Middle East Synod: "Power to the Patriarchs"

[yeshua]

Hello,

Lots of heat coming from Rome. I personally don’t believe much action will come from the proceedings, let alone do I have faith in the final documents to be presented to His Holiness for review. If words matter, however, than I am encouraged by our heirarchs standing up in the past two days.

Case in point, a report on today’s continued calling for the return of Patriarchal privileges—from a Maronite, no less. It is interesting to note that despite all of the detrimental issues facing Christians in the Middle East (home for some of us posting), our hierarchs felt the topic most in need was their relationship with Rome, or rather, the limitations on our churches, and privileges restored to our leadership. Read the full index of reporting on the Synod here. A sort of “give us the authority so we can properly do our job” attitude.

Summary of potential requests on this issue to be sent for review to His Holiness, as reported by the NCR:

• Eastern Churches in Europe, North America, and elsewhere should be allowed to ordain married priests, not just in the “historical” territories of those churches

• Patriarchs and other heads of Eastern Churches should have authority over their communities all around the world, not just those back home

• Eastern Patriarchs should automatically have the right to cast votes in papal elections, and should take precedence over cardinals

• The process of papal approval of the election of bishops by the synods of Eastern Churches should be simplified and sped up.

What I am most curious about for this forum are the views of other Easterners & Orientals of this particular emphasis of the Synod (recognizing the disparity in opinion often among us), and the perspective of our Latin brothers in observing this rather rare example of when East meets West, literally, with requests in (perhaps?) contradiction to their individual church’s present structures.

Are we witnessing how the Early Church functioned when the East turned for help to the West, which was quite the common occurrence in our early days? If not, what are we witnessing?

 

[malphono]

I personally don’t believe much action will come from the proceedings, let alone do I have faith in the final documents to be presented to His Holiness for review. If words matter, however, than I am encouraged by our heirarchs standing up in the past two days.

Case in point, a report on today’s continued calling for the return of Patriarchal privileges—from a Maronite, no less. It is interesting to note that despite all of the detrimental issues facing Christians in the Middle East (home for some of us posting), our hierarchs felt the topic most in need was their relationship with Rome, or rather, the limitations on our churches, and privileges restored to our leadership. Read the full index of reporting on the Synod here. A sort of “give us the authority so we can properly do our job” attitude. …

Are we witnessing how the Early Church functioned when the East turned for help to the West, which was quite the common occurrence in our early days? If not, what are we witnessing?

I doubt much will actually happen, but I’ll reserve further comment until the results are in. At this point I can’t say anything except “min chouf.”

 

[Hesychios]

Awesome.

 

[yeshua]

I doubt much will actually happen, but I’ll reserve further comment until the results are in. At this point I can’t say anything except “min chouf.”

Indeed we will.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Well, the fact that such points are being raised at all by Eastern Catholic hierarchs and clergy is nothing short of miraculous!

No one, Rome included, will give the Patriarchs and other Heads of the Eastern Catholic Churches the rights that they have always historically had but do not today. The Eastern Catholic Synods must simply implement those recommendations of theirs by themselves and move in tandem with the faithful in their Particular Churches.

For example, the UGCC Patriarch and his Synod exercises authority outside Ukraine and throughout the diaspora. Rome doesn’t like that and doesn’t like the UGCC calling their Primate a “Patriarch.” In fact, when Pope John Paul II visited Ukraine, Patriarch Lubomyr was so called throughout the Liturgies the Pope was present at - and if silence gives consent, well then . . . .

In addition, the Eastern Catholic Particular Churches should also reclaim their right to canonize their own saints for veneration in their Particular Churches. This debate developed in the 19th century in the UGCC (I think I prefer “Ukrainian Orthodox Catholic” myself )with respect to the canonization of St Josaphat. Rome did canonize him in 1875, however, it is interesting to note that when Rome did canonize him, his cultus was LIMITED to the Eastern Catholic Churches at the time and was not extended to the Latin Church until 1888. There was no reason why the UGCC could not have canonized him for purposes of a cultus in the UGCC and any other Eastern Catholic Church that wished to place his name in their calendar as well. Pope Benedict today hearkens back to the days in the West when local bishops beatified their local saints by insisting (with the exception of Bl. John H. Newman) that the local ordinaries do the beatifications.

The Eastern Catholic Churches do not have the title “Blessed” to indicate a local saint, but use the title “Saint” beginning with local veneration, regional and then church-wide and universal veneration of the same.

Again, no one will “give” the Eastern Catholic Churches any of their historic rights back. They must take them back themselves with the support of their hierarchs, clergy, monastics and laity acting as one.

Alex

 

[malphono]

Well, the fact that such points are being raised at all by Eastern Catholic hierarchs and clergy is nothing short of miraculous!

No one, Rome included, will give the Patriarchs and other Heads of the Eastern Catholic Churches the rights that they have always historically had but do not today. The Eastern Catholic Synods must simply implement those recommendations of theirs by themselves and move in tandem with the faithful in their Particular Churches.

I think it’s safe to say that, left to her own devices, Rome would be the last to recognize the historical prerogatives of Patriarchs and Catholicoi. (The situation for Major Archbishops is a bit different since that office is strictly a Roman invention, but I digress.) Interestingly enough, there was some movement in that direction by Rome in the waning years of Paul VI. Perhaps “movement” is too strong a word, since it was more like “laying a little groundwork” than anything else, but in any case, in the end, even that was stopped dead in its tracks. What little had been done was reversed in by 1979 once the “new administration” was in fully in place.

That said, it’s not beyond the realm of possibility that the Rome will act favorably on the propositions currently on the table. I wouldn’t exactly call it a “change of heart” or anything like that, but it puts Rome in a position of responding to the expressed needs of the Patriarchs which, taking the “High Petrine view,” is definitely her responsibility.

It seems to me that for the Particular Churches to assume (or, better, re-assume) their prerogatives unilaterally would be yet another cause of strife.

Again, no one will “give” the Eastern Catholic Churches any of their historic rights back. They must take them back themselves with the support of their hierarchs, clergy, monastics and laity acting as one.

I’m not clairvoyant so I don’t know what, if anything, will come of this, but still I hope for the best. This is a “wait and see” situation.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Well, with respect to your point on strife - I think it is possible for an EC church to back up its Patriarch and Synod as is now the case in the UGCC. When our Patriarch Joseph the Hieroconfessor came out of Siberia, there certainly was internal strife emanating from bishops who refused to recognize him as Patriarch unless Rome declared him such.

Lots of strife and I remember living through it all.

But we’ve grown as a Particular Church and today our Patriarch is called that by one and all, even by the religious orders in our Church that have, historically, been a source for Latinization.

And I think the Melkites would be a prime candidate for such a movement - I think they already go ahead and act as a Particular Church and only AFTER THE FACT do they inform Rome about what they’ve done.

After all, it is always easier to ask for forgiveness . . . than to ask for permission

Alex

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Well, the fact that such points are being raised at all by Eastern Catholic hierarchs and clergy is nothing short of miraculous!

No one, Rome included, will give the Patriarchs and other Heads of the Eastern Catholic Churches the rights that they have always historically had but do not today. The Eastern Catholic Synods must simply implement those recommendations of theirs by themselves and move in tandem with the faithful in their Particular Churches.

For example, the UGCC Patriarch and his Synod exercises authority outside Ukraine and throughout the diaspora. Rome doesn’t like that and doesn’t like the UGCC calling their Primate a “Patriarch.” In fact, when Pope John Paul II visited Ukraine, Patriarch Lubomyr was so called throughout the Liturgies the Pope was present at - and if silence gives consent, well then . . . .

In addition, the Eastern Catholic Particular Churches should also reclaim their right to canonize their own saints for veneration in their Particular Churches. This debate developed in the 19th century in the UGCC (I think I prefer “Ukrainian Orthodox Catholic” myself )with respect to the canonization of St Josaphat. Rome did canonize him in 1875, however, it is interesting to note that when Rome did canonize him, his cultus was LIMITED to the Eastern Catholic Churches at the time and was not extended to the Latin Church until 1888. There was no reason why the UGCC could not have canonized him for purposes of a cultus in the UGCC and any other Eastern Catholic Church that wished to place his name in their calendar as well. Pope Benedict today hearkens back to the days in the West when local bishops beatified their local saints by insisting (with the exception of Bl. John H. Newman) that the local ordinaries do the beatifications.

The Eastern Catholic Churches do not have the title “Blessed” to indicate a local saint, but use the title “Saint” beginning with local veneration, regional and then church-wide and universal veneration of the same.

Again, no one will “give” the Eastern Catholic Churches any of their historic rights back. They must take them back themselves with the support of their hierarchs, clergy, monastics and laity acting as one.

Alex

I heartily second what Alexander has to say here. One danger I immediately see with the attitude of the Patriarchs and other Eastern hierarchs being “given” any sort of authority by Rome is the possibility of that authority being “taken away” by Rome. Traditionally Rome strictly speaking had no “authority” over the other Patriarchs, but rather had authority with the other Patriarchs, especially those Patriarchs of the other four Apostolic Sees. The Patriarchs and their Synods were always the highest authority within their local Church sui juris, whether it came down to electing bishops or a new patriarch, ordaining married men, establishing new Churches and monasteries, or even clarifying Church teaching.

Personally I agree with Kyr Elias Zoghby, as well as Alexander. The Patriarchs need to simply reclaim the authority that is traditionally there and not look to Rome to “give back” that authority to them. If they reclaim their rightful authority, Rome will eventually get into step, so to speak.

 

[malphono]

After all, it is always easier to ask for forgiveness . . . than to ask for permission

Doing something on a de-facto basis, even if one is not called on the carpet for it, is one thing, but attempting to make the very same thing de-jure is far different.

For example, I believe it was the Melkite bishop in the US (Kyr John) who insisted on ordaining a married man. He did, and was called on the Roman carpet over it, but that was the end of it. What he did was not the same as if the Synod had mandated it. If it had been the latter, it’s rather likely that the repercussions would have far more pronounced.

In any case, I don’t see the current propositions as asking for “permission” as much as I see them as asking for recognition.

 

[dvdjs]

Personally I agree with Kyr Elias Zoghby, as well as Alexander. The Patriarchs need to simply reclaim the authority that is traditionally there …

Please help me out here. During the era of the united, first millenium church, what authority did each Patriarch have outside of his canonical territory?

 

[joeantony]

Hi all,

Help me with this here. What i understood is that. the EC synod ask the Pope to validate their ordaining of married men or their plan to ordain married men? This I believe is one of the things that they proposed, because I have not read the entire article.

If this is the case if rome “aprove” their request, won’t other suris juris churches also make the same demand? and once all of them start making such demands how Latin church hold its gorunds?

With prayers,
Joe

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Please help me out here. During the era of the united, first millenium church, what authority did each Patriarch have outside of his canonical territory?

I think the real question would be, did the First Millennium Church have the same notion of “canonical territory” as the Third Millennium Church has? I’m not qualified to answer that question.

A bishop is a bishop whether he is within or outside of his canonical territory, and as such he always has authority among the faithful, although he may have to defer to the authority of the bishop in whose See he is wandering or preaching.

In the Third Millennium, as was pointed out in one of the reports coming from the Synod, the situation is different from the First Millennium in that we must now deal with the issue of the “diaspora”. All Catholics in such areas the North and South America, Australia, etc., whether Roman, Melkite, Maronite, or otherwise, are all considered “diaspora” in the sense that they are outside of any traditional Patriarch territory. The movement is to shift emphasis from canonical territory to canonical sui juris Church. This means that the Pope and Patriarch of the West would have Patriarchal authority over the entire Roman Church, the Melkite Patriarch would have authority over the entire Melkite Church, the Maronite Patriarch would have authority over the entire Maronite Church, etc. no matter where whatever particular Church finds itself. So the highest authority for the Melkites throughout the world would be the Patriarch and his Synod, same for the Maronites, Coptics, Romans, etc.

Does this help at all? I had to leave in the middle of writing this, so I lost my train of thought…

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Hi all,

Help me with this here. What i understood is that. the EC synod ask the Pope to validate their ordaining of married men or their plan to ordain married men? This I believe is one of the things that they proposed, because I have not read the entire article.

If this is the case if rome “aprove” their request, won’t other suris juris churches also make the same demand? and once all of them start making such demands how Latin church hold its gorunds?

With prayers,
Joe

For any of the Eastern Churches to ordain married men is nothing out of the usual. They have been ordaining married men without interruption since Apostolic times. There was a time when they were not permitted to ordain married men in such areas as North and South America, England, Australia, etc. because of fear that Roman Catholics would be scandalized by the thought of a married priest. That time has now passed. Still, since the first immigrants from Eastern European and Middle Eastern countries came to the United States, there have been married Eastern Catholic priests.

It doesn’t necessarily mean that there will be a push among Roman Catholics to permit married men to become priests, although I’m sure certain factions within Roman Catholicism would try to push the issue. But even the Roman Church permits married men to become priests from time to time. In fact, I’ve heard that there are currently more married Roman Catholic priests in the U.S. than there are married Eastern Catholic priests.

 

[Hesychios]

I heartily second what Alexander has to say here. One danger I immediately see with the attitude of the Patriarchs and other Eastern hierarchs being “given” any sort of authority by Rome is the possibility of that authority being “taken away” by Rome. Traditionally Rome strictly speaking had no “authority” over the other Patriarchs, but rather had authority with the other Patriarchs, especially those Patriarchs of the other four Apostolic Sees. The Patriarchs and their Synods were always the highest authority within their local Church sui juris, whether it came down to electing bishops or a new patriarch, ordaining married men, establishing new Churches and monasteries, or even clarifying Church teaching.

Personally I agree with Kyr Elias Zoghby, as well as Alexander. The Patriarchs need to simply reclaim the authority that is traditionally there and not look to Rome to “give back” that authority to them. If they reclaim their rightful authority, Rome will eventually get into step, so to speak.

I would be impressed if these things happened.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

I would be impressed if these things happened.

I would be impressed as well, but we can always hope and pray.

 

[ConstantineTG]

For any of the Eastern Churches to ordain married men is nothing out of the usual. They have been ordaining married men without interruption since Apostolic times. There was a time when they were not permitted to ordain married men in such areas as North and South America, England, Australia, etc. because of fear that Roman Catholics would be scandalized by the thought of a married priest. That time has now passed. Still, since the first immigrants from Eastern European and Middle Eastern countries came to the United States, there have been married Eastern Catholic priests.

It doesn’t necessarily mean that there will be a push among Roman Catholics to permit married men to become priests, although I’m sure certain factions within Roman Catholicism would try to push the issue. But even the Roman Church permits married men to become priests from time to time. In fact, I’ve heard that there are currently more married Roman Catholic priests in the U.S. than there are married Eastern Catholic priests.

Most, if not all married RC priests are converts from Protestant denominations with married clergy. Given that the US is mostly Protestant and a number could have converted, thus the number. Also with a number of Anglicans reuniting with Rome, this number would increase. Anglicans will be, as they were in the past, part of the Roman Church, thus they are RC priests.

 

[yeshua]

Well, with respect to your point on strife - I think it is possible for an EC church to back up its Patriarch and Synod as is now the case in the UGCC. When our Patriarch Joseph the Hieroconfessor came out of Siberia, there certainly was internal strife emanating from bishops who refused to recognize him as Patriarch unless Rome declared him such.

Lots of strife and I remember living through it all.

But we’ve grown as a Particular Church and today our Patriarch is called that by one and all, even by the religious orders in our Church that have, historically, been a source for Latinization.

And I think the Melkites would be a prime candidate for such a movement - I think they already go ahead and act as a Particular Church and only AFTER THE FACT do they inform Rome about what they’ve done.

After all, it is always easier to ask for forgiveness . . . than to ask for permission

Alex

Perhaps in matters of practicality, like Malphono’s Melkite example, but at a synodal level it falsifies the romantic “high petrine” view. If we truly we exist in a world where, “no one will ‘give’ the Eastern Catholic Churches any of their historic rights back…they must take them back themselves,” why do you speak about asking forgiveness for your actions after the fact?

If it were simply a matter of acting on our own accord, what need is there to even petition Rome as we do at this Middle East Synod, and await further instruction. The penchant failure of the “high petrine” view is exactly this; idealistic—dare I say historically sound—in principle but not reflective of our current (and certainly not previous) affairs.

 

[dvdjs]

I think the real question would be, did the First Millennium Church have the same notion of “canonical territory” as the Third Millennium Church has? I’m not qualified to answer that question.

A bishop is a bishop whether he is within or outside of his canonical territory, and as such he always has authority among the faithful, although he may have to defer to the authority of the bishop in whose See he is wandering or preaching.

In the Third Millennium, as was pointed out in one of the reports coming from the Synod, the situation is different from the First Millennium in that we must now deal with the issue of the “diaspora”. All Catholics in such areas the North and South America, Australia, etc., whether Roman, Melkite, Maronite, or otherwise, are all considered “diaspora” in the sense that they are outside of any traditional Patriarch territory. The movement is to shift emphasis from canonical territory to canonical sui juris Church. This means that the Pope and Patriarch of the West would have Patriarchal authority over the entire Roman Church, the Melkite Patriarch would have authority over the entire Melkite Church, the Maronite Patriarch would have authority over the entire Maronite Church, etc. no matter where whatever particular Church finds itself. So the highest authority for the Melkites throughout the world would be the Patriarch and his Synod, same for the Maronites, Coptics, Romans, etc.

Does this help at all? I had to leave in the middle of writing this, so I lost my train of thought…

No not at all. You wrote:

The Patriarchs need to simply reclaim the authority that is traditionally there …

Now you are talking about the distinctive situation of the third millenium. So were you talking about a tradition of ten years?

We have had diaspora before – even in the first millenium. How was it handled traditionally?

My thought: There are lots of ideas about the authority that one might like one’s patriarch to have. But let’s be honest about what is innovation and what is tradition, and avoid special pleading.

And let’s think hard about how we would like to handle issues that arise between sui juris churches on common territory. The Orthodox in America are not especially fond of the “power to the homeland patriarch” approach that they are largely saddled with.

 

[josephdaniel29]

Hi all,

Help me with this here. What i understood is that. the EC synod ask the Pope to validate their ordaining of married men or their plan to ordain married men? This I believe is one of the things that they proposed, because I have not read the entire article.

Quite frankly whether or not another local Church wants to ordain married men should be none of the Pope’s business.

In Christ
Joe

 

[5Loaves]

In fact, I’ve heard that there are currently more married Roman Catholic priests in the U.S. than there are married Eastern Catholic priests.

According to this Q & A with Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan from 2008 on married men becoming priests in the [Latin] Catholic Church, they had about 100 serving in the US. There may well be a few more since this is from 2 years ago.

There are **approximately 100 active priests **in the United States who are married. Without exception they came to Catholicism from other churches…They are now active in priestly ministry throughout the country.

So, do we really have fewer than that in ECCs/OCCs in the US?