Role of Roman Curia

[Madaglan]

In Ecumenical dialogue between the Western Church and the Orthodox Churches, much has been written about the relationship that would have to exist between the Pope and the other Patriarchs for reunion to suceeed. Many persons agree that if a reunion were to occur, the relationship of the Pope with these Churches and Patriarchs would have to be no different from the first thousand years. Given that the Roman Curia during the first millenium had not yet developed to where it is now, and that during the first 1000 years Rome did not have a Congregation for the Oriental Churches, as it does now, what kind of relationship (if any) would exist between the Roman Curia and the Eastern Orthodox Churches were reunion to occur? Would the Congregation for the Oriental Churches be dissolved, the Eastern Patriarchs taking on this role? Or would it still exist for those Eastern Catholic eparches/dioceses that are directly under Rome?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Thats a tough question because no one would know. Even the Pope or the Orthodox Patriarchs today wouldn’t know. There’ll be a lot of discussions in the process until they find common ground. Who knows how much each side wishes to give and how much they would be insistent on their current views. Any guess could be the right one.

 

[Spirithound]

The Roman Curia simply acts as a delegatory and advisory body for the Pope. Does a bishop of a small diocese interact with the curia of another diocese? Sometimes, if the bishop has delegated a matter to another priest. I would think that this would be the relationship between the Roman Curia and the Easter Patriarchs.

I’m not precisely sure what the Congregation for the Oriental Churches does, but I imagine that the relationship would not change much, since as a matter of what their competence is, the Congregation operates only as an extention of the Pope’s authority.

 

[ciero]

In Ecumenical dialogue between the Western Church and the Orthodox Churches, much has been written about the relationship that would have to exist between the Pope and the other Patriarchs for reunion to suceeed. Many persons agree that if a reunion were to occur, the relationship of the Pope with these Churches and Patriarchs would have to be no different from the first thousand years. Given that the Roman Curia during the first millenium had not yet developed to where it is now, and that during the first 1000 years Rome did not have a Congregation for the Oriental Churches, as it does now, what kind of relationship (if any) would exist between the Roman Curia and the Eastern Orthodox Churches were reunion to occur? Would the Congregation for the Oriental Churches be dissolved, the Eastern Patriarchs taking on this role? Or would it still exist for those Eastern Catholic eparches/dioceses that are directly under Rome?

The Congregation for the Eastern Churches would disappear, the Eastern Catholic Churches would be reabsorbed into their mother churches and the Pope would relate to the other Patriarchs no different then the Patriarch of Constantinople relates to the Patriarch of Moscow.

 

[Apotheoun]

The Congregation for the Eastern Churches would disappear, the Eastern Catholic Churches would be reabsorbed into their mother churches and the Pope would relate to the other Patriarchs no different then the Patriarch of Constantinople relates to the Patriarch of Moscow.

Well said!

 

[Vico]

In Ecumenical dialogue between the Western Church and the Orthodox Churches, much has been written about the relationship that would have to exist between the Pope and the other Patriarchs for reunion to suceeed. Many persons agree that if a reunion were to occur, the relationship of the Pope with these Churches and Patriarchs would have to be no different from the first thousand years. Given that the Roman Curia during the first millenium had not yet developed to where it is now, and that during the first 1000 years Rome did not have a Congregation for the Oriental Churches, as it does now, what kind of relationship (if any) would exist between the Roman Curia and the Eastern Orthodox Churches were reunion to occur? Would the Congregation for the Oriental Churches be dissolved, the Eastern Patriarchs taking on this role? Or would it still exist for those Eastern Catholic eparches/dioceses that are directly under Rome?

The first definition that is needed is what is to be the first 1000 years (e.g., ~ 33 A.D. - 1033 A.D., Jesus turned age thirty in the fifteenth year of Tiberius AD 29). At the very least since the Fourth Council of Constantinople of 869 A.D. (decided against Photius) has there has been a difficult relationship, and that is well before 1033 or 1054, evidenced by the dates (yes it was more than once) that the Bishop of Rome was removed from the diptychs of the Eastern Orthodox before 1054 schism.

dailycatholic.org/history/8ecumen1.htm

 

[mardukm]

In Ecumenical dialogue between the Western Church and the Orthodox Churches, much has been written about the relationship that would have to exist between the Pope and the other Patriarchs for reunion to suceeed. Many persons agree that if a reunion were to occur, the relationship of the Pope with these Churches and Patriarchs would have to be no different from the first thousand years. Given that the Roman Curia during the first millenium had not yet developed to where it is now, and that during the first 1000 years Rome did not have a Congregation for the Oriental Churches, as it does now, what kind of relationship (if any) would exist between the Roman Curia and the Eastern Orthodox Churches were reunion to occur? Would the Congregation for the Oriental Churches be dissolved, the Eastern Patriarchs taking on this role? Or would it still exist for those Eastern Catholic eparches/dioceses that are directly under Rome?

The Roman Curia existed waaaay before the Schism, so its existence is not an issue. It is its modern role that causes feathers to be ruffled.

As I’ve always maintained, the Congregation for the Oriental Churches is necessary for it is the most efficient means by which the needs (material and/or spiritual) of the Eastern/Oriental Churches are transmitted to the Pope. It is also be the most efficient means for the Holy Father to give material aid to the Churches, which has been one of the most ancient and accepted roles of the Church of Rome in relation to the other Churches. Apart from that, I don’t see another role for that Congregation in the life of the Eastern and Oriental Churches. Historically, Curial officials have been at odds with the Pope, especially in matters relating to the Eastern and Oriental Churches. It’s happened in the past, and it can happen again (and has happened recently), and our Churches suffer for it. The potential for such problems increase when there is a “middle-man” between the Pope and his brother non-Latin bishops, especially if that “middle-man” is granted legislative and/or juridical capacities. I would accept the Congregation only in an advisory or executive capacity.

The other concern I have is the CDF. I admit I am not certain if it has any role in the life of the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches. If it does, it should stop. If it wants to legislate, it should be confined to the Latin CC. I’d accept an advisory role for it in the Church universal.

I think the other offices of the Curia are limited in its relation to the Latin CC, so I have no problem with them.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Vico]

The Holy See for the Eastern Catholic Churches is the Congregation for the Eastern Churches (CEC) which has competence over the Eastern Churches, but works with the Secretariate of State (Relations with States) which is competent for the constitution, provision, and alteration of jurisdiction over both the Eastern and Latin institutions in the Mid-East and Eastern Europe.

The dicasteries that have competence with respect to the Eastern Churches, but not over CEC, are:

1. the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,
2. the Congregation for the Causes of Saints,
3. the Apostolic Penitentiary,
4. the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura,
5. the Tribunal of the Roman Rota.

And the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments is competent for ratum et non consummatum marriage cases, the Congregation for the Clergy handles dispensations from Holy Orders, and the Congregation for Cathoilc Education exercises jurisdiction over Catholic universities and faculties including those Eastern.

CDF Substantive Norms Art. 1

§ 1. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, according to art. 52 of the Apostolic Constitution Pastor Bonus[1], judges delicts against the faith, as well as the more grave delicts committed against morals and in the celebration of the sacraments and, whenever necessary, proceeds to declare or impose canonical sanctions according to the norm of both common and proper law, with due regard for the competence of the Apostolic Penitentiary[2] and in keeping with Agendi ratio in doctrinarum examine.[3]
§ 2. With regard to the delicts mentioned above in § 1, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, by mandate of the Roman Pontiff, may judge Cardinals, Patriarchs, Legates of the Apostolic See, Bishops as well as other physical persons mentioned in can. 1405 § 3 of the Code of Canon Law[4], and in can. 1061 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches.[5]
§ 3. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith judges the reserved delicts mentioned in § 1 according to the following norms.

vatican.va/resources/resources_norme_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_19880628_pastor-bonus-roman-curia_en.html#CONGREGATIONS

 

[mardukm]

1. the Congregation for the Causes of Saints,

No problem. It is only relevant if a local bishop decides to forward a cause for universal recognition, and does not interfere with local glorifications.

1. the Apostolic Penitentiary,
2. the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura,
3. the Tribunal of the Roman Rota.

No problem, since they are only involved on appeal.

And the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments is competent for ratum et non consummatum marriage cases

No problem, since in marriage cases, they are only involved on appeal.

the Congregation for the Clergy handles dispensations from Holy Orders, and the Congregation for Cathoilc Education exercises jurisdiction over Catholic universities and faculties including those Eastern.

These have NO role in the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches. The functions of these for the Latin Churches is accomodated in the mandate for the Congregation for the Oriental Churches for the Eastern/Oriental Churches.

CDF Substantive Norms Art. 1

§ 1. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, according to art. 52 of the Apostolic Constitution Pastor Bonus[1], judges delicts against the faith, as well as the more grave delicts committed against morals and in the celebration of the sacraments and, whenever necessary, proceeds to declare or impose canonical sanctions according to the norm of both common and proper law, with due regard for the competence of the Apostolic Penitentiary[2] and in keeping with Agendi ratio in doctrinarum examine.[3]
§ 2. With regard to the delicts mentioned above in § 1, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, by mandate of the Roman Pontiff, may judge Cardinals, Patriarchs, Legates of the Apostolic See, Bishops as well as other physical persons mentioned in can. 1405 § 3 of the Code of Canon Law[4], and in can. 1061 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches.[5]
§ 3. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith judges the reserved delicts mentioned in § 1 according to the following norms.

I wouldn’t trust a group of Latin bishops and theologians to judge on the theological matters of Eastern/Oriental Churches. As stated, I’d accept an advisory role for them in the life of ECC’s and OCC’s.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Hesychios]

… Given that the Roman Curia during the first millenium had not yet developed to where it is now, and that during the first 1000 years Rome did not have a Congregation for the Oriental Churches, as it does now, what kind of relationship (if any) would exist between the Roman Curia and the Eastern Orthodox Churches were reunion to occur?

Every western diocese has a curia, whether it is called that or not. Presumably the bishop of Rome has a curial-type staff for the archdiocese of Rome that is separate and distinct from the Roman curia. I would be interested to see if that is so, and if so when the functions would have been split.

Would the Congregation for the Oriental Churches be dissolved, the Eastern Patriarchs taking on this role? Or would it still exist for those Eastern Catholic eparches/dioceses that are directly under Rome?

The problem with the Congregation for the Oriental Churches is that it is to appearances somewhat like a command and control system. If it existed merely as (and nothing more than) a secretarial and advisory staff for the bishop of Rome that would be understandable, someone has to type his letters and keep his library and records after all. Every Patriarch should have (and does have) assistants to help deal with the relations with other churches.

As it is now the Congregation is (to quote Monsignor Appleyard, whom I once heard say this to a room full of of laughter …) more like the “Bureau of Indian Affairs”. That will not continue if the bishop of Rome has no recognized right or ability to control sister churches. Probably at the point when it lost it’s current authority over the sister churches it would be called something else.

According to the Vatican website …
Its responsibilities were notably increased by Pope Pius XI with the Motu Proprio Sancta Dei Ecclesia of March 25, 1938. More recently Pope Paul VI (Regimini Ecclesiae Universae) and Pope John Paul II (Pastor Bonus) further clarified the scope of the Dicastery, which exercises, ad normam iuris, the same authority over eparchies, bishops, clergy, religious and faithful of the Oriental Rite as do the Congregations for the Bishops, for the Clergy, for the Institutes of Consecrated Life and the Societies of Apostolic Life and for Catholic Education respectively over the dioceses, bishops, clergy, religious and faithful of the Latin Rite. In addition, it has exclusive authority over the following regions: Egypt and the Sinai peninsula, Eritrea and Northern Ethiopia, Southern Albania and Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, Jordan and Turkey.

I suppose the answer to the question depends on what kind of future ecclesiology one expects to see. If what one envisions after reconciliation is something like the present Eastern Catholic model, only bigger, the Congregation for the Oriental Churches is here to stay no matter what it would be called. I am sure there are many Catholics who would like to see that.

 

[Vico]

…

the Congregation for the Clergy handles dispensations from Holy Orders, and the Congregation for Cathoilc Education exercises jurisdiction over Catholic universities and faculties including those Eastern.

The CDF does have competence regarding the Eastern Churches. Note that there is a common faith which all Catholics hold, regardlesss of the existence of various theological traditions.

Pastor Bonus on Congregation for Oriental (Eastern) Churches:
Art 58 § 2. This however does not infringe on the proper and exclusive competence of the Congregations for the Doctrine of the Faith and for the Causes of Saints, of the Apostolic Penitentiary, the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura or the Tribunal of the Roman Rota, as well as of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments for what pertains to dispensation from a marriage ratum et non consummatum.

An example of CDF for the Eastern Churches is the *nihil obstat: *certification that a publication contains nothing contrary to faith or morals.

For the Congregation for the Clergy: it has competency over the dispensation of the obligations inherent to the sacred ordination of the diaconate and the presbyterate of the regular and diocesan clergy of both the Latin and Oriental Churches, according to the letter of the Secretariat of State, no. 907 of June 21, 2005.

The Congregation for Cathoilc Education exercises jurisdiction over Catholic universities and faculties including those Eastern.
This dicastery has authority in three diverse sectors: over all seminaries (except those falling within the jurisdiction of the Congregations for the Evangelization of Peoples and for Oriental Churches) and houses of formation of religious and secular institutes; over all universities, faculties, institutes and higher schools of study, either ecclesial or civil dependent on ecclesial persons; over all schools and educational institutes depending on ecclesiastical authorities.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_20051996_profile_en.html

 

[Alexander_Roman]

There is absolutely no reason for the Congegration of the Oriental Churches to continue to exist today, even in advance of any unity overtures.

Historically, this was the congregation that worked for the conversion of pagan peoples - the Eastern Catholic Churches were lumped in with these.

That opprobrious congregation is an antiquated symbol of Rome’s former total jurisdictional domination over the Eastern Catholic Churches - its continued existence harms current and future ecumenical relations with the Orthodox (not that those relations, particularly with the Moscow Patriarchate, are anything to write Rome about - yet Rome continues to place the ROC over and above the legitimate issues pertaining to the UGCC).

Smaller EC Churches can easily be assisted by larger EC Churches without that congregation’s “helping hand.”

In the even of reunion as a result of a Union Council, nothing would change in the life of the Orthodox Churches, except that their Patriarchs and primates would commemorate the Pope once in their Divine Liturgies. Canonizations would continue iin the East as they have always done, and all other internal matters would be dealt with by the respective Church authorities. And Roman Catholic missionaries in Orthodox Russia would doubtless be sent packing, having been told that “their work is finally done.”

Alex

 

[dcointin]

I don’t mean this question to sound argumentative, but as I understand it, Rome had no jurisdiction over the east in the first millenium, so I don’t see reunion would even be possible unless Rome dropped its claim to universal jurisdiction. Any thoughts?

 

[Hesychios]

I don’t mean this question to sound argumentative, but as I understand it, Rome had no jurisdiction over the east in the first millenium, so I don’t see reunion would even be possible unless Rome dropped its claim to universal jurisdiction. Any thoughts?

Some people will argue that Rome did indeed have jurisdiction all over the east from the beginning, but for some reason did not exercise it actively.

I consider the claim of UJ unsubstatiated, but some people are very committed to the concept and it will not go quietly.

 

[dcointin]

I’m certainly willing to hear examples of this jurisdiction in practice if anyone would like to offer them. If that’s too far off topic I can open a new thread on it.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Don,

I don’t mean this question to sound argumentative, but as I understand it, Rome had no jurisdiction over the east in the first millenium, so I don’t see reunion would even be possible unless Rome dropped its claim to universal jurisdiction. Any thoughts?

I believe the biggest part of the problem is that many in both East and West are mired in a very unpatristic and unscriptural understanding of what “jurisdiction” means. I don’t believe we can have a valid discussion on the extent of jurisdiction, until we come to a common understanding on the meaning of jurisdiction.

HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory, and Fr. Schmemann (from excerpts I’ve read presented here by EO members) have called for an understanding of jurisdiction in terms of service and love, rather than control.

Can we all agree on that?

If we can all agree on that, doesn’t that make issues of the geographical extent of jurisdiction rather moot?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Don,

I’m certainly willing to hear examples of this jurisdiction in practice if anyone would like to offer them. If that’s too far off topic I can open a new thread on it.

Again, the understanding of “jurisdiction” is of paramount importance, here. The High Petrine view understands “jurisdiction” in terms of love and service, and is exercised collegially. The Absolutist and Low Petrine views understand “jurisdiction” in terms of control, and is exercised unilaterally.

Examples of jurisdiction exercised according to the High Petrine view abound in the first millenium Church.

I seriously doubt there are examples of jurisdiction exercised according to the Absolutist Petrine view (i.e., if the Pope tried to unilaterally impose something on an inter-church affair, he was corrected), or the Low Petrine view (i.e., any single bishop was not above correction in his local jurisdiction by another authority above him).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Hesychios]

HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory, and Fr. Schmemann (from excerpts I’ve read presented here by EO members) have called for an understanding of jurisdiction in terms of service and love, rather than control.

Can we all agree on that?

This is what His Holiness John Paul II said on the subject in 1990 …

The Roman Pontiff, by virtue of his office, not only has power over the entire Church but also possesses a primacy of ordinary power over all the eparchies and groupings of them by which the proper, ordinary and immediate power which bishops possess in the eparchy entrusted to their care is both strengthened and safeguarded.

The Roman Pontiff, in fulfilling the office of the supreme pastor of the Church is always united in communion with the other bishops and with the entire Church; however, he has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, either personal or collegial, of exercising this function. There is neither appeal nor recourse against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

In exercising his office the Roman Pontiff is assisted by the bishops who aid him in various ways and among these is the synod of bishops; moreover the cardinals, the Roman curia, pontifical legates and other persons and various institutes assist him according to the needs of the times; all these persons and institutes carry out the task committed to them in his name and by his authority for the good of all the Churches, according to the norm of law established by the Roman Pontiff himself.

The participation of patriarchs and other hierarchs who preside over Churches sui iuris in the synod of bishops is regulated by special norms established by the Roman Pontiff.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Michael,

what His Holiness John Paul II said on the subject in 1990

The Roman Pontiff, by virtue of his office, not only has power over the entire Church but also possesses a primacy of ordinary power over all the eparchies and groupings of them by which the proper, ordinary and immediate power which bishops possess in the eparchy entrusted to their care is both strengthened and safeguarded…is regulated by special norms established by the Roman Pontiff.

Yes, that is the same Pope who asserted during one of his Wednesday audiences that power is to be understood in this way:
“Inasmuch as the Church is a group of human beings called to carry out in history God’s plan for the salvation of the world, power in her appears as an indispensable requirement of mission. Nevertheless, the analogical value of the language used allows power to be conceived in the sense provided by Jesus’ maxim on “POWER IN ORDER TO SERVE” and by the Gospel idea of the pastoral leader. The power required by the mission of Peter and his successors is identified with this authoritative leadership guaranteed of divine assistance, which Jesus himself called the MINISTRY (SERVICE) OF A SHEPHERD…”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Aramis]

Some people will argue that Rome did indeed have jurisdiction all over the east from the beginning, but for some reason did not exercise it actively.

I consider the claim of UJ unsubstatiated, but some people are very committed to the concept and it will not go quietly.

The Assyrian patriarchs in the first millenium understood it to exist, one writing that the relationship of Pope to Patriarch was that of Patriarch to Bishop; that same Patriarch also wrote of the jurisdictional authority of the patriarch to censure bishops.

The Role of the Pope of Alexandria (Coptic) to the Oriental Orthodox shares the same authority, and Alexandrian Popes have been intervening in their synod’s sees for many centuries…

It’s only in the Byzantine East where the primate has no authority over his synod…