Eastern Orthodox Churches re-entering full communion with Rome: Problems with the hierarchy

  • Thread starter Thread starter Msecc27
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Msecc27

Guest
Hi

Just say that one day the Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Churches rejoin together in full communion, all theological arguments have been resolved, take for example the Georgian Orthodox Church.

The Eastern Catholic Georgian Rite Church (are they a sui iuris Church?) has no hierarchy, I believe, so presumably the Orthodox hierarchy would be allowed to continue ruling the Georgian Church and its dioceses, right?

But what about a Church like the Melkite Catholics? Would they have to let the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch take over Melkite Eparchies and the Office of the Melkite Patriarch, as the Melkites broke away from the Greek Orthodox Church to join in communion with Rome, or vice versa, the Greek Melkites take over the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch?

Or will all Greek Orthodox Patriarchs ie. Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem and the Church og Greece form one large Church which would join with the Melkites and other small Greek Catholic Churches?

Same goes to say with the Syriac, Syro-Malankara, Chaldean-Assyrian Church of the East, Coptic, Ethiopian, Armenian, Romanian, Ukranian etc. Catholic-Orthodox Churches, how will it be decided which bishops continue on ruling the dioceses and which of the two patriarchs will rule over the sui iuris Churches?

Thanks
 
The Patriarch of Antioch, Gregory III Laham, has said that he would be willing to step down if the Antiochian Orthodox would re-enter communion with Rome, and let their Patriarch head the Church. However, a majority of Melkite bishops and the Melkite Patriarch already re-entered communion with Rome in the 18th Century. The Melkite Greek Catholic Church IS the Church of Antioch. Its Patriarch and its bishops are the legitimate hierarchy.

For Ruthenians, it’s less complicated because we do not have Orthodox counterparts in the old country - we do have some who broke away in the United States because the Roman bishops did not want us to control our own parishes or have married priests.

I think that were the current Orthodox churches to merge with the current Eastern and Oriental Catholic churches, likely the corresponding churches would decide with one another exactly how they would choose to merge the hierarchy. The Melkites, from what I have read, are intensely willing to work things out with the Antiochians.
 
Msecc27 said:
Hi

Just say that one day the Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Churches rejoin together in full communion, all theological arguments have been resolved, take for example the Georgian Orthodox Church.

The Eastern Catholic Georgian Rite Church (are they a sui iuris Church?) has no hierarchy, I believe, so presumably the Orthodox hierarchy would be allowed to continue ruling the Georgian Church and its dioceses, right?

But what about a Church like the Melkite Catholics? Would they have to let the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch take over Melkite Eparchies and the Office of the Melkite Patriarch, as the Melkites broke away from the Greek Orthodox Church to join in communion with Rome, or vice versa, the Greek Melkites take over the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch?

Or will all Greek Orthodox Patriarchs ie. Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem and the Church og Greece form one large Church which would join with the Melkites and other small Greek Catholic Churches?

Same goes to say with the Syriac, Syro-Malankara, Chaldean-Assyrian Church of the East, Coptic, Ethiopian, Armenian, Romanian, Ukranian etc. Catholic-Orthodox Churches, how will it be decided which bishops continue on ruling the dioceses and which of the two patriarchs will rule over the sui iuris Churches?

Thanks
Click to expand...
Catholics are I think often quite frustated because they don’t understand why Orthodox don’t merge with them; after all several eastern rite churches have done so (I believe that the pope lords over three different Patriarchs of Antioch)

However this frustration is in large part from a total misunderstanding of the issue with the hierarchy

Orthodox cannot accept the pope - not because of mere administrative issues, but because having a pope upsets our understanding of God!

We see the church as a reflection of the Trinity. Any change in the structure of the church changes our model of God.

Whilst God the Father is the source of all things and therefore in a sense has a primacy all members of the Trinity are equally God.
 
WetCatechumen said:
The Patriarch of Antioch, Gregory III Laham, has said that he would be willing to step down if the Antiochian Orthodox would re-enter communion with Rome, and let their Patriarch head the Church. However, a majority of Melkite bishops and the Melkite Patriarch already re-entered communion with Rome in the 18th Century. The Melkite Greek Catholic Church IS the Church of Antioch. Its Patriarch and its bishops are the legitimate hierarchy.

For Ruthenians, it’s less complicated because we do not have Orthodox counterparts in the old country - we do have some who broke away in the United States because the Roman bishops did not want us to control our own parishes or have married priests.

I think that were the current Orthodox churches to merge with the current Eastern and Oriental Catholic churches, likely the corresponding churches would decide with one another exactly how they would choose to merge the hierarchy. The Melkites, from what I have read, are intensely willing to work things out with the Antiochians.
Click to expand...
From the perspective of a non-Catholic I see that as a great and terrible blight on Catholicism.

Far from pushing for ‘unity’, the Catholic church accepts 3 DIFFERENT Patriarchs from Antioch.
 
Montalban said:
Catholics are I think often quite frustated because they don’t understand why Orthodox don’t merge with them; after all several eastern rite churches have done so (I believe that the pope lords over three different Patriarchs of Antioch)

However this frustration is in large part from a total misunderstanding of the issue with the hierarchy

Orthodox cannot accept the pope - not because of mere administrative issues, but because having a pope upsets our understanding of God!

We see the church as a reflection of the Trinity. Any change in the structure of the church changes our model of God.

Whilst God the Father is the source of all things and therefore in a sense has a primacy all members of the Trinity are equally God.
Click to expand...
Your characterization that the Pope lords over three Patriarchs of Antioch is extremely offensive to Catholics. In his 1998 address to the Eastern Catholic Patriarchs, Blessed John Paul II said the following:
The Church, in the image of the Holy Trinity, is a mystery of life and communion, Bride of the incarnate Word, dwelling place of God. The Lord Jesus chose the Twelve to shepherd and govern his Church, and wanted their successors, the Bishops, to be shepherds of God’s People on its pilgrimage towards the kingdom, under the guidance of the successor to the Coryphaeus of the Apostles (cf. Lumen gentium, n. 18).
…
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.
…
“The Patriarchs with their Synods are the highest authority for all business of the Patriarchate” (Orientalium Ecclesiarum, n. 9). Indeed, Episcopal collegiality is exercised in a particularly significant way in the canonical structure of your Churches. The Patriarchs in fact act in close union with their Synods. The aim of any authentic synodal action is harmony, so that the Trinity may be glorified in the Church.
…
Your collaboration with the Pope and with one another will show the Orthodox Churches that the tradition of “synergy” between Rome and the Patriarchates has been maintained — although limited and wounded — and perhaps also strengthened for the good of the one Church of God present throughout the world.
Click to expand...
(see full text: vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1998/september/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19980929_patriarca_en.html)

The late pope speaks of a synergy between Rome and the Eastern Patriarchs - of cooperation and mutual service - not a relationship of lord and subject. You will not find that sort of thinking from any of the modern Pontiffs…
 
There’s currently 5 Patriarchs of Antioch;
3 Catholic:
Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarch of Antioch and All the East
Syrian Catholic Patriarch of Antioch and All the East
Maronite Patriarch of Antioch and the Whole Levant
There was a 4th Titular Latin Patriarch of Antioch until the 1960’s.

2 Orthodox:
Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch and All the East
Syriac Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch and All the East
 
Montalban said:
From the perspective of a non-Catholic I see that as a great and terrible blight on Catholicism.

Far from pushing for ‘unity’, the Catholic church accepts 3 DIFFERENT Patriarchs from Antioch.
Click to expand...
The Roman solution would be to attempt to abolish all three and appoint a Latin Patriarch in their place. Let’s just be glad that hasn’t happened.

Oh wait.
 
One possibility would be “stay as we are because it would be easier if we wanted to split for the second time”. 😃 And maybe this would be better working and qaurels and annoyance because of hierarchy, structures, organization and so on.

Personally I would prefer just 5 patriarchs with Alexandria for whole Africa, Antioch for the whole East ~ nearly the whole Asia. Jerusalen has in titles Palestine, so maybe Arabic Peninsula a than maybe Australia cross the ocean. Constantinople for Western Turkey, Eastern Europe and former USSR. I don’t know exactly but I dream somehow this could be created. And overlapings allowed, sometimes needed and supported.

Antioch is interesting because of many patriarchs (three of them Catholic :)). Syriacs have mafrian as the “nemuber two”. Nowdays just Oriental Syriacs having him as a catholicos in India. So maybe three (or more if there are more) patriarchal churches, each led by mafrian, and one of them would be patriarch.

Problem with patriarchs like in two previous sections would be possible high number of Latin Church Catholics in areas with eastern patriarchs. If you have in some area 90 % of Latins and 10 % of others, it would be unfair to say NO for Latin bishops to be atriarchs. So this will have to be somehow solved.

One bishop per city is nice but experience shows us that it is better working when we have ritual bishops. At least I think so.

And I think that each rite shoud have its “supreme hierarch”. If possible patriarch, if not catholicos. Of course there are some special issues like Anglican Use or Ambrosian rite which are familiar with lower ranking bishops.
 
WetCatechumen said:
The Roman solution would be to attempt to abolish all three and appoint a Latin Patriarch in their place. Let’s just be glad that hasn’t happened.

Oh wait.
Click to expand...
Centuries ago. Very, very, very unlikely to happen today. When the canonical Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch returned to full communion with Rome in the 18th century, Constantinople appointed its own Patriarch to replace him, contrary to Orthodox canons. 🤷
 
Going with example of the Melkiites, I suppose that they could stay as seperate Sui juris Churches and then could be gradually fused together as bishops died and retired.
 
Montalban said:
Catholics are I think often quite frustated because they don’t understand why Orthodox don’t merge with them; after all several eastern rite churches have done so (I believe that the pope lords over three different Patriarchs of Antioch)

However this frustration is in large part from a total misunderstanding of the issue with the hierarchy

Orthodox cannot accept the pope - not because of mere administrative issues, but because having a pope upsets our understanding of God!

We see the church as a reflection of the Trinity. Any change in the structure of the church changes our model of God.

Whilst God the Father is the source of all things and therefore in a sense has a primacy all members of the Trinity are equally God.
Click to expand...
I’m a Catholic and I would be against merger.
1000 years is too long.
Frankly I don’t see the benefit.
I’m loyal to my Eastern Brothers who would be. harmed by this union.
I can see a peacefull harmony amongst all Christsins
as complete division opens the door for Islam.
But like Humpty Dumpty. all the kings horses and all the kings men couldn’t put it together again.
 
WetCatechumen said:
The Patriarch of Antioch, Gregory III Laham, has said that he would be willing to step down if the Antiochian Orthodox would re-enter communion with Rome, and let their Patriarch head the Church. However, a majority of Melkite bishops and the Melkite Patriarch already re-entered communion with Rome in the 18th Century. The Melkite Greek Catholic Church IS the Church of Antioch. Its Patriarch and its bishops are the legitimate hierarchy.

For Ruthenians, it’s less complicated because we do not have Orthodox counterparts in the old country - we do have some who broke away in the United States because the Roman bishops did not want us to control our own parishes or have married priests.

I think that were the current Orthodox churches to merge with the current Eastern and Oriental Catholic churches, likely the corresponding churches would decide with one another exactly how they would choose to merge the hierarchy. The Melkites, from what I have read, are intensely willing to work things out with the Antiochians.
Click to expand...
The current multi-juris hierarchy in the Catholic Church is unacceptable in Orthodoxy. We are also in a mess trying to resolve a similar problem of overlapping jurisdictions in North America among other places. The ideal set by the First Ecumenical Council is a single bishop ruling a single piece of geographical territory. So even the current EC model is unacceptable.

So in the event of a merger, something has to give. I’ve always envisioned that we would have a transition period of having two bishops or two Patriarchs until one dies or retires. Then you have the one left, then after he dies or retires, that is the time you elect a new Patriarch/Metropolitan/Bishop for the united jurisdiction.
 
gus said:
I’m a Catholic and I would be against merger.
1000 years is too long.
Frankly I don’t see the benefit.
I’m loyal to my Eastern Brothers who would be. harmed by this union.
I can see a peacefull harmony amongst all Christsins
as complete division opens the door for Islam.
But like Humpty Dumpty. all the kings horses and all the kings men couldn’t put it together again.
Click to expand...
You are perhaps right. An Orthodox saint I believe prophesied that there will be “partial” unity among the Christian Churches prior to the Second Coming, but not a full unity. There is just too much difference between Catholics and Orthodox today that it would take at least another 1000 years to resolve anything, and that is provided that during that 1000 years we never make any decisions without consultation with the other side so that we do not add to the list of things we need to resolve.
 
gus said:
I’m a Catholic and I would be against merger.
1000 years is too long.
Frankly I don’t see the benefit.
I’m loyal to my Eastern Brothers who would be. harmed by this union.
I can see a peacefull harmony amongst all Christsins
as complete division opens the door for Islam.
But like Humpty Dumpty. all the kings horses and all the kings men couldn’t put it together again.
Click to expand...
It is contrary to Christian charity to want others to commit the mortal sin of schism.
 
ConstantineTG said:
So in the event of a merger, something has to give. I’ve always envisioned that we would have a transition period of having two bishops or two Patriarchs until one dies or retires. Then you have the one left, then after he dies or retires, that is the time you elect a new Patriarch/Metropolitan/Bishop for the united jurisdiction.
Click to expand...
Well said…I often wonder if there would be many changes besides inter-communion
 
Heresy, Schism and Apostasy
Definitions

Finally, the person who refuses submission to the Roman Pontiff, whom Vatican I defined as having a universal primacy of authority over the whole Church, is at least a material schismatic. It was thus common in the past to speak of the schismatic Orthodox Churches who broke with Rome in 1054. As with heresy, we no longer assume the moral culpability of those who belong to Churches in schism from Rome, and thus no long refer to them as schismatics.

Excommunication

When it comes to Catholics who are formally guilty of heresy, apostasy or schism, the Church applies the penalty of excommunication. The 1983 Code of Canon Law, repeating the sanctions of the earlier 1917 Code, states,

c. 1364
  1. With due regard for can. 194, part 1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication and if a cleric, he can also be punished by the penalties mentioned in can. 1336, part 1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.
  2. If long lasting contumacy or the seriousness of scandal warrants it, other penalties can be added including dismissal from the clerical state.
    This canon is saying that once a person willingly repudiates Christ, embraces a heresy, knowing it to be contrary to divine and Catholic faith, or refuses submission to the Roman Pontiff (or communion with the members of the Church subject to him), by virtue of the law itself they are automatically excommunicated. No ecclesiastical act is necessary and no public notice.
However, to incur this latae sententia excommunication one must satisfy the general conditions for canonical culpability set out in the Code. For example, a person who has not been diligent (prudently weighing the issues involved) in their action is not punished.
Code: 
c. 1321 
1. No one is punished unless the external violation of a law or a precept committed by the person is seriously imputable to that person by reason of malice or culpability. 
2. A person who has deliberately violated a law or a precept is bound by the penalty stated in the law or that precept; unless a law or a precept provides otherwise, a person who has violated that law or that precept through a lack of necessary diligence is not punished. 
3. Unless it is otherwise evident, imputability is presumed whenever an external violation has occurred.
A person who lacks the proper use of reason is likewise not punishable.

c. 1322 Persons who habitually lack the use of reason are considered incapable of an offense even if they have violated a law or a precept while appearing to be sane.
The following canon completes the list of conditions that can prevent the application of an excommunication and other ecclesiastical sanctions.
Code: 
c. 1323 
The following are not subject to penalties when they have violated a law or precept:
(1) a person who has not yet completed the sixteenth year of age; 
(2) a person who without any fault was unaware of violating a law or precept; however, inadvertence and error are equivalent to ignorance; 
(3) a person who acted out of physical force or in virtue of a mere accident which could neither be foreseen nor prevented when foreseen; 
(4) a person who acted out of grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or out of necessity or out of serious inconvenience unless the act is intrinsically evil or verges on harm to souls; 
(5) a person who for the sake of legitimate self-defense or defense of another acted against an unjust aggressor with due moderation; 
(6) a person who lacked the use of reason with due regard for the prescriptions of cann. 1324, part 1, n. 2 and 1325; 
(7) a person who without any fault felt that the circumstances in nn. 4 or 5 were verified.
Answered by Colin B. Donovan, STL
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top