So... who are the true bishops?

[Contarini]

Our Father among the Saints, Pope Leo the Great († AD 461) disagrees with you:

Again, that our usage may coincide at all points, we wish this thing also to be observed, viz. that when any of the greater festivals has brought together a larger congregation than usual, and too great a crowd of the faithful has assembled for one church to hold them all at once, there should be no hesitation about repeating the oblation of the sacrifice: lest, if those only are admitted to this service who come first, those who flock in afterwards, should seem to be rejected: for it is fully in accordance with piety and reason, that as often as a fresh congregation has filled the church where service is going on, the sacrifice should be offered as a matter of course. Whereas a certain portion of the people must be deprived of their worship, if the custom of only one celebration be kept, and only those who come early in the day can offer the sacrifice. We admonish you, therefore, beloved, earnestly and affectionately that your carefulness also should not neglect what has become a part of our own usage on the pattern of our fathers’ tradition, so that in all things we may agree together in our beliefs and in our performances.

Source: ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.ii.iv.ix.html

And he was an ardent supporter of the Nicene canons.

That’s not describing a normal, regular practice. Of course if the choice is between repeating Masses in one place or depriving some people of the Eucharist, you repeat. But the norm should be one celebration per Sunday in each place.

 

[Contarini]

Sorry to intrude, guys, but I hope you don’t mind if I add a comment or two

No intrusion.

While all were juridically subject to the local bishop, the traditional “one city, one bishop” paradigm did not involve forcing those of variant ecclesiastical traditions to submit to the local one. Rather, the local bishop was to see to the spiritual welfare of those in his care from other traditions, which often meant “importing” a priest or two to see to their needs.

What mardukm says about mobility of peoples is true, the amount of mobility in ancient times is sometimes surprising. I’ve used this example before in this forum, but we can take the city of Rome as a case in point. Since it was the seat of the Empire, it attracted folks from all over the place. So, e.g, Egyptians of the Alexandrene Tradition living in Rome would have been tended by one of their own. And of course it worked vice-versa too, wherein Romans in Byzantium, e.g, would equally have been tended by one of their own. So no, it really wasn’t “one bishop, one table” or anything of the sort.

I didn’t say “one bishop, one table.” I said “one bishop, one city” (which you appear to agree with) and “one table in one place.” I recognize that this latter one is more complicated.

Perhaps I’m putting too much weight on the famous story (famous to Westerners at least) of Monica and Ambrose. I can see that if many people from a particular tradition came to a city, they would worship together in the manner to which they were accustomed. And of course, in the ancient world people from specific areas often lived together anyway (Rome I believe had neighborhoods with various ethnicities). I also probably should not claim that I’m simply reiterating the practice of the early Church here. I definitely find my principles in the early Church, but I don’t think the early Church was perfect either. We have always fallen short in how we have lived out St. Paul’s inspired teaching about unity. I just want to see a bit of honesty about the way ethnic divisions within the Church have compromised unity, and a commitment to the principle that Christians should worship together because we are Christians living at the same time and place, not because we have similar cultural traditions. I also think that the Eastern Christians in this discussion are being euphemistic by refusing to name the divisions as ethnic. They obviously are and were ethnic. And the ethnic divisions of ancient Eastern Christianity were well nigh fatal. That’s not to pick on Eastern Christians–I’ve given the example of Irish and Germans in 19th-century Indiana, and where Western Christians are not prey to ethnic divisions it’s generally because we have fallen prey to the even worse evil of individualism. We are all broken in this regard. But we need to admit it and we need to be clear about the ideal: one Body of Christ united by Christ and not by ethnic traditions, however beautiful and important these may be.

Edwin

 

[Peter_J]

Hi Contarini, and excuse me for “butting in”.

It seems to me that the extend to which the Catholic Church has overlapping jurisdictions is being exaggerated a great deal here. But that aside I want to ask you: would you have a problem with the 23 sui iuris churches if they didn’t have overlapping jurisdictions?

 

[Peter_J]

Yes, and evangelical Protestants typically say that they are united too–the more ecumenical ones even claim to be united to Catholics. And this verbal expression of spiritual unity exempts them in their own eyes, from doing the difficult work of living and worshiping together with people who are different from themselves. The people who like hymns go to one church (or one service within the same congregation) and the people who like praise choruses go to another. Problem solved–but the unity of the Church has been abandoned.

Needless to say, I’m not going to recommend that we follow the model set by those groups. But are you assuming that they are absolutely 100% wrong in their thinking, or could there be a “grain of truth” (notwithstanding the misapplication)?

 

[Miserissima]

I just want to see a bit of honesty about the way ethnic divisions within the Church have compromised unity, and a commitment to the principle that Christians should worship together because we are Christians living at the same time and place, not because we have similar cultural traditions. I also think that the Eastern Christians in this discussion are being euphemistic by refusing to name the divisions as ethnic. They obviously are and were ethnic. And the ethnic divisions of ancient Eastern Christianity were well nigh fatal. That’s not to pick on Eastern Christians–I’ve given the example of Irish and Germans in 19th-century Indiana, and where Western Christians are not prey to ethnic divisions it’s generally because we have fallen prey to the even worse evil of individualism. We are all broken in this regard. But we need to admit it and we need to be clear about the ideal: one Body of Christ united by Christ and not by ethnic traditions, however beautiful and important these may be.

Edwin

By that reckoning, the sign of peace should be uniform in all countries, women in Argentina would not breastfeed during Mass, there would be no sanctioned Liturgical dance in Africa, and no Mass would be in the local vernacular.

 

[Zekariya]

Of course not–even in St. Ignatius’ Antioch or for that matter St. Paul’s Corinth, there seem to have been multiple gatherings, foreshadowing the current parish/diocese distinction.

That’s a straw man.

No. It is reality. I was pointing out the absurdity of your argument using modern and ancient cities to support my point.

The point is that all believers in one place should worship together.

This is historically inaccurate since major cities made up of many different peoples had different Rites being practices in different Church buildings.

One place might in some cases be a small town, or a city with very few Christians. Or it might be a neighborhood of a few blocks. The bottom line is that you shouldn’t be passing by one church in order to worship at another one because you like the style better or the other one has people of your ethnicity or some other such reason.

This is historically inaccurate. Before the Great Schism, there were Latin priests celebrating the Roman Rite in Constantinople and their were Byzantine priests celebrating the Byzantine Rite in Italy.

If you have a trivial reason, you are putting your personal predilections above the Body of Christ. And if you have a substantive reason, then the Church is no longer unified.

Church unity is being in Communion with your bishop who is in Communion with the Metropolitan See (such as Rome). A priest acts on behalf of his bishop. It does not matter which local Church I attend because each priest is acting on behalf of the bishop.

“As therefore the Lord did nothing without the Father, being united to Him, neither by Himself nor by the apostles, so neither do anything without the bishop and presbyters. Neither endeavour that anything appear reasonable and proper to yourselves apart; but being come together into the same place, let there be one prayer, one supplication, one mind, one hope, in love and in joy undefiled.” - St Ignatius of Antioch, Magnesians 7
Source: newadvent.org/fathers/0105.htm

I am subject to the local bishop whether the priest is Fr John or Fr Gregory. Both act on behalf of the same bishop and I partake of the same Mystical Altar.

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid." - St Ignatius of Antioch, Smyrnaeans 8
Source: newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm

There is only one Bread even though there are multiple loaves used around the world during the Liturgy. This is a Mystery. Christ is present in all of the Eucharist around the world yet he is still one Christ.

“…so that you obey the bishop and the presbytery with an undivided mind, breaking one and the same bread, which is the medicine of immortality, and the antidote to prevent us from dying, but [which causes] that we should live for ever in Jesus Christ.” - St Ignatius of Antioch, Ephesians 20
Source: newadvent.org/fathers/0104.htm

We are to do nothing without the bishop. Our unity only exists by being in Communion with a bishop of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

“For, since you are subject to the bishop as to Jesus Christ, you appear to me to live not after the manner of men, but according to Jesus Christ, who died for us, in order, by believing in His death, you may escape from death. It is therefore necessary that, as you indeed do, so without the bishop you should do nothing, but should also be subject to the presbytery, as to the apostle of Jesus Christ, who is our hope, in whom, if we live, we shall [at last] be found.” - St Ignatius of Antioch, Trallians 2
Source: newadvent.org/fathers/0106.htm

There is only one cup yet there are many bishops using multiple chalices for the Eucharist. One cup is spoken of because there is one Christ and one Sacrifice. We drink from the one mystical cup of salvation. We partake of the one Flesh of Christ. We participate in the one Sacrifice on the one altar by virtue of being in Communion with the local bishop.

“Take heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to [show forth ] the unity of His blood; one altar; as there is one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants: that so, whatsoever you do, you may do it according to [the will of] God.” - St Ignatius of Antioch, Philadelphians 4
Source: newadvent.org/fathers/0108.htm

 

[mardukm]

AYAYAY!!!

byztex.blogspot.com/2014/01/rocor-no-to-chambesy-process.html

I think this link is appropriate for this thread.

Again,

AYAYAY!!!

They just can’t do it.

 

[Cavaradossi]

AYAYAY!!!

byztex.blogspot.com/2014/01/rocor-no-to-chambesy-process.html

I think this link is appropriate for this thread.

Again,

AYAYAY!!!

They just can’t do it.

What is that supposed to mean? This entire post seems quite mean-spirited on the surface.

 

[mardukm]

What is that supposed to mean? This entire post seems quite mean-spirited on the surface.

It means that the EO should adapt as the OO and CC has done according to the Church’s needs, and use a little oikonomia. The one-bishop-one-city rule cannot be legalistically applied in areas and situations where it obviously cannot have the same effectiveness as in the ancient Church.

Perhaps the Pan-Orthodox Council can entertain the model of personal jurisdictions within territorial jurisdictions, which has helped maintain peace in the OO and CC as far as avoiding jurisdictional squabbles.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cavaradossi]

It means that the EO should adapt as the OO and CC has done according to the Church’s needs, and use a little oikonomia. The one-bishop-one-city rule cannot be legalistically applied in areas and situations where it obviously cannot have the same effectiveness as in the ancient Church.

We must be reading different documents, for all that I saw was that ROCOR believes that an attempt at jurisdictional restructuring in America would not be prudent at this time (indeed, one of the commentators at the blog linked understood the statement in the same way). They don’t deny that the canonical norm to be worked towards is to have unified jurisdictions, but only express that it would not be beneficial at this time to restructure America in such a way (as it is not now time for the churches in America to break their ties with their mother churches, a sentiment with which I fully agree: Orthodoxy in America is not ready for autocephaly).

At some time in the future, however, jurisdictional unity is a desirable goal in America (a goal which is expressed by a majority of bishops here in North America, as is shown by their cooperation in the current Assembly). The issue of diaspora churches in sucha future would be dealt with just as existing autocephalous churches help accommodate immigrant communities from other Orthodox nations within their jurisdiction (which is not by granting them their own bishops, something which would be the condemned heresy of ethnophyletism).

 

[Cavaradossi]

Perhaps the Pan-Orthodox Council can entertain the model of personal jurisdictions within territorial jurisdictions, which has helped maintain peace in the OO and CC as far as avoiding jurisdictional squabbles.

This, frankly, is untenable, because the attempt of Bulgarians to establish a Bulgarian hierarchy to minister to Bulgarians in Constantinople was condemned by the Holy Pan-Orthodox Synod of 1872 as the heresy of ethnophyletism, and such a decision on a matter of doctrine would be unthinkable to reverse.

Also, is there a possibility that I might be given some scholarly or magisterial sources which maintain a distinction between “personal jurisdiction” and “territorial jurisdiction?” I would like to see the theological justifications for this distinction.

 

[mardukm]

It’s not a theological matter. it’s a disciplinary matter. And the Church has the authority to change discipline according to the needs of the Church.

But I understand you pov. in the OO and CC, it is not a matter of ethnopyletism, but a matter of maintaining distinct Traditions, whereas since there is generally one Tradition in the EOC, the danger of ethnophyletism would seem to be of greater relevance.

Blessings

This, frankly, is untenable, because the attempt of Bulgarians to establish a Bulgarian hierarchy to minister to Bulgarians in Constantinople was condemned by the Holy Pan-Orthodox Synod of 1872 as the heresy of ethnophyletism, and such a decision on a matter of doctrine would be unthinkable to reverse.

Also, is there a possibility that I might be given some scholarly or magisterial sources which maintain a distinction between “personal jurisdiction” and “territorial jurisdiction?” I would like to see the theological justifications for this distinction.

 

[mardukm]

There is a portion that states that breaking with the mother Church (ROC) would be “grave.” That means to me that ROCOR is never going to admit to a local autocephalous Church, and the jurisdictional disputes will continue.

Blessings

We must be reading different documents, for all that I saw was that ROCOR believes that an attempt at jurisdictional restructuring in America would not be prudent at this time (indeed, one of the commentators at the blog linked understood the statement in the same way). They don’t deny that the canonical norm to be worked towards is to have unified jurisdictions, but only express that it would not be beneficial at this time to restructure America in such a way (as it is not now time for the churches in America to break their ties with their mother churches, a sentiment with which I fully agree: Orthodoxy in America is not ready for autocephaly).

At some time in the future, however, jurisdictional unity is a desirable goal in America (a goal which is expressed by a majority of bishops here in North America, as is shown by their cooperation in the current Assembly). The issue of diaspora churches in sucha future would be dealt with just as existing autocephalous churches help accommodate immigrant communities from other Orthodox nations within their jurisdiction (which is not by granting them their own bishops, something which would be the condemned heresy of ethnophyletism).

 

[Cavaradossi]

It’s not a theological matter. it’s a disciplinary matter. And the Church has the authority to change discipline according to the needs of the Church.

I respect that this is your perspective (and perhaps also the perspective of the Roman Catholic Church), but from our perspective, it is a condemned heresy to believe that the Church should be established along ethnic lines for ministering to the needs of ethnic communities. I am afraid that on this we shall simply have to disagree, for my own Church has proclaimed that this is an unacceptable principle of Church governance, because in Christ there is no Gentile nor Jew, and furthermore, it even to this day does not allow these situations to arise in Orthodox homelands, where accommodations to immigrant communities are made under the auspices of the local bishop instead of under a parallel and separate hierarchy. A majority of Orthodox Christians even in America seem to be in agreement that this is the ideal and norm towards which the diaspora must move, but there are disagreements (understandably) over how such a move towards this normative expression of ecclesiology should be undertaken, and it is in this context that I understand ROCOR’s statement.

There is a portion that states that breaking with the mother Church (ROC) would be “grave.” That means to me that ROCOR is never going to admit to a local autocephalous Church, and the jurisdictional disputes will continue.

Again, I am afraid that we simply shall have to disagree. I understand that to mean that such a move right now would be imprudent for the well-being of their flock. In fact, nowhere in the document does it say that America should never be united under one autocephalous jurisdiction. For them to argue that America should forever have a separate Russian jurisdiction in it in order to minister to Russians in America would be for them to fall into the heresy of ethnophyletism.

 

[Peter_J]

AYAYAY!!!

byztex.blogspot.com/2014/01/rocor-no-to-chambesy-process.html

I think this link is appropriate for this thread.

Again,

AYAYAY!!!

They just can’t do it.

It means that the EO should adapt as the OO and CC has done according to the Church’s needs, and use a little oikonomia. The one-bishop-one-city rule cannot be legalistically applied in areas and situations where it obviously cannot have the same effectiveness as in the ancient Church.

Perhaps the Pan-Orthodox Council can entertain the model of personal jurisdictions within territorial jurisdictions, which has helped maintain peace in the OO and CC as far as avoiding jurisdictional squabbles.

Blessings,
Marduk

Thank you clarifying that. After reading the previous post, I thought that you were in *favor *of one-bishop-one-city.

In any case, I’m sure you know better than I what the Eastern Orthodox ought to do.

\end{tongue-in-cheek}

 

[Contarini]

Needless to say, I’m not going to recommend that we follow the model set by those groups. But are you assuming that they are absolutely 100% wrong in their thinking, or could there be a “grain of truth” (notwithstanding the misapplication)?

Bottom line: if you aren’t willing to worship with people regularly, you aren’t united in one Body with them.

 

[Contarini]

By that reckoning, the sign of peace should be uniform in all countries, women in Argentina would not breastfeed during Mass, there would be no sanctioned Liturgical dance in Africa, and no Mass would be in the local vernacular.

I don’t see why. My position is persistently misunderstood because Catholics are locked into this false dichotomy between absolute uniformity or parallel jurisdictions.

I want to see more diversity in Catholicism, not less. It’s precisely because of Rome’s unhealthily homogeneous way of doing things that this “segregationist” approach has sprung up.

 

[Contarini]

No. It is reality. I was pointing out the absurdity of your argument using modern and ancient cities to support my point.

But it wasn’t my argument. I never said that all Christians in a city should worship together even if it’s a large city and there are thousands of Christians there. I said that Christians who share one place (whether that place is a town or a neighborhood) should worship together.

This is historically inaccurate since major cities made up of many different peoples had different Rites being practices in different Church buildings.

Again, we have this confusion between Rites and sui juris churches. They are different. I’m not arguing for uniformity–quite the reverse. By segregating legitimate diversity into special, parallel jurisdictions, Rome has been able to preserve an unhealthy uniformity within the “garden-variety” Latin Rite. And conversely, the Eastern Churches’ justified fear of having that uniformity imposed on them has made them cling to parallel jurisdictions.

This is historically inaccurate. Before the Great Schism, there were Latin priests celebrating the Roman Rite in Constantinople and their were Byzantine priests celebrating the Byzantine Rite in Italy.

But were they under different bishops?

I grant that there are two issues here, which I’ve confused somewhat:

1. One bishop, one city. Here I’m pretty sure of my ground historically. There should be, and in the early Church always was, one orthodox bishop per city. Overlapping episcopal jurisdictions are at best a quasi-schismatic situation.
2. My claim that Christians should choose where to worship on Sunday strictly based on where they live is more historically dubious, I grant. Obviously it’s hard to prove or disprove, and given that people tended to live together with other people of similar culture (just as in immigrant neighborhoods in traditional American Catholicism), my position could be technically correct most of the time. But you’re certainly right to correct me by pointing out that ancient and medieval Christians did bring in priests to minister to Christians of a particular tradition if there were enough of them.

So I think there are two arguments going on here: on the first point I am arguing solidly with the early Church. On the second, I am to some extent critiquing it, especially in its later stages. That is to say, ethnic identity and the way traditions of Christian practice corresponded to ethnic identity contributed powerfully to the division of the early Church–both the threefold division of the Eastern Church and the East-West division. You talk about Latin priests ministering in Constantinople–but we all know that eventually the conflicts between Latins living in Constantinople and the Greek majority led to massacres and paved the way for the horror of the Fourth Crusade. In other words, the fact that ancient/medieval ethnic groups tended to live segregated from each other, and that religious identity and ethnicity tended to merge, had some pretty destructive consequences.

Today, in the West, the problem is the reverse–individualism. That’s the context in which I have come to my strong conclusions about the unity of the local Christian community. But I think, with all due respect, that these conclusions apply to more traditional forms of disunity as well, though with more qualifications.

I’m not suggesting that the Church should force everyone to attend their local parish irrespective of Rite. What I am suggesting is that local unity should be encouraged, and diversity should be practiced in that context rather than being automatically equated with liturgical segregation. People who drive 40 or 50 miles (or take the subway halfway across New York City) in order to attend a church of “their” Rite instead of attending the neighborhood parish should be seen as pardonably weak rather than as heroic preservers of tradition.

Church unity is being in Communion with your bishop who is in Communion with the Metropolitan See (such as Rome).

That’s part of it. I think it’s an overly reductionistic view. It kind of misses out unity with other people (other than the bishop), doesn’t it? The Church isn’t just “you and the bishop.”

A priest acts on behalf of his bishop. It does not matter which local Church I attend because each priest is acting on behalf of the bishop.

It matters when, for instance, Latin Catholics spurn their local parish because it’s “too liberal” or “too conservative” and go off to a different parish that suits their preferences better.

We are to do nothing without the bishop. Our unity only exists by being in Communion with a bishop of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

No disagreement, which is why I have such problems with parallel episcopal jurisdictions, even though, as Peter J points out, this isn’t a very common phenomenon. Or rather, my only disagreement is with the “only” if it’s understood to mark sufficiency as well as necessity.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

It means that the EO should adapt as the OO and CC has done according to the Church’s needs, and use a little oikonomia. The one-bishop-one-city rule cannot be legalistically applied in areas and situations where it obviously cannot have the same effectiveness as in the ancient Church.

I don’t know what that means. From the link you posted, it sounds as if the ROCOR bishops are scared as heck that one-bishop/one-city will be effective. They don’t want real unity.

I don’t think it’s “legalistic” to suggest that unity involves actually, you know, being one, in an incarnational, physical, time-and-space kind of way, and not just nodding to each other or waxing eloquent about mystical unity.

If Russians and Greeks can’t worship together and adapt to each other, then the mystical talk is, if not worthless, at least very imperfectly realized as yet within the bounds of time and space.

And of course the eschatological reality is as yet always only imperfectly realized. That’s been my excuse for staying Episcopalian all these years. I don’t think that excuse will hold up anymore, if it ever did. Union with Rome is one concrete step I can take toward unity. But if I’m not going to listen to my own excuses, I don’t see why I should be any more patient toward other people’s.

Your link makes my point for me, really. At least to anyone who is even superficially acquainted with the history of ROCOR and the general squabbles among Orthodox in the U.S. Some of these guys hate each other’s guts. And you’re telling me that it’s “legalistic” to suggest that, you know, maybe actually having to worship together would be an expression of Christian unity?

Edwin

 

[Zekariya]

But it wasn’t my argument. I never said that all Christians in a city should worship together even if it’s a large city and there are thousands of Christians there. I said that Christians who share one place (whether that place is a town or a neighborhood) should worship together.

I thought that one bishop per city and one altar referred to this. I see that I misunderstood.

Again, we have this confusion between Rites and sui juris churches. They are different. I’m not arguing for uniformity–quite the reverse. By segregating legitimate diversity into special, parallel jurisdictions, Rome has been able to preserve an unhealthy uniformity within the “garden-variety” Latin Rite. And conversely, the Eastern Churches’ justified fear of having that uniformity imposed on them has made them cling to parallel jurisdictions.

It would need to be established who’s See has authority over non-traditional territories such as in America. Obviously it would be odd to give Antioch jurisdiction over Italy and visa-versa. Modern territories are a lot murkier.

But were they under different bishops?

In the case of multiple Latin parishes, yes they are under one bishop. Some people prefer the ancient chant of the Latin Church over the modern worship music that lots of parishes use. Either way, they are both under the same bishop.

I grant that there are two issues here, which I’ve confused somewhat:

1. One bishop, one city. Here I’m pretty sure of my ground historically. There should be, and in the early Church always was, one orthodox bishop per city. Overlapping episcopal jurisdictions are at best a quasi-schismatic situation.

I disagree with your using “quasi-schismatic situation” in reference to this. Our bishops have concelebrated and therefore are in full Communion with each other.

1. My claim that Christians should choose where to worship on Sunday strictly based on where they live is more historically dubious, I grant. Obviously it’s hard to prove or disprove, and given that people tended to live together with other people of similar culture (just as in immigrant neighborhoods in traditional American Catholicism), my position could be technically correct most of the time. But you’re certainly right to correct me by pointing out that ancient and medieval Christians did bring in priests to minister to Christians of a particular tradition if there were enough of them.

So I think there are two arguments going on here: on the first point I am arguing solidly with the early Church. On the second, I am to some extent critiquing it, especially in its later stages. That is to say, ethnic identity and the way traditions of Christian practice corresponded to ethnic identity contributed powerfully to the division of the early Church–both the threefold division of the Eastern Church and the East-West division. You talk about Latin priests ministering in Constantinople–but we all know that eventually the conflicts between Latins living in Constantinople and the Greek majority led to massacres and paved the way for the horror of the Fourth Crusade. In other words, the fact that ancient/medieval ethnic groups tended to live segregated from each other, and that religious identity and ethnicity tended to merge, had some pretty destructive consequences.

This was not an ethnic problem but rather a political one (and some would say a doctrinal one). I won’t go further into this as it would take us quite off topic.

Today, in the West, the problem is the reverse–individualism. That’s the context in which I have come to my strong conclusions about the unity of the local Christian community. But I think, with all due respect, that these conclusions apply to more traditional forms of disunity as well, though with more qualifications.

I agree that the West has problems with individualism.

I’m not suggesting that the Church should force everyone to attend their local parish irrespective of Rite. What I am suggesting is that local unity should be encouraged, and diversity should be practiced in that context rather than being automatically equated with liturgical segregation. People who drive 40 or 50 miles (or take the subway halfway across New York City) in order to attend a church of “their” Rite instead of attending the neighborhood parish should be seen as pardonably weak rather than as heroic preservers of tradition.

Maybe I prefer the ancient Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom over the thoroughly modernized worship that closer parishes offer. There should be nothing wrong with desiring to worship the way we Christians have worshipped for thousands of years.

That’s part of it. I think it’s an overly reductionistic view. It kind of misses out unity with other people (other than the bishop), doesn’t it? The Church isn’t just “you and the bishop.”

All are united by partaking of the one Body of Christ. It absurd to suggest that I was not including other people. If I am in Communion with the bishop, I am in Communion with all who are in Communion with the bishop. The Father is the head and unity of the Trinity and the bishop is the head and unity of the local Church.

It matters when, for instance, Latin Catholics spurn their local parish because it’s “too liberal” or “too conservative” and go off to a different parish that suits their preferences better.

However, both parishes are under the same bishop and participate in the one Eucharistic Sacrifice.