Wish list for Eastern Catholics

[twf]

As a Latin, these are my “pipe dreams” for changes the next pope could hypothetically introduce for the Eastern Churches:

• Eliminate the requirement of papal ratification of the election of a major archbishop (I.E. Major Archbishops should be enthroned immediately upon acceptance of their election, as with Patriarchs
• Grant patriarchs/major archbishops and their synods complete jurisdiction anywhere in the world where their faithful reside (right to establish eparchies, elect their own bishops, ordain married priests, etc)
• Grant patriarchs and major archbishops an ex officio vote in future conclaves without any requirement of offering them the Latin red hat
• Formally clarify that patriarchs AND major archbishops, as heads of sui iuris churches, outrank Roman cardinals in all contexts
• Raise the existing metropolitan Churches sui iuris to major archepiscopal rank with the increased autonomy that entails
• Place the very small Eastern Churches, that lack even a metropolitan, under the care of a patriarch or major archbishop of the same rite (I.E. they would function as autonomous churches in Eastern Orthodoxy - govern their own affairs, but the election of their bishops would be confirmed by the parent Synod - Rome need not be involved)

 

[dvdjs]

As a Latin, these are my “pipe dreams” for changes the next pope could hypothetically introduce for the Eastern Churches:

As a Greek Catholic, I look over the list and don’t see much of anything that I wish for, and a number of things that I would oppose. Questions of rank and power hold little interest. And the use of authority in a communion requires mutual cooperation rather that a claim and exercise of rights.

Grant patriarchs/major archbishops and their synods complete jurisdiction anywhere in the world where their faithful reside (right to establish eparchies, elect their own bishops, ordain married priests, etc)

This idea is likely to create more problems than it solves, especially in light of the history of interactions in the diaspora of the past century - especially of particular churches of the same rite. One could also look to overlapping autonomous Orthodox jurisdictions in the diaspora to get some idea of the problems created.

Place the very small Eastern Churches, that lack even a metropolitan, under the care of a patriarch or major archbishop of the same rite (I.E. they would function as autonomous churches in Eastern Orthodoxy - govern their own affairs, but the election of their bishops would be confirmed by the parent Synod - Rome need not be involved)

This idea is also problematic. IMO, there should be no attempt to “place” anyone anywhere, unless the idea evolved organically from the churches themselves.

 

[malphono]

As a Latin, these are my “pipe dreams” for changes the next pope could hypothetically introduce for the Eastern Churches:

• Eliminate the requirement of papal ratification of the election of a major archbishop (I.E. Major Archbishops should be enthroned immediately upon acceptance of their election, as with Patriarchs
• Grant patriarchs/major archbishops and their synods complete jurisdiction anywhere in the world where their faithful reside (right to establish eparchies, elect their own bishops, ordain married priests, etc)
• Grant patriarchs and major archbishops an ex officio vote in future conclaves without any requirement of offering them the Latin red hat
• Formally clarify that patriarchs AND major archbishops, as heads of sui iuris churches, outrank Roman cardinals in all contexts
• Raise the existing metropolitan Churches sui iuris to major archepiscopal rank with the increased autonomy that entails
• Place the very small Eastern Churches, that lack even a metropolitan, under the care of a patriarch or major archbishop of the same rite (I.E. they would function as autonomous churches in Eastern Orthodoxy - govern their own affairs, but the election of their bishops would be confirmed by the parent Synod - Rome need not be involved)

This is actually not a bad idea at all and, believe it or not, I find myself in general agreement with the first points.

OTOH, the last two points might be a bit problematic.

The problem I see with the next-to-last point is mainly for size considerations. If, as I mentioned in another thread, all Primates were considered electors, this point could be adjusted accordingly and the problem would be solved. They would, in effect, become “Metropolitan-Primates” (yes, I know it’s a contrived title, but so is the Roman-contrived title “Major Archbishop”) and would more-or-less be equivalent to “Autonomous Churches” in the EO.

The last point has, I think, more problems which are mainly of a ethno-political-cultural nature. For example, would you place the Russian CC under the UGCC? Somehow, I don’t think that would work out very well. I’m not really sure what to suggest as an alternative here, though. Perhaps it might play out if an artificial Archeparchial or Metropolitan Church were established to encompass the the small Churches.

 

[Sophronius]

How about swapping out the terms Major Archbishop for Catholicos and or Patriarch.

I’m not so sure about giving all the Eastern Patriarchs a vote in the conclave without being conferred a cardinal. What this subtly acknowledges is the Papacy is on a level above the Patriarchate instead of just the first Patriarch of Patriarchs.

 

[malphono]

How about swapping out the terms Major Archbishop for Catholicos and or Patriarch.

It seems to me that the title “Catholicos” would work quite nicely for the Syro-Malankara Church (they use it de-facto even now) and the Syro-Malabar Church. The Byzantine Churches, though, are another matter: the concept of “Catholicos” is alien to the Byzantine tradition.

It also seems to me that the problem with swapping “Major-Archbishop” for “Patriarch” is that it would be the same as MP-inspired “National Patriarchate Syndrome” that I mentioned in another thread. Contrived as it is, the title “Major Archbishop” skirts that issue quite nicely.

I’m not so sure about giving all the Eastern Patriarchs a vote in the conclave without being conferred a cardinal. What this subtly acknowledges is the Papacy is on a level above the Patriarchate instead of just the first Patriarch of Patriarchs.

Subtly? It rather screams it from the rooftops.

 

[Sophronius]

Yeah. You are right. It does fall prey to that. I s’pose for Latin Purposes we can just leave it as Major Archbishop and allow those churches to use other titles within their jurisdiction? What of the Ukrainians trying to petition Rome for the title and prerogatives of Patriarchate?

I’m glad you agree with me regarding the Patriarchal influence/voting in the election of the Roman Pontiff and Pope.

 

[malphono]

I’m glad you agree with me regarding the Patriarchal influence/voting in the election of the Roman Pontiff and Pope.

Did I agree? I don’t think so, but maybe I misunderstood the point. As I’ve said in this and other recent threads, I’m of the opinion that Patriarchs, Catholicoi, and Major-Archbishops (and Primates, too, for that matter) should have a vote ex-officio.

 

[Sophronius]

OH! So you are of that opinion this would be a good thing!