Orthodox Churches, and Eastern Rite

[mardukm]

Dear brother Malphono,

Depends, really, on how he’s charged. IIRC there was at least one case where a co-adjutor was named with something of a “veto power” over the incumbent bishop. Rome can always declare that the incumbent is “non compis mentis” or in some other way “impaired” from carrying out his office.

OK. Some questions:
(1) This co-adjutor bishop you mention, was the “veto power” with regards to decisions by the incumbent that might be against religion, or just in general.
(2) Why was this co-adjutor given this “veto-power?” Was the incumbent actually impaired in some way?
(3) When you say “Rome can always declare…,” are you saying that the Pope can do this arbitrarily, or does the bishop actually have to be impaired in some way?
(4) If the Pope actually had such power to impede the ordinary authority of a local bishop, why would he need to resort to such a round-about way of impeding the local bishop’s authority? Why doesn’t the Pope simply command, “I don’t like you. Off you go.?” My impression is, of course, that either the Pope does not actually have the power to impede the ordinary authority of a bishop in his local diocese, or the Pope himself knows that, even if he had such authority, it is constrained by the divine constitution of the Church which affirms that the authority of a bishop in his local diocese is also of divine origin.

Yes, but Rome can and does split diocese at will. And if such can be split, they can be joined.

I do recall reading in the old Catholic Encyclopedia that the process of reorganizing dioceses is not contained in canon law, but is governed by custom. The normative process for splitting the diocese is for the Pope to do so with the consent of the ordinary. The old CE does opine that while the Pope is not bound by this condition, it has nevertheless always been done that way. The old CE also notes that a diocese is split (because it has become too large for proper administration) normally because the ordinary himself requests it anyway.

VERY IMPORTANT NOTE: During the time that the old CE was written, it states (see article on “Bishops”) that it was still a matter of theological debate whether the ordinary jurisdiction of bishops was immediate (i.e., directly from God) or delegated from the Pope - (this, despite the fact that Pastor Aeternus itself describes the ordinary jurisdiction of bishops as “immediate”). The old CE itself testifies to this ambivalence regarding the jurisdiction of bishops - some articles affirm the former position, others the latter position. I guess certain quarters in the Latin Catholic Church at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries thought it was still not settled, despite the clear statement from Pastor Aeternus, because it was not “defined” as such at V1. That would explain the old CE article’s statement that even though the splitting of dioceses by the Pope has always been with the consent of the local ordinary, he is not bound by that condition. Of course, on the principle that the ordinary jurisdiction of a local bishop is indeed immediate (i.e., from God directly), then the Pope would indeed be bound to that condition.

Interestingly (and unfortunately), even though V2 is even more forceful and direct about the Traditional Catholic belief in the immediate jurisdiction of a bishop in his local diocese, this has not prevented Absolutist Petrine advocates from maintaining their heterodox ideas because, as they say, V2 never proclaimed any dogmas. Of course, a Catholic faithful to the Magisterium should know that just because a doctrine is not proclaimed dogma by an exercise of the extraordinary Magisterium, such doctrines can still be infallible and thus authoritative by virtue of the constant, universal ordinary Magisterium of the Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cavaradossi]

Interesting to hear the idea that RCs have such an impact on the way Orthodox shape their liturgy.

I suppose we should call them liars then, when they historically have denied that the Supplices te rogamus functions as an epiclesis.

One problem: The Latins have not continuously insisted that the Words of Institution are the “point of consecration”.

“The form of this sacrament are the words of the Saviour with which he effected this sacrament. A priest speaking in the person of Christ effects this sacrament. For, in virtue of those words, the substance of bread is changed into the body of Christ and the substance of wine into his blood.” - Pope Eugene IV Exultate Deo (i.e., the Bull of Union with the Armenians).

 

[mardukm]

dvdjs:

One problem: The Latins have not continuously insisted that the Words of Institution are the “point of consecration”.

“The form of this sacrament are the words of the Saviour with which he effected this sacrament. A priest speaking in the person of Christ effects this sacrament. For, in virtue of those words, the substance of bread is changed into the body of Christ and the substance of wine into his blood.” - Pope Eugene IV Exultate Deo (i.e., the Bull of Union with the Armenians).

I wonder if brother dvdjs is simply referring to the distinction between the idea of the Words of institution being the “point of consecration” versus the idea that the Words of institution and the epiclesis form one single event. Both positions seem to have been maintained in the Latin Church even after Florence – hence his statement that it has not been “continuously insisted” upon.

Just a possibility.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dvdjs]

The Communists killed and imprisoned far more Eastern Orthodox Christians than they did Greek Catholics.

The Eastern Orthodox Church cannot be blamed for Stalin’s crimes against the Greek Catholics. Our Church was hardly in a position to defy Stalin. Therefore we cannot repent for something that we could not control. As I have already noted, it was not the EO martyrs who conspired with the communists, but another group who remained ascendant after the fall, and continues to pretend that nothing untoward has happened. And this pattern already existed under the czars.

You need to get over your resentment towards whatever happened in Eastern Europe after the fall of Communism. I am quite sure that an honest unbiased evaluation would show that there was fault on both sides. Besides, I am Antiochian and we had nothing to do with it. You cannot blame the entire Eastern Orthodox Church for what you feel were injustices done by some Orthodox to some Greek Catholics.

It is not about what happened after the fall, it is about the murder and mayhem tthat has happened every time the there has bee a opportunity for the EOC to work with the state to liquidate GCCs. It is about acknowledging our right to exist. You dodge and weave and find excuses and do everything but admit to the simple fact that the EOC has been a collaborator, to the present time, in the vicious persecution of or Eastern Catholics. Better just to say, sorry, And mean it.

My only concern in this whole matter is that I find it offensive when Eastern Catholics claim to be Eastern Orthodox in Communion with Rome. That is deception. You cannot be Eastern Orthodox unless you are in communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church.

I don’t use the phrase, Orthodox in Communion with Rome, let alone Eastern Orthodox in Communion with Rome, which I have never heard. I can understand how it grates. But, as I said before, the idea that this was part of a campaign of deception at Brest is unsupportable, and rather misses the point of what really happened to form that union.

 

[dvdjs]

Cavaradossi:
As others have quickly perceived, my issue was not with the kernel of truth in the remark, but its elaboration as though it were the thought, held “continuously”. I think the various responses suffice to dispel that exaggerated view.

 

[Peter_J]

I told you that this particular issue is perhaps the most emotional and divisive controversy between Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics.

Well, there are a few of us who take a calm, measured approach. (I like to think I’m one of them.)

Then again, they may not have anything to do with your comment; I notice you said “Roman Catholics”. I’m an Eastern Catholic, not a Roman-Rite Catholic.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Well, there are a few of us who take a calm, measured approach. (I like to think I’m one of them.)

Then again, they may not have anything to do with your comment; I notice you said “Roman Catholics”. I’m an Eastern Catholic, not a Roman-Rite Catholic.

By Roman Catholic, I mean those Churches in Communion with Rome, because if a local Church is in Communion with Rome it is under Roman authority and is not not what we call an autocephalous Church regardless of how they worship.

Fr. John

 

[Peter_J]

By Roman Catholic, I mean those Churches in Communion with Rome, because if a local Church is in Communion with Rome it is under Roman authority and is not not what we call an autocephalous Church regardless of how they worship.

Fr. John

So your use of “Roman Catholic” is a polemic in highly condensed form?

P.S. Of course, we Catholics never do anything like that. :angel1:

 

[Zekariya]

By Roman Catholic, I mean those Churches in Communion with Rome, because if a local Church is in Communion with Rome it is under Roman authority and is not not what we call an autocephalous Church regardless of how they worship.

Fr. John

Father, it has been made known to you many times that we are not Roman Catholics. Regardless, you could act politely in this matter even if you think us to be Roman Catholics. As someone who has been part of joint dialogues in the past, surely you understand this concept. If you wish, call us “those in Communion with Rome” but please stop using that pejorative term (Roman Catholic) to refer to us.

 

[dvdjs]

By Roman Catholic, I mean those Churches in Communion with Rome, because if a local Church is in Communion with Rome it is under Roman authority and is not not what we call an autocephalous Church regardless of how they worship.

Perhaps you could use the same form that you use for autonomous churches. In post #180 you referred to the " Carpatho Russian Archdiocese under Constantinople". I note that you did not refer to them simply as “Greek Orthodox”.

 

[dvdjs]

Well, there are a few of us who take a calm, measured approach. (I like to think I’m one of them.)

And so would I. I ask very little:

1. 
   *]Let’s work toward a common understanding of history that faces facts and avoids polemical exaggeration and made-up-stuff.
   *]A simple statement from the MP that, even as times were tough for all during the communist era, apologizes for any role that Orthodox Christians might have played in persecution of GCs.
   *]An acknowledgement that the re-union synods were at best egregiously uncanonical and at worst pure fiction.
   *]A clear acknowledgement of the right of GCCs to exist and form parishes wherever they GCs may be. Where ever.
   
   And frankly, I’d settle for just the last item.

 

[spina1953]

It seems to me that not all Catholic’s or Orthodox people practice their traditions whether in union with Rome or not. Eastern Catholic’s who claim to be Orthodx might understand the term or meaning differently. Not everyone whether Orthodox or Catholic of whatever Rite follow their faith as Christains. I’m speaking of the people, not of the Churches itself, by that I mean the people who attend the Churches of their Rite’s. People choose as they will, either to follow what has been taught to them or not. Some attend Church but do not follow what the or that Church teaches. To me it is not important that Some Eastern Catholic Churches say they are Orthodox in union with Rome. That is their choice, whether or not anyone else agrees with them.

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by frjohnmorris
By Roman Catholic, I mean those Churches in Communion with Rome, because if a local Church is in Communion with Rome it is under Roman authority and is not not what we call an autocephalous Church regardless of how they worship.

We have indeed.

Perhaps Father was just making sure that everyone understands why we don’t want to be called “Roman Catholic”.

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by Peter J
Well, there are a few of us who take a calm, measured approach. (I like to think I’m one of them.)

Why thank you dvdjs.

Edit: On second thought, I may have too quick to take a compliment from your post: you may have meant that you consider yourself to be one. In fact, I’m guessing that is what you meant, in view of the fact that my approach isn’t terribly similar to yours.

 

[spina1953]

Father, it has been made known to you many times that we are not Roman Catholics. Regardless, you could act politely in this matter even if you think us to be Roman Catholics. As someone who has been part of joint dialogues in the past, surely you understand this concept. If you wish, call us “those in Communion with Rome” but please stop using that pejorative term (Roman Catholic) to refer to us.

I agree with your statement! It seems to me that every Church in union with Rome are not of the Roman Rite. It has been my understanding based on what I had read that there are now at least 33 Rites within the Cathilc Church. That being said, it seems to me the different Rites only add much to the Catholic faith. To me if a Church is in union with Rome then they are one together with their Rite. That does not mean that they have to somehow use the Latin Rite. East, West, North, or South if a Church is in union with Rome together with their Rite, they are Catholic’s even if they call themselves Orthodox in their own Churches. I think Orthodox is a meaning they understand while some of us might not have the same understanding as they do, I accept it as whether Orthodx in union with Rome or Catholic in union with Rome they are intitled to call themselves what they like whether or not anyone else agrees with them or not

 

[frjohnmorris]

So your use of “Roman Catholic” is a polemic in highly condensed form?

P.S. Of course, we Catholics never do anything like that. :angel1:

Not on purpose. I certainly do not mean it as an insult. However it is also my personal opinion. From my point of view as an Orthodox Christians if a Church is under the Pope it is a form of Roman Catholicism. According to Orthodox theology, Communion signifies complete doctrinal agreement. To us that means that Eastern Catholics may retain the Eastern Liturgy, but they accept all doctrines taught by the Roman Catholic Church including the decisions of the 1st Vatican Council and papal supremacy. What is a group of Christians who accept papal supremacy and agree with the Roman Catholic Church on all doctrinal matters but Roman Catholic? From my point of view it is a matter of intellectual and historical honesty for Eastern Catholics to show enough respect for the right of the Orthodox Church to decide what is Orthodox to cease calling themselves Orthodox in Communion with Rome.

Fr. John

 

[Peter_J]

From my point of view as an Orthodox Christians if a Church is under the Pope it is a form of Roman Catholicism. According to Orthodox theology, Communion signifies complete doctrinal agreement. To us that means that Eastern Catholics may retain the Eastern Liturgy, but they accept all doctrines taught by the Roman Catholic Church including the decisions of the 1st Vatican Council and papal supremacy. What is a group of Christians who accept papal supremacy and agree with the Roman Catholic Church on all doctrinal matters but Roman Catholic? From my point of view it is a matter of intellectual and historical honesty for Eastern Catholics to show enough respect for the right of the Orthodox Church to decide what is Orthodox to cease calling themselves Orthodox in Communion with Rome.

Fr. John

I think this demonstrates why I don’t call myself “Roman Catholic”: if I did, it would be like saying that I accept your view of us.

 

[Zekariya]

Not on purpose. I certainly do not mean it as an insult. However it is also my personal opinion. From my point of view as an Orthodox Christians if a Church is under the Pope it is a form of Roman Catholicism. According to Orthodox theology, Communion signifies complete doctrinal agreement. To us that means that Eastern Catholics may retain the Eastern Liturgy, but they accept all doctrines taught by the Roman Catholic Church including the decisions of the 1st Vatican Council and papal supremacy. What is a group of Christians who accept papal supremacy and agree with the Roman Catholic Church on all doctrinal matters but Roman Catholic? From my point of view it is a matter of intellectual and historical honesty for Eastern Catholics to show enough respect for the right of the Orthodox Church to decide what is Orthodox to cease calling themselves Orthodox in Communion with Rome.

Fr. John

Someone who insists on calling us Roman Catholic is in no position to ask us to respect your opinion on what it means to be Orthodox/orthodox.

 

[frjohnmorris]

I think this demonstrates why I don’t call myself “Roman Catholic”: if I did, it would be like saying that I accept your view of us.

May I ask a question. If you do not agree with the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church why are you a member of a Church in Communion with Rome? Seriously, you are intelligent enough to know that Rome expects obedience from the Melkite Patriarch and that the Melkites agree with Roman Catholic dogma. Although the Menaion of the Melkites honor St. Gregory Palamas, Byzantine Daily Worship, changes the 2nd Sunday in Lent from a commemoration of St. Gregory to a celebration of relics.

Fr. John

 

[Zekariya]

Maybe I should be brutally honest about the EO Church of Antioch.

Seraphim Tanas was consecrated as Cyril VI in the patriarchal cathedral of Damascus on October 1, 1724. The Antipatriarch, Sylvester, was illegally consecrated bishop Sylvester in Istanbul (outside of Antiochian jurisdiction) on October 8, 1724. Patriarch Cyril VI decided, along with his followers, to resume communion with Rome.

Perhaps the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople has universal jurisdiction as an eastern pope of New Rome:

“Eastern Pope” Jeremias III of Constantinople, using his universal jurisdiction as the “Orthodox Supreme Pontiff”, legally removed Patriarch Cyril VI from the See of Antioch and excommunicated him. “Eastern Pope” Jeremias appointed Sylvester of Antioch, a young Greek monk, to the patriarchal See of Antioch using his universal jurisdiction as “Orthodox Supreme Pontiff”. “Eastern Pope” Jeremias consecrated bishop Sylvester in Istanbul on October 8, 1724. And, using his universal jurisdiction, placed him in Antioch.

There is only one issue with this story. The pope only has the honor of being first amongst equals according to the Eastern Orthodox Church.

I will tell the story according to my understanding of “first amongst equals”:

Patriarch Jeremias III of Constantinople illegally removed Patriarch Cyril VI from the See of Antioch even though Jeremias III had no jurisdiction over Antioch. Jeremias illegally appointedSylvester of Antioch, a young Greek monk, to the patriarchal See of Antioch even though that See was legally held by Cyril VI. Jeremias illegally consecrated bishop Sylvester in Istanbul (why not in Antioch?) and placed him illegally into the territory of Antioch on October 8, 1724.