
22. St. Theodore the Martyr, Wonderworker of Chernigov (September 21) [†1246]
23. St. Sergius the Wonderworker of Radonezh (September 25) [1314-1392]
24. St. Abraham the Wonderworker of Rostov (October 29) [†1073]
25. St. Barlaam of Khutyn (November 6) [†1193]

Credit: Kyrylo Miazga
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[JW55]

But the Pope is not a “Patriarch of the Latin Church”, he holds a unique position. This is why Eastern Catholic bishops are created cardinal, because they assist in the election of their Universal Pastor, and they have a right to accede to the Throne of Peter.

Didn’t either Benedict XVl or Pope Francis drop the Title “Patriarch of Rome”? Correct me if I am wrong.

I think many would agree, by far the greatest hurdle is defining the role of the Pope to satisfy both. Eastern Orthodox see the position as “First Among Equals”, a seat of Honor. Although many small differences exist between Catholicism and EO, they would be small chess pieces aside from the one mentioned here. For the most part, the EC largely follow most of the same principles of EO, except for they recognize the Pope. But that role is somewhat different than his role with the western or Latin segment. From my understanding, the Pope does not impose as much “overseeing” for lack of a better term on the EC as he does the western church.

The Zoghby initiative was sort of a summary of that concept proposed 25 yrs ago.

As per Wikipedia-
In February 1995, Zoghby declared a two-point Profession of Faith:

1. I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.
2. I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation.[6]

Simple concept, but major hurdle that never went very far. Dealt initially with co-communion of the EO Antiochian Church and EC Melkites,

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Didn’t either Benedict XVl or Pope Francis drop the Title “Patriarch of Rome”? Correct me if I am wrong.

Pope Benedict and it was omitted, not necessarily dropped. In the end, Pope stays Patriarch of Latin Church.

For the most part, the EC largely follow most of the same principles of EO, except for they recognize the Pope. But that role is somewhat different than his role with the western or Latin segment. From my understanding, the Pope does not impose as much “overseeing” for lack of a better term on the EC as he does the western church.

Technically that’s true… but ECs also accept Pope’s authority to intervene when necessary, to “govern the lambs” as it was stated in Bible, and Papal Infallibility.

Simple concept, but major hurdle that never went very far. Dealt initially with co-communion of the EO Antiochian Church and EC Melkites,

Zoghby Initiative was rejected by both Orthodoxy and Catholicism at large. There is no problem with either point for Catholicism really (Orthodoxy obviously disagrees with point 2).

For Catholicism, what exactly is “everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches”? Eastern Catholics should NOT anathemize John Beccus for uniting with Latin Church, neither should they be against Florence, Vatican I, Filioque nor anything like that. They are after all, fully and beautifully Catholic.

Second point is also problematic. “according to limits recognized by Holy Fathers of the East during first millennium”… what does that mean? Does that mean Photius and his theology, or St. George the Hagiorite who lived during Great Schism and is Eastern Orthodox Saint, yet he professed explicitly inerrancy of Rome? Maximus the Confessor defended Papal Infallibility as well. In the end there are differences between what one recognizes as valid belief of Eastern Father.

Zoghby’s initiative is somewhat sweet talk but it either holds Orthodox position or Catholic position. It’s just that proponents of Zoghby’s initiative seem to act like if Eastern Orthoxy “won” and Schism is reunited on their terms. They accept Pope according to limits Eastern Orthodoxy would recognize if Pope converted to Orthodoxy.

 

[ziapueblo]

Does that mean Photius and his theology . . .

Yet, this is from the Melkite Greek Catholic HOROLOGION, and I quote:
February 6
5th Day of the Feast of the Encounter;
Holy Father Boukolos, Bishop of Smyrna;
Photios the Great (my emphasis added), of Constantinople and Confessor
(3rd/5th Class)

Troparion of Photios (Tone 4)
Being of the same mind as the Apostles and a teacher of the whole world, O Photios, intercede with the Master of all that He may grant peace to the world and great mercy to our souls.

Kontakion of Photios (Tone 8)
With garlands of chants, let us now crown that far-shinning star of the Church of God, that God-given guide of all the Orthodox, the divinely sounding harp of the Spirit and the steadfast adversary of all heresy. Let us cry out to him: “Hail, O Photios, most venerable!”

ZP

 

[Ridgerunner]

They are a spin-off of the Western Church (even if schismatic)

I have seen it argued that Islam is a spin-off of Orthodoxy, with a smattering of Judaism mixed in. Maybe it’s not true, but one does note that it arose in the Orthodox world. I don’t think either Church should be judged by offshoots.

 

[Alexandria2020]

I have seen it argued that Islam is a spin-off of Orthodoxy, with a smattering of Judaism mixed in. Maybe it’s not true, but one does note that it arose in the Orthodox world. I don’t think either Church should be judged by offshoots.

Islam is a different religion completely. And it was not born in the Byzantine Empire. It was born in Arabia.

your argument doesn’t really add up. comparing apples to oranges.

if you look at high church Protestant churches, like Anglicans or Lutherans, it’s quite obvious the liturgy is very similar to the Latin rite liturgy. The same way Eastern Catholic liturgies correspond to their Eastern church counterparts.