Ecclesiology in the East and West

[Wandile]

Are eastern Catholics more inclined to the Eastern Orthodox version of Ecclesiology or the Western Catholic view of Ecclesiology or a mix of both?

How much power do eastern Catholics believe the primacy entails (Besides dogmas accepted by all such as Papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction) and how should it be exercised?

 

[twf]

As a Latin, I fully agree that the Pope’s role within the Latin Church is distinct from his role as primate of the Church Universal. Within the Latin Church he acts as our particular patriarch and, with his brother bishops, governs the day-to-day affairs of the global Latin Church. Most Eastern / Oriental Catholics would, I think, argue that the Pope’s exercise of primacy should be limited to hearing appeals from the East, which should be rare, or to intervene in true cases of necessity (e.g. if a major heresy or corruption scandal arose in one of the Eastern Churches and for whatever reason the hierarchs either did not or could not address the problem). Other than, the Pope’s role should be to extend Christian charity towards the East and to support them by prayer and deed especially in times of persecution, as is currently the case for many of our Eastern and Oriental brothers.

 

[Brian_Kerzetski]

Are eastern Catholics more inclined to the Eastern Orthodox version of Ecclesiology or the Western Catholic view of Ecclesiology or a mix of both?

How much power do eastern Catholics believe the primacy entails (Besides dogmas accepted by all such as Papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction) and how should it be exercised?

Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox are essentially identical. More often than not, what you find in the Orthodox you will find in it’s Catholic counterpart. Therefore, it would make no sense for an eastern church to hold a western view. That does not mean either are invalid, just different.

Your second question I will leave to those more knowledgable than I.

 

[shawnbm]

As a Latin, I fully agree that the Pope’s role within the Latin Church is distinct from his role as primate of the Church Universal. Within the Latin Church he acts as our particular patriarch and, with his brother bishops, governs the day-to-day affairs of the global Latin Church. Most Eastern / Oriental Catholics would, I think, argue that the Pope’s exercise of primacy should be limited to hearing appeals from the East, which should be rare, or to intervene in true cases of necessity (e.g. if a major heresy or corruption scandal arose in one of the Eastern Churches and for whatever reason the hierarchs either did not or could not address the problem). Other than, the Pope’s role should be to extend Christian charity towards the East and to support them by prayer and deed especially in times of persecution, as is currently the case for many of our Eastern and Oriental brothers.

I like this idea of Roman primacy vis-a-vis the Eastern Catholic (and Orthodox upon some form of reunification)–a kind of agreed upon court of last appeal only when needed, but otherwise hands-off absent extraordinary circumstances. That is why I was not fond of the dropping of the ancient title of Patriarch of teh West–it sounds as if it implied that the universality of jurisdiction was being gently promoted. I am speculating, but that is what I thought at the time.

 

[Nine_Two]

I’m not sure how the Eastern Catholic Churches could, in honesty, maintain an Orthodox ecclesiology. Not only is our ecclesiology a sticking point in negotiations, but it is one of the few that Latins will acknowledge. Eastern Catholicism exists in a state very much at odds with Orthodox ecclesiology. I don’t see how they can possibly hold the same position we do.

 

[wynd]

That is why I was not fond of the dropping of the ancient title of Patriarch of teh West–it sounds as if it implied that the universality of jurisdiction was being gently promoted. I am speculating, but that is what I thought at the time.

I seem to recall once reading that long ago, Cardinal Ratzinger had theorized a more decentralized Catholic church with patriarchs in various regions like South America and East Asia (presumably for the Latin church only). At the time, I saw some people hoping that it was more of a move in that direction instead of implying more universality. Guess we’ll never know.

 

[SyroMalankara]

I’m not sure how the Eastern Catholic Churches could, in honesty, maintain an Orthodox ecclesiology. Not only is our ecclesiology a sticking point in negotiations, but it is one of the few that Latins will acknowledge. Eastern Catholicism exists in a state very much at odds with Orthodox ecclesiology. I don’t see how they can possibly hold the same position we do.

To be fair, Orthodox ecclesiology is sometimes at odds with Orthodox ecclesiology - how could it not be at odds with Latins. And what of the Oriental Orthodox?

 

[shawnbm]

I seem to recall once reading that long ago, Cardinal Ratzinger had theorized a more decentralized Catholic church with patriarchs in various regions like South America and East Asia (presumably for the Latin church only). At the time, I saw some people hoping that it was more of a move in that direction instead of implying more universality. Guess we’ll never know.

An excellent counter suggestion to what I was offering. Thank you.

 

[Wandile]

I like this idea of Roman primacy vis-a-vis the Eastern Catholic (and Orthodox upon some form of reunification)–a kind of agreed upon court of last appeal only when needed, but otherwise hands-off absent extraordinary circumstances. That is why I was not fond of the dropping of the ancient title of Patriarch of teh West–it sounds as if it implied that the universality of jurisdiction was being gently promoted. I am speculating, but that is what I thought at the time.

Well it should be noted that for the first time, in 1863, this title appeared in the Annuario Pontificio, which in 1885 became a semi-official publication of the Holy See. This publication suppressed the title in its 2006 edition. The Vatican explained that the title “Patriarch of the West” had become “obsolete and practically unusable” and that it was “pointless to insist on maintaining it”. Since the Second Vatican Council, the Latin Church, with which the title could be considered associated, is now organized as a number of episcopal conferences and their international groupings.

Very few Popes ever made use of the title,in the history of the Papacy. The idea of “Patriarch” was really more honorific in the west and carried little importance. This is in stark contrast to what “Patriarch” meant in the east. The Pentarchy never really materialized in the west.

 

[Nine_Two]

To be fair, Orthodox ecclesiology is sometimes at odds with Orthodox ecclesiology - how could it not be at odds with Latins. And what of the Oriental Orthodox?

I can speak only for Eastern Orthodox but the Oriental Orthodox from all I’ve seen seem to have a very similar ecclesiology to us (though there are some noteworthy differences).

As for the rest of what you said - are you saying that Eastern Catholics are different than Latins, or are you accepting they are different from Orthodox? In the latter case you might want to direct that to the OP who was asking just that question, in the former, well that isn’t my battle to fight.

 

[shawnbm]

I know there are many, including you Wandile, who know far more about this topic than I. I look forward to the replies that are surmise will surely follow.

 

[SyroMalankara]

I can speak only for Eastern Orthodox but the Oriental Orthodox from all I’ve seen seem to have a very similar ecclesiology to us (though there are some noteworthy differences).

What about within EO? Aren’t there different ecclesiologies in practice?

As for the rest of what you said - are you saying that Eastern Catholics are different than Latins, or are you accepting they are different from Orthodox? In the latter case you might want to direct that to the OP who was asking just that question, in the former, well that isn’t my battle to fight.

EC ecclesiology is closer to Orthodox, with Latin imports. It is similar to Oriental Orthodox, with some differences in emphasis.

 

[Nine_Two]

What about within EO? Aren’t there different ecclesiologies in practice?

Depends what you mean. The various Churches of our communion all have slight ecclesiastical differences (which at times have been quite major) but the overarching ecclesiology of the church - how the Primates interact with each other - is the same for all of them. And that is where the issues lie. I don’t think, for example, that anyone looking at reunion from the Orthodox side takes issue with the particular way in which the Bishop of Rome is chosen. What does matter is how, and on what level, he will interact with his brother patriarchs.

 

[twf]

An excellent counter suggestion to what I was offering. Thank you.

Yes. I believe it was, related to Wynd’s comment, a reflection of the fact that the Latin Church is no longer a Church simply of “the West”, which has very specific geographical and cultural implications. The Latin Church is truly a global Church, and the traditions of the Latin Church reflect this in places such as Africa or East Asia where local, very non-Western, inculturation has taken place. Rather than dropping the title completely, I believe that Rome should have simply changed it to something like “Patriarch of the Latins” so that it is still clear that the Pope exercises a special primacy within the Latin Church as its head that is distinct from his more general primacy in the Church universal.

 

[Aramis]

Are eastern Catholics more inclined to the Eastern Orthodox version of Ecclesiology or the Western Catholic view of Ecclesiology or a mix of both?

How much power do eastern Catholics believe the primacy entails (Besides dogmas accepted by all such as Papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction) and how should it be exercised?

Somewhere in between. Exactly where in between varies, but you can’t have union with Rome and have current typical Orthodox ecclesiology. You can get right close, tho’.

 

[shawnbm]

Yes. I believe it was, related to Wynd’s comment, a reflection of the fact that the Latin Church is no longer a Church simply of “the West”, which has very specific geographical and cultural implications. The Latin Church is truly a global Church, and the traditions of the Latin Church reflect this in places such as Africa or East Asia where local, very non-Western, inculturation has taken place. Rather than dropping the title completely, I believe that Rome should have simply changed it to something like “Patriarch of the Latins” so that it is still clear that the Pope exercises a special primacy within the Latin Church as its head that is distinct from his more general primacy in the Church universal.

Yes to all of this–Patriarch of the Latin Churches

 

[Vico]

Are eastern Catholics more inclined to the Eastern Orthodox version of Ecclesiology or the Western Catholic view of Ecclesiology or a mix of both?

How much power do eastern Catholics believe the primacy entails (Besides dogmas accepted by all such as Papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction) and how should it be exercised?

There is the Catholic dicastry Congregation for the Oriental Churches which was created out of the Congregation for Propagation of the Faith in 1917. It is detailed in Pastor Bonus.

You can read the eastern canon law (CCEO) describing the structure and governance in the Church and governing relationship with the eastern Catholic sui iuris churches here:

intratext.com/X/ENG1199.HTM

All in full communion, however, the governance varies with the four types of sui iuris Catholic churches: Patriarchal , Major Archiepiscopal, Metropolitan, and other (without own hierarchy).

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=601&pictureid=11498