So... who are the true bishops?

[tdgesq]

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 do wonder how you came to that conclusion. Bishops are shepherds of people, not land. If the entire episcopate agrees to share common territorial jurisdiction based upon the needs and traditions of particular Catholics within a community, then there is no breaking of the bonds of collegiality and subordination that characterize the social structure of the Church. What you describe - by definition - cannot be schism; even if it doesn’t perfectly follow the historical pattern in the early Church.

Assuming that the sui iuris structure is not the perfect institutional model of unity, what is? If there is only one bishop for a given geographical area, should he adopt the Roman Rite or the Byzantine Rite for the entire diocese/eparchy - say the particular traditions of the Melkites? Perhaps some or none of the Catholic Church’s liturgical traditions are worthy of continued existence. Maybe its varied ancestry and heritage are equally as unimportant.

You seem to want unity in some vague and undefined way, yet plurality in some equally vague and undefined way. What do you propose?

 

[Peter_J]

I do wonder how you came to that conclusion. Bishops are shepherds of people, not land.

I don’t think you are understanding what is being said.

 

[Contarini]

I do wonder how you came to that conclusion. Bishops are shepherds of people, not land.

Indeed. But bishops are the shepherds of the local body of believers, that is, the believers who are found within a particular place.

Assuming that the sui iuris structure is not the perfect institutional model of unity, what is? If there is only one bishop for a given geographical area, should he adopt the Roman Rite or the Byzantine Rite for the entire diocese/eparchy - say the particular traditions of the Melkites?

Why do you assume that there must be one rite for the entire diocese? Why couldn’t the bishop celebrate according to the “dominant” Rite, while allowing for the celebration of many other rites? Why is everyone locked into this “rite=episcopal hierarchy” assumption?

You seem to want unity in some vague and undefined way, yet plurality in some equally vague and undefined way. What do you propose?

What I mean by unity is very well defined: all the baptized faithful in a particular place assemble together on a Sunday morning for Eucharist, led either by the bishop or by a presbyter under the authority of the bishop. There is one bishop for every city or district, and all bishops are in communion with the Pope.

What I mean by plurality is necessarily ill-defined, because it’s not something that can be prescribed for “from the top down.” Establish unity as I’ve defined it, and the faithful will have to negotiate the boundaries of plurality among themselves, under the leadership of the bishop, with Rome as the final arbiter.

 

[neokarny]

Why do you assume that there must be one rite for the entire diocese? Why couldn’t the bishop celebrate according to the “dominant” Rite, while allowing for the celebration of many other rites? Why is everyone locked into this “rite=episcopal hierarchy” assumption

I agree with what you’re trying to say here. I think, and many other EO probably would as well, that the bishop should ideally have all local faithful, regardless of rite, under his jurisdiction, and he should be able to serve in each rite he sees over (at least) as well as understand the heritage of each respective rite (e.g. not forcing priestly celibacy on non-Latins, etc.).

However, I do also understand where Eastern Catholics are coming from, especially American ones. The recent Archbishop Elias Zoghby touches on the precarious and tense situation of Eastern Catholics in his book, A Voice from the Byzantine East, if you’d like to read it for yourself. There’s a strong need to assert ritual and hierarchical independence lest they become Latinized or otherwise assumed (although there is still that conflict even with the distinct jurisdictions). Bishop John Ireland is an unfortunate example of why the above ideal I described hasn’t been too possible for Eastern Catholics at times.

 

[Peter_J]

I agree with what you’re trying to say here. I think, and many other EO probably would as well, that the bishop should ideally have all local faithful, regardless of rite, under his jurisdiction, and he should be able to serve in each rite he sees over (at least) as well as understand the heritage of each respective rite (e.g. not forcing priestly celibacy on non-Latins, etc.).

There was a thread some time ago about how, in Catholicism, only the Pope is omni-ritual (I forget what else was said exactly, but that was the gist of it).

 

[Aramis]

I agree with what you’re trying to say here. I think, and many other EO probably would as well, that the bishop should ideally have all local faithful, regardless of rite, under his jurisdiction, and he should be able to serve in each rite he sees over (at least) as well as understand the heritage of each respective rite (e.g. not forcing priestly celibacy on non-Latins, etc.).

In some places (eg: Detroit), that could mean a bishop needing to know all 6 rites, and multiple uses within 3 of those rites, for as many as 12 distinct different hierarchical divine liturgies.

 

[Josephene]

Returning to this thread, to share and express joy and gratitude,
on this Feast of Chair of Peter , for the 'ministry of unity ’ , that helps to protect The Church , against the raging of the enemy , by being faithful to the inspirations of The Spirit ;

the honor given to St.Joseph , by instructions to invoke him in every Holy Mass can be seen as such an occasion of faithful stewardship, fit for our times when Fatherhood is under such assault and to help us all also , to be inspired to be devoted similarly .

St.Joseph , the silent saint …in contrast to may be an indirect , far removed member in the family line that we meet in the Old Testament - it is Shimei ,son of Ger ! of family of Saul , thus of Benjamin, who comes cursing and throwing stones at David ;

would be it a reversal and 'salvation in action ’ of even family lines , that we see ,years later , when we behold the mercy of The Lord , who seems to silently walk into the life of the Gersasene demoniac , setting him free …the afflicted very well could have been a desecndant of Shimei , thus of children of Rachel - Joseph and Benjamin .

St.Joseph is honored as the ’ terror of demons ’ - would it be that , his silent intercession with his Son was a factor in the Lord being there for the Gerasene demoniac
and in our own times, when many also need to be set free , from effects of curses and assaults on His children or His anointed in His Church , in many forms and who , in turn , get ’ cursed ’ themselves , in the tombs of past hurts and hatreds …

Sts Peter and St.Joseph - may the prayers and blessings of these powerful Father figures help to cleanse and heal much in our lives, protecting our Shepherds , to be all that The Lord wish them to be , to bless us all too !

Peace !

 

[Latinitas]

I think most of us can agree that the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church will one day unite. After all, it’s what we’ve been striving for.

I don’t.

But once that happens, what then? I mean my question is, who would be the real bishops of the East? For example, Jerusalem has a Latin Patriarch and an Orthodox Patriarch – which of them would be the true bishop?

Both are true bishops, sacramentally, but juridically the Orthodox Patriarch is at least materially a schismatic, and therefore has no true jurisdiction.

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by Maxime Indigent
I think most of us can agree that the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church will one day unite. After all, it’s what we’ve been striving for.

You mean you don’t want the Orthodox to come into communion with Rome, or that it isn’t something you are actively striving for?

 

[Latinitas]

You mean you don’t want the Orthodox to come into communion with Rome, or that it isn’t something you are actively striving for?

No, I just don’t believe that we’ll ever reunite the two Churches. I’m a realist on this matter. If two hundred years after the schism, at the Second Council of Lyons, the two Churches could not reunite, and then again at the Council of Florence, with the same result (sure thing, at both councils the Churches were officially reunited for a little while, but the unions quickly disintegrated), then what makes anyone think that the Churches will reunite now? Secularism? The common enemy of Islam (no offense to Muslims) couldn’t do it, so what makes us think secularism would?

I pray that the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian Churchmen would come back to union with Rome, but realistically, I don’t see this happening.

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

 

[Josephene]

Thought it would be good to add to our gratitude for the gift of Papacy , by this heart warming article, on the role of Pope Emeritus Benedict , who, as mentioned in the article, ’ augments ’ the Papacy -

holyfaceofmanoppello.blogspot.com/2014/02/pope-benedict-peter-rock-and-holy-face.html

The above article also seems to give one of the best analysis of the event of his resignation .

A very good article that sheds light from dift angles, about the Holy Face image -

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6346

There is even the connection to Constantinople, let alone Jerusalem and fascinating account of the cloth being made from mussel substrate - making one wonder, if the Old Testament prohibition againt shell fish might have been to preserve the mussles, for such a purpose !

This March 4th is mentioned as the day for The Feast of the Holy Face and many do so by also doing the 9 day prayers ahead of same -

holyface.org.uk/content/holyfacenovena.htm

Since we in The East are already into Lent by Tues., may be our prayers too can esp augment all around us and ourselves, to help in reparation for the souls and landsacpes disfigured by sin - by even placing oursleves around the Pope Emer. Benedict, in front of that Adorable Holy Face Image !

May The Holy Face , in prayer and fasting , casting off powers of evil in the desert , be our strenght , esp. for the Lenten Season, helping us each to grasp more , the depth of His love for us each !

 

[jimkhong]

I think most of us can agree that the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church will one day unite. After all, it’s what we’ve been striving for.

But once that happens, what then? I mean my question is, who would be the real bishops of the East? For example, Jerusalem has a Latin Patriarch and an Orthodox Patriarch – which of them would be the true bishop?

I am not sure why this would be a problem. Between different rites, Catholicism have had different patriachs in the same city. The Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem is not an exception. There were Latin patriarchs in Constantinopole, Antioch and Alexandria from the times of the Crusades until 1964, when they were abolished (I guess in deference to the new atmosphere of ecumenism). Until then, the sees were actually occupied as titular sees.

Also, we have three Catholic Patriarchs of Antioch (in addition to 2 Orthodox) - Melchite, Maronite and Syriac. I cannot see why this will not continue after any church reunion as we should be seeking to preserve different traditions. Also, there are many Eastern Catholic bishops in Europe & US - why should they need to merge with Latin sees in event of any church reunion?

 

[Vico]

I am not sure why this would be a problem. Between different rites, Catholicism have had different patriachs in the same city. The Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem is not an exception. There were Latin patriarchs in Constantinopole, Antioch and Alexandria from the times of the Crusades until 1964, when they were abolished (I guess in deference to the new atmosphere of ecumenism). Until then, the sees were actually occupied as titular sees.

Also, we have three Catholic Patriarchs of Antioch (in addition to 2 Orthodox) - Melchite, Maronite and Syriac. I cannot see why this will not continue after any church reunion as we should be seeking to preserve different traditions. Also, there are many Eastern Catholic bishops in Europe & US - why should they need to merge with Latin sees in event of any church reunion?

It does not seem likely that union will occur with so many ideas in conflict.

There has certainly been more than one bishop per city since the first schism that produced them. But the original discipline was from canon 8 of the ecumenical council of Nicea, 325 A.D.:Canon 8

Concerning those who call themselves Cathari, if they come over to the Catholic and Apostolic Church, the great and holy Synod decrees that they who are ordained shall continue as they are in the clergy. But it is before all things necessary that they should profess in writing that they will observe and follow the dogmas of the Catholic and Apostolic Church; in particular that they will communicate with persons who have been twice married, and with those who having lapsed in persecution have had a period [of penance] laid upon them, and a time [of restoration] fixed so that in all things they will follow the dogmas of the Catholic Church. Wheresoever, then, whether in villages or in cities, all of the ordained are found to be of these only, let them remain in the clergy, and in the same rank in which they are found. But if they come over where there is a bishop or presbyter of the Catholic Church, it is manifest that the Bishop of the Church must have the bishop’s dignity; and he who was named bishop by those who are called Cathari shall have the rank of presbyter, unless it shall seem fit to the Bishop to admit him to partake in the honour of the title. Or, if this should not be satisfactory, then shall the bishop provide for him a place as Chorepiscopus, or presbyter, in order that he may be evidently seen to be of the clergy, and that there may not be two bishops in the city.
There was an Orthodox council in Constantinople 1872 which condemned phyletism or ethnicism as heresy, which also contributes to difficulties in re-uniting.

 

[jimkhong]

It does not seem likely that union will occur with so many ideas in conflict.

It is sad, and more so with the Russian reaction to the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue (set up with the aim of restoring full inter-communion), all due to the Russian politicking over their position in orthodoxy vis-a-vis Constantinopole

 

[neokarny]

It is sad, and more so with the Russian reaction to the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue (set up with the aim of restoring full inter-communion), all due to the Russian politicking over their position in orthodoxy vis-a-vis Constantinopole

With all due respect, it is not merely “Russian politicking.” I believe, and I believe my Antiochian Church likely sides with Moscow on this matter, that the Ecumenical Patriarchate is in fact claiming a form of primacy that it does not possess. This fighting is regrettable, but it is inevitable with any Orthodox Church making such claims. Just because Roman Catholics want to see the Orthodox come into a more agreeable understanding of primacy through the EP’s claims does not mean anyone disagreeing has less-than-honest ulterior motives.

I may be reading more into your post than you intended, but I’ve seen more offensive RC commentary on the controversy than I’d like to.

 

[Vico]

Some issues have been revealed recently. Nikoleta Kalmouki (for Greek Reporter) writes in October 2013 that Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew sent a letter to the Patriarch of Moscow, Kirill: According to the letter to Kirill, the facts that caused the reaction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate are:

• the suppression of the contribution of the church of Constaninople to the christianization of Kievan Rus,
• the degradation of the Patriarchate’s delegation,
• the improper enhancement of the “autocephalous” Orthodox Church in America, and
• the unannounced presentation of a text that disapproved the violence in the Middle East.

This had already happened in 2011, at the Council of high-ranking Bishops of Orthodox Churches of the Middle East, in Phanari.
eu.greekreporter.com/2013/10/21/conflicts-in-the-orthodox-ecumenical-council/

 

[jimkhong]

With all due respect, it is not merely “Russian politicking.” I believe, and I believe my Antiochian Church likely sides with Moscow on this matter, that the Ecumenical Patriarchate is in fact claiming a form of primacy that it does not possess. This fighting is regrettable, but it is inevitable with any Orthodox Church making such claims. Just because Roman Catholics want to see the Orthodox come into a more agreeable understanding of primacy through the EP’s claims does not mean anyone disagreeing has less-than-honest ulterior motives.

I may be reading more into your post than you intended, but I’ve seen more offensive RC commentary on the controversy than I’d like to.

I look forward to a reunion with the Orthodox, not as an expansion of Roman influence but rather because (i) the inclusion of Orthodox would hopefully move Rome further away from its centralising tendencies and towards a more collegial/synodial eccelsialogy (am I not pleased to hear words like inculturation and subsidiarity making a come-back under Francis) and (ii) if Rome can learn to live with other rites** on equal terms** within the same communion, we in Asia may one day be able to set up our own rite or rites in line with our culture and practices, while still identifying as part of the single Church.

My reading of this intra-Orthodox dispute is that Antioch and Moscow disagree with Constantinopole for different reasons. Antioch (and Alexandria as well?) feel that EP is claiming a role that did not exist in antiquity, whereas Moscow feels that EP is claiming a leadership role that is rightfully theirs as the third Rome.

 

[neokarny]

I look forward to a reunion with the Orthodox, not as an expansion of Roman influence but rather because (i) the inclusion of Orthodox would hopefully move Rome further away from its centralising tendencies and towards a more collegial/synodial eccelsialogy (am I not pleased to hear words like inculturation and subsidiarity making a come-back under Francis) and (ii) if Rome can learn to live with other rites** on equal terms** within the same communion, we in Asia may one day be able to set up our own rite or rites in line with our culture and practices, while still identifying as part of the single Church.

Those certainly seem to be good things to hope for.

My reading of this intra-Orthodox dispute is that Antioch and Moscow disagree with Constantinopole for different reasons. Antioch (and Alexandria as well?) feel that EP is claiming a role that did not exist in antiquity, whereas Moscow feels that EP is claiming a leadership role that is rightfully theirs as the third Rome.

I would say that you’re right on Antioch/Alexandria, especially with Constantinople unfortunately dominating the other Melkite Churches (Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem) for so many centuries under Ottoman rule. Although Jerusalem still hasn’t left it.

However, if Moscow were actually claiming to have the status that the Ecumenical Patriarch has/once had, then it would be self-defeating to say that the Ecumenical Patriarch has only ever had a very limited position of primacy. I’d imagine that Moscow would be interested in a position of honor, even has the new first among equals or whatever, but they’re clearly not interested in gaining some form of universal jurisdiction like the EP is claiming to have. They’re two different things to have conflict over, even if they’re often conflated recently.

 

[jimkhong]

However, if Moscow were actually claiming to have the status that the Ecumenical Patriarch has/once had, then it would be self-defeating to say that the Ecumenical Patriarch has only ever had a very limited position of primacy. I’d imagine that Moscow would be interested in a position of honor, even has the new first among equals or whatever, but they’re clearly not interested in gaining some form of universal jurisdiction like the EP is claiming to have. They’re two different things to have conflict over, even if they’re often conflated recently.

I think Moscow knows it cannot overturn centuries of tradition by seeking to be the new EP. I think it is quite happy to have a weak EP provided Orthodoxy knows that leadership lies with the largest church in the communion.

To me, Moscow’s stance is primarily (but not exclusively) nationalistic rather than ecclesialogical. Its first prioirty is to maintain the purity of Russia’s soul, of which Orthodoxy is an integral identity. It therefore eschew rapproachment with the West, whether it be religious, political or socio-cultural. Alone among Eastern Churches (EO, OO or Assyrian) it is hostile to Western churches - it does not distinguish between Catholics or Protestants. In that sense, Moscow’s attitude towards the West has more in common with the cultural attitudes of the Russian people rather than their fellow Orthodox.

 

[Peter_J]

I think Moscow knows it cannot overturn centuries of tradition by seeking to be the new EP. I think it is quite happy to have a weak EP provided Orthodoxy knows that leadership lies with the largest church in the communion.

To me, Moscow’s stance is primarily (but not exclusively) nationalistic rather than ecclesialogical. Its first prioirty is to maintain the purity of Russia’s soul, of which Orthodoxy is an integral identity. It therefore eschew rapproachment with the West, whether it be religious, political or socio-cultural. Alone among Eastern Churches (EO, OO or Assyrian) it is hostile to Western churches - it does not distinguish between Catholics or Protestants. In that sense, Moscow’s attitude towards the West has more in common with the cultural attitudes of the Russian people rather than their fellow Orthodox.

We had a recent conversation in which Orthodox were asked what they think of pre-VII Catholicism vs post-VII Catholicism. I believe that I would say much the same here that Orthodox said there (in reverse of course). I mean, it’s not that I don’t pay attention to these issues, but I’m not Orthodox so it isn’t exactly my business.