IF reunion, then WHO is Patriarch?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Claudius
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Claudius

Guest
First, I am not putting this up to start a fight. NO FIGHTING. It is just an achademic, hypothetical, almost purely legal question.

When we look at and begin to understand the history and situation of Christianity in the middle east we do get a picture. We see great saints but also deep schism. We now are in a great time in the life of the Church where some fo these deep schisms are becoming shallow and may go away, perhaps even in ourown lifetime (wishful thinking I know but Christians are the people of indestructable hope after all).

My concern is about the leadership, the visible leader who will shepard the united faith. Certainly a unified Church will not, and can not, impose a uniform liturgy on all the faithfull of an area. They would have the authority but would not do it. So one Patriarch or one Bishop will have the charge of different flocks in his area who used in some cases very different liturgies.

So, how could this be done? Should several different Bishops from different rites share power over and area and just be in communion with each other. I get the impression that the Eastern Orthodox will not accept that option.

Also, Alexadria now has four different claiments to the Patriarchal see. Who is the real Patriarch? In a perfect world, they would work it out amongst themselves or have the Pope decide but it seems to me that it won’t be that easy.

I get the feeling that there will be legal arguements made cancerning who retains the legal status of the actual continuation of the original Patriarch. As far as I can tell, the Coptic Orthodox Patriarch is the legal continuation of the original see of St. Mark. If anyone knows otherwise, please correct me and tell me why. Constantinople and Rome are easy to figure out.

However, Antioch posses a problem. Looking at the history and the Cannons of the Church it seems to me that the actual Legal continuation of the original see of Antioch is either the Melkite Patriarch or the Maronite Patriarch. I still am looking for good solid information on the establishment of the Maronite Patriarch to deturmine this for sure but in either case, the Cannonically elected Patriarch of the Orthodox Church of Antioch brought that church into communion with Rome and is now the Melkite Patriarch, with the current Orthodox Church of Antioch not having a real legal claim. The situation is almost mirrored in the Syriac Catholic Church, although legally speaking I think they would have to defer to the Melkite Patriarch.

Jerusalam in actually an interesting situation, it seems that the current oldest line of unbroken Patriarchs there is actually the Latin Patriarch.

If these last two cases prove to be the actual Legal standings in these areas, I can almost predict that the Orthodox will not accept the situation and will want to depose the Catholic Patriarchs before any reunion will happen. How strongly should Catholics assert our Legal rights to these sees is a very good question. Should we let them go to allow reunion? If we do, doesn’t that mean that the Easterns and the Orientals will just start fighting? I would hate to see schism persist over such a simple legal question but schisms have persisted over much less.

With all the recent news I see that reunion is happening, at least at the leadership level but then I look at the history of ecumenism between Catholics and Orthodox and I see a pattern. Bishops get together to talk. They come to a conclusion that should lead to reunion, however the everyday faithfull reject it and depose their bishops to stop reunion. It seems like this pattern has happened many times. Reading the statements from the current Patriarchs I get the impression that if not for this factor, most of the EO Bishops would accept reunion today.

I also see a growing schism between the Eastern Orthodox themselves, separating between the Russian Orthodox and everyone else. I hate to say it but it seems that if reunion happens, it will be with all of Orthodoxy, Eastern and Oriental, to the exclusion of Russia. This would be sad because it would me another thousand years of schism with them to mend. It is easy to get excited about the prospecs of reunion but then we have to realize that we can’t go too fast.

One does wonder though, how many times priest and even bishops from both sides have already come together and secretly shared the Eucharist acknowlaging among themselves what still needs to be preached to the public, that we really are, and have been one Church.

So anyway, to leave off, considering the situation that we find ourselves in, who would be the Patriarch of the various sees in your opinion and why? Why system would be best suited to deciding this quesiton in the case of heated dispute so that we can unify?

I can’t respond all the time since I live in a very different time zone from most of you but I an eager to see any replies.
 
Claudius said:
First, I am not putting this up to start a fight. NO FIGHTING. It is just an achademic, hypothetical, almost purely legal question.

When we look at and begin to understand the history and situation of Christianity in the middle east we do get a picture. We see great saints but also deep schism. We now are in a great time in the life of the Church where some fo these deep schisms are becoming shallow and may go away, perhaps even in ourown lifetime (wishful thinking I know but Christians are the people of indestructable hope after all).

My concern is about the leadership, the visible leader who will shepard the united faith. Certainly a unified Church will not, and can not, impose a uniform liturgy on all the faithfull of an area. They would have the authority but would not do it. So one Patriarch or one Bishop will have the charge of different flocks in his area who used in some cases very different liturgies.

So, how could this be done? Should several different Bishops from different rites share power over and area and just be in communion with each other. I get the impression that the Eastern Orthodox will not accept that option.

Also, Alexadria now has four different claiments to the Patriarchal see. Who is the real Patriarch? In a perfect world, they would work it out amongst themselves or have the Pope decide but it seems to me that it won’t be that easy.

I get the feeling that there will be legal arguements made cancerning who retains the legal status of the actual continuation of the original Patriarch. As far as I can tell, the Coptic Orthodox Patriarch is the legal continuation of the original see of St. Mark. If anyone knows otherwise, please correct me and tell me why. Constantinople and Rome are easy to figure out.

However, Antioch posses a problem. Looking at the history and the Cannons of the Church it seems to me that the actual Legal continuation of the original see of Antioch is either the Melkite Patriarch or the Maronite Patriarch. I still am looking for good solid information on the establishment of the Maronite Patriarch to deturmine this for sure but in either case, the Cannonically elected Patriarch of the Orthodox Church of Antioch brought that church into communion with Rome and is now the Melkite Patriarch, with the current Orthodox Church of Antioch not having a real legal claim. The situation is almost mirrored in the Syriac Catholic Church, although legally speaking I think they would have to defer to the Melkite Patriarch.

Jerusalam in actually an interesting situation, it seems that the current oldest line of unbroken Patriarchs there is actually the Latin Patriarch.

If these last two cases prove to be the actual Legal standings in these areas, I can almost predict that the Orthodox will not accept the situation and will want to depose the Catholic Patriarchs before any reunion will happen. How strongly should Catholics assert our Legal rights to these sees is a very good question. Should we let them go to allow reunion? If we do, doesn’t that mean that the Easterns and the Orientals will just start fighting? I would hate to see schism persist over such a simple legal question but schisms have persisted over much less.

With all the recent news I see that reunion is happening, at least at the leadership level but then I look at the history of ecumenism between Catholics and Orthodox and I see a pattern. Bishops get together to talk. They come to a conclusion that should lead to reunion, however the everyday faithfull reject it and depose their bishops to stop reunion. It seems like this pattern has happened many times. Reading the statements from the current Patriarchs I get the impression that if not for this factor, most of the EO Bishops would accept reunion today.

I also see a growing schism between the Eastern Orthodox themselves, separating between the Russian Orthodox and everyone else. I hate to say it but it seems that if reunion happens, it will be with all of Orthodoxy, Eastern and Oriental, to the exclusion of Russia. This would be sad because it would me another thousand years of schism with them to mend. It is easy to get excited about the prospecs of reunion but then we have to realize that we can’t go too fast.

One does wonder though, how many times priest and even bishops from both sides have already come together and secretly shared the Eucharist acknowlaging among themselves what still needs to be preached to the public, that we really are, and have been one Church.

So anyway, to leave off, considering the situation that we find ourselves in, who would be the Patriarch of the various sees in your opinion and why? Why system would be best suited to deciding this quesiton in the case of heated dispute so that we can unify?

I can’t respond all the time since I live in a very different time zone from most of you but I an eager to see any replies.
Click to expand...
Shlomo Claudius,

I remember reading on ByzCath that the Ukrainian Greek Catholics said they would secede the Patriarchate to the Ukrainian Orthodox should reunion with the UO occur.

I think there would be a lot of compromising that would take place in which person would hold the Patriarchate. For example there are 2 Patriarchates of Antioch for the Catholics, the Melkites and the Maronites (the Syriac Catholics are without a Patriarch right now). I think it would make sense to have just one Patriarch, and eventually that will happen. I am of the opinion that the Syriac Orthodox are the closest OO to return to Communion with Rome. I think a Council or Synod would have to be held to decide who is the Patriarch. All of them (Maronites, Melkites, Syriacs) have legitimate ties to it, from what I have read.

In reading about the status of the TAC and their reunion with Rome, their Bishops (who are married) said they would be willing to step down from the roles. I would be interested to see how it would play out with the EO and OO when they return to communion with the Holy Catholic Church.

Alaha minokhoun,
Andrew
 
Claudius said:
.

I also see a growing schism between the Eastern Orthodox themselves, separating between the Russian Orthodox and everyone else. I hate to say it but it seems that if reunion happens, it will be with all of Orthodoxy, Eastern and Oriental, to the exclusion of Russia…
Click to expand...
Dear Mr. Claudius, I think you are trying to hard to create rocks from smoke.
  1. Unity of Christ Church is not moving so fast that you must pick for yourself the “correct” patriarchs. Before comes Unity of Christian Churches must come understanding, cooperation.
  2. Unity of Christ church will be easier if Catolics let go of idea “Pope will choose”. There are many ancient means of bishop choosing - best may be Nestorian way. Place all names of such possible men in box, have small child pick a name.
  3. Understanding and cooperation require that you see reality and not “schisms” and all kind intrigues. Russian Orthodox Church has- since fall of Konstantinopl - been having arguments with Patriarch of Konstantionopl. But there will be no schism. Misunderstandings but not schisms. Catolics have also misunderstandings, and real schisms such between Tridentalists and Papalists (or society Pij X as it is called and church run by Bishop of Rome).
Pray to Holy Spirit. Stop worrying. God’s plans are better.

NB- perhaps if living in Japan can have more fulfilling Christian life helping or getting to know Orthodox church in Japan

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/prav-yaponia.livejournal.com/prav-yaponia.livejournal.com/

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
If the Churches were to reunite, I think we all know that by default the new Patriarch would be Chuck Norris. I’m certainly not going to be the one to tell him that he isn’t…
 
Fuerza said:
If the Churches were to reunite, I think we all know that by default the new Patriarch would be Chuck Norris. I’m certainly not going to be the one to tell him that he isn’t…
Click to expand...
:tsktsk:
 
Harpazo said:
(the Syriac Catholics are without a Patriarch right now).
Click to expand...
I wasn’t aware of that, but yes you are correct. According to CNEWA:
In a letter to him dated January 25, 2008, Pope Benedict XVI accepted the resignation of Syrian Patriarch Ignatius Peter VIII, who had been in office since 2001. The Pope acknowledged that the Patriarch had resigned because of his “concern for the spiritual progress of the faithful and for harmony among bishops.” The Pope entrusted the leadership of the Syrian Catholic Church to a committee composed of three bishops pending the election of a new Patriarch.
Click to expand...
(I’m guessing there was a thread on this back in January, which was before I joined up.)
 
Place all names of such possible men in box, have small child pick a name.
Click to expand...
One slight problem with this. Who gets to pick the child? The followers of one or the others? Will it be a little boy, or little girl? Will it be a five year old, six, or seven? Should it be sombody from a completely different nationality Knowing todays politics, conspiracy theories will be aplenty.
 
Peter_J said:
I wasn’t aware of that, but yes you are correct. According to CNEWA:

(I’m guessing there was a thread on this back in January, which was before I joined up.)
Click to expand...
My pastor had mentioned to me that the Syriacs had talked about combining with the Maronites because of their small numbers. Now would be a great time to do this, that is if the Syriacs are still interested.

Alaha minokhoun,
Andrew
 
For the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church the answer is clear. We would once again be under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. This would be great since we share the same Byzantine Rite with the EP. Relations with the Carpatho-Russian Orthodox in the US are good so I imagine we would soon be in the same organizational structure. There may be some OCA churches that would want to be a part of it since much of the OCA was originally Greek Catholic.
 
The correct answer is All the patriarchs would still be patriarchs.

As one of the Assyrian Catholic priests so eloquently stated, the Pope is to Patriarchs as Patriarchs are to Bishops. Once united with the church, it’s a non-issue. If the churches share the same tradition and decide to merge, it’s their synods and the Pope who must agree.

It’s no academic exercise, either. Each has a flock until the synods combine or divide them. There are 3 patriarchs “of Alexandria”, each of a different tradition and rite. There is no need to see division in that, for in this way, more may answer the call, and receive slightly different “accidents” (side benefits, perceptions) of the same faith.

Basil: It is unlikely that the Ruthenian Metropolia would be placed under a Patriarchal church. Otherwise, the Ukrainians, Ruthenians, and several others would likely have been placed under the Melkite patriarch already. Why are they not? Each has a difference in praxis that has grown with a unique and valuable tradition.
 
Dear brother Aramis,
Aramis said:
The correct answer is All the patriarchs would still be patriarchs.
Click to expand...
I think this would be normative, but I believe the Catholic principle is that the Patriarch whose see has the most ancient establishment will have precedence. Thus, the Coptic Catholic Pope would cede to the Oriental Orthodox Pope. Of course, in circumstances when such an identification would not be so easy, the most charitable course would be the one you propose. Not sure what the EO pope (Coptic, that is) would do.
As one of the Assyrian Catholic priests so eloquently stated, the Pope is to Patriarchs as Patriarchs are to Bishops. Once united with the church, it’s a non-issue. If the churches share the same tradition and decide to merge, it’s their synods and the Pope who must agree.

It’s no academic exercise, either. Each has a flock until the synods combine or divide them.
Click to expand...
Though there is no canonical precedent for it, Synods together with the Pope can certainly combine jurisdictions, but as far as I know, only an Ecumenical Council can split jurisdictions. A Canon of an Ecumenical Council (I forget which one) forbids the splitting of jurisdictions.

Basil: It is unlikely that the Ruthenian Metropolia would be placed under a Patriarchal church. Otherwise, the Ukrainians, Ruthenians, and several others would likely have been placed under the Melkite patriarch already. Why are they not? Each has a difference in praxis that has grown with a unique and valuable tradition.
Click to expand...

Wonderful point! Religious identity is indeed very important!

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Aramis said:
The correct answer is All the patriarchs would still be patriarchs.

As one of the Assyrian Catholic priests so eloquently stated, the Pope is to Patriarchs as Patriarchs are to Bishops. Once united with the church, it’s a non-issue. If the churches share the same tradition and decide to merge, it’s their synods and the Pope who must agree.

It’s no academic exercise, either. Each has a flock until the synods combine or divide them. There are 3 patriarchs “of Alexandria”, each of a different tradition and rite. There is no need to see division in that, for in this way, more may answer the call, and receive slightly different “accidents” (side benefits, perceptions) of the same faith.

Basil: It is unlikely that the Ruthenian Metropolia would be placed under a Patriarchal church. Otherwise, the Ukrainians, Ruthenians, and several others would likely have been placed under the Melkite patriarch already. Why are they not? Each has a difference in praxis that has grown with a unique and valuable tradition.
Click to expand...
This is a pretty good response and it would be nice if we would all be able to take the view that each aspect of the Catholic Church, Latin rite or Eastern rite, is universal and can coexist even within the same bishopric or even Parish. It would be truely amazing if there were more church buildings that operated like the Holy Sepulcur (without all the fighting of course). In this church several rites of the Catholic Church as well as many from those not currently in communion with Rome celebrate. They each follow their own rite and each is valid. Wouldn’t it be amazing if instead of needing a completely separate building for each rite, if say, even in the United States, several different rites could use and cohabitate within the same church building. The logistics would have to be worked out and some aspects would be hard to manage since some prex require the churches to be build in a different way from others but still, it would be great to accomplish it. It would I hope see the growth of the Eastern Rites in the United States. (and hey, if the protestants aren’t going to become Latins then they just need to become Easter, as long as they become Catholic so we can all stop worrying about them).

Yet I just know that people will fight over the Three ancient Sees that currently have more then one patriarch. I also know that Moscow will want to claim all Slavonic rite christians for its patriarch.

Of course one solution that I see is to do as they did at the end of the western schism. Each of the patriarchs that share a See will resign and a unified Church will choose a new patriarch for everyone.

Or we could just recognize the obvious. Instead of Five Patriarchs for Antioch, we will have a Patriarch for Damascus, and one for Beirut. Damascus will be Greek rite and Beirut will be Syriac rite. That would solve it for me but I also know that any such simple solution will be rejected.

I do worry about this because I see it as an obsticle to unity that I pray for everday. Our leaders will need to be brave and realize that keeping a Patriarchal seat is not more important than unity.

Perhaps also it is time for any given Patriarch or Bishop to be able to care for and embrace any rite that happens to be in his jurisdiction. That way we will have one Bishop but in his jurisdiction there will be any number of rites as is needed for the sanctity of souls.
 
Simple answer: They are currently many Patriarchs - if reunion, they would all remain Patriarchs, they would just be in union with one another like they were before the split.

As to who would be “your” Patriarch, it would depend on which Church you were a member of…if Roman Catholic, the the Pope of Rome, who is one of the Patriarchs, would remain your Patriarch. If you are Coptic, then the Pope of Alexandria would remain your Patriarch, etc., etc. I am Melkite, so my Patriarch is Gregorios III.
 
I like the idea of the old patriarchs retiring and a new one being chosen after unity. I say let the Pope choose, since the EO are willing to recognize him even now as the “court of last appeal” so to speak.

And that Nestorian method sounds like an absolute bunch of nonsense.
 
BennyBoy89 said:
I like the idea of the old patriarchs retiring and a new one being chosen after unity. I say let the Pope choose, since the EO are willing to recognize him even now as the “court of last appeal” so to speak.

And that Nestorian method sounds like an absolute bunch of nonsense.
Click to expand...
BennyBoy89,

Sounds like a plan; however, one minor flaw in your logic…if the old Patriarchs retire, then the Pope of Rome retires too because he is one of the old Patriarchs!

😉
Christy
 
Claudius:

Having seen the Byzantine DL celebrated at two roman parishes, and knowing the Roman Mass can be celebrated at a Byzantine parish (It is allowed by canon law)… there is hope.

But, far more valuable to our poor limited human selves is to embrace the differences as a good thing, and encourage all the Ritual Churches to expand to where ever they have members. For what fills the human needs in worship for one may not match one’s neighbor’s needs. (My neighbors don’t even all agree there is a God… let alone that faith alone is no assurance of admission to Heaven)

And further, to pray for reunification of our separated brethren, whether in “small groups” like the several thousand Assyrian Catholics, or larger groups, like the Ukrainian Orthodox did in the 16th century, or even one family at a time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top