Posted on 11/23/2004 9:07:40 AM PST by Stubborn
I think Kosta answered this well. The Ecumenical Councils determined the territorial jurisdictions of the Patriarchates and forbade 'poaching". Most of the world of course was not known at the time and believe it or not, the Patriarch of Constantinople was given jurisdiction over the "lands of the barbarians", which would surely include us! I don't think we will run into any problems with jurisdictional lines outside of parts of Eastern Europe and perhaps with the Melkites (though I doubt the latter).
"However, that is digressing from the point, the present Pope in his recent meeting with the Patriarch of Constantinople emphasised that the PAtriarch was the Popes equal -- it's not everything, but is a step to reconciliation. Hopefully, we move away from the arrogance you see in us."
I think the old Pope is doing a great job, and I'm actually proud of the EP, which is sort of a new experience for me.
Thanks.
Sounds like a mess of a search for all of us, so far.
Thanks.
Sounds good.
Re the propaganda . . .
I don't care how much of the Inquisition stuff may be rightly passed off as propaganda, it seems clear to me, horrid things occurred to some degree for more than an unfortunate few.
Have been blessed by many of his doings.
In researching St. John Chrysostom, I learned quite a bit about the church during his lifetime (latter part of the 3rd century). The following truly caught my attention.
"At this time in Constantinople was a weak Emperor Arcadius who was somewhat dominated by his wife Empress Eudoxia. The royal court was known for its luxury and intrigue. The great metropolis was half Western and half oriental. The bishop of Constantinople for all practical purposes was head of the whole Byzantine episcopate. The Church in Constantinople had its problems: luxurious living in the episcopal household with frequent banquets, clergy who kept women housekeepers vowed to virginity, avarice and luxury among some of the clergy, a murderer and adulterer among the deacons, some monks roaming about aimlessly without discipline and some ecclesiastical widows living in a wordly manner."
Essentially, nothing has changed! Perhaps each generation believes that it is confronted with what must be the worst apostacy. However, in reviewing the history of the church, we discover that abuses were there from the very outset and the church has always triumphed over them.
The thing is that the Catholic Church isnt' made of separate Churchs in the same way as the Orthodox communion, we are made of separate traditions, but not separate communites/Churchs.
Excellent point! However, the Catholic Church views itself as Western and Eastern.
The dominant rite IS Latin, true, but I don't think it is impossible for a Ruthenian Catholic (note, as NYer says we do not use the term Uniate any more) or Maronite bishop to be the next Pope.
Given the predominance of Latin Rite cardinals, the likelihood of that occuring is remote - BUT - all are on an equal stance. This particular pope is most enthusiastic and desirous of ecumenism between the western and the eastern churches. Obviously, his days are numbered but then again, who are we to outguess God! JPII's detractors felt they could outwit the College of Cardinals by outliving the pope. Apparently, God had other plans.
If "ecumenism" predominates as a concern at the next convocation, then it is possible the cardinals could select an Eastern Catholic Rite bishop. Who better to bridge the gap.
"The thing is that the Catholic Church isnt' made of separate Churchs in the same way as the Orthodox communion, we are made of separate traditions, but not separate communites/Churchs.
Excellent point! However, the Catholic Church views itself as Western and Eastern. "
This exchange points up a basic difference in ideas about what the Church is. Orthodoxy teaches, along with St. Ignatius of Antioch, that the fullness of the Church is found the local Eucharistic Community, the bishop surrounded by his clergy and flock. National or Patriarchial Churches are Mystically the Church by virtue of their intercommunion with the local communities and all the Patriarchial Churches and National Autocephalous Churches together are similarly , Mystically, the Church by virtue of their intercommunion. It all comes back to the Eucharistic Community at the local level as representing the absolute fullness of the Church, existing within the hierarchial framework established by the Apostles. In theory, all the Patriarchial Sees, National Churches, Metropolitanates and dioceses in the world save one tiny one somewhere could cease to exist and yet the Church, in its fullness would still exist and be not one whit diminished. Which I find incredibly neat!
With my very limited experience, Kolokotronis, I do find this to be the case in the Maronite Catholic Church. The directives followed come from the Patriarch. Granted, the Maronite Patriarch is in full communion with the Magisterium and is also a cardinal in the College of Cardinals (making him papabile). The distinctions are there and are respected.
For my part (and once again, I will remind all that the experience is most limited), our parish falls into one of 2 US eparchys.
To cite an example for our Orthodox brethren of just how this works, allow me to cite the example of the Holy Father declaring this to be the Year of the Eucharist for the entire church. (BTW, our bishop was enthroned in April 2004. Present at his Enthronement Ceremony, was the Papal Nuncio who read the the pope's announcement of Gregory John Mansour as Bishop of the Brooklyn Maronite Eparchy. Bishop Mansour is only the 2nd American born bishop to be named to this post.)
In October 2004, Bishop Mansour issued his "First Pastoral Letter On the Occasion of the Year Dedicated to Jesus Christ in the Eucharist". His beautiful 8 page document ends with the reminder:
"May our Lord find in us a worthy temple for His dwelling, and like the disciples on the road to Emmaus, may we once again "come to know Him in the breaking of the bread" (Luke 24:13)."
This beautiful treatise on the Holy Eucharist is enshrined in a booklet, distributed to all parishioners at the Divine Liturgy. On the back cover of the booklet, Bishop Mansour has enrobed his message in a Maronite context, with these words:
"Fire and Spirit are in the womb of her that bore You; Fire and Spirit are in the river in which You were baptized; fire and Spirit are in our baptism, and in the Bread and the Cup is Fire and Spirit" (St. Ephrem).
I have no idea what the Roman Rite churches in our community have done, under the leadership of Bishp Hubbard, to address this important message, nor do I care. Each week's edition of The Evangelist (the diocesan newspaper) is like a wake up call, in that the articles posted "wake me up" to what I left behind.
The Maronite Catholic Church functions in her own way, subject to the Bishop, who is subject to the Patriarch, who is in turn subject to the Holy Father. One cannot begin to compare the two very distinct approaches in delivery of the same message.
As I am wont to do, I have swerved off onto some tangent, but I expect you have caught the drift and can discern the distinctions that separate an Eastern from a Western Catholic approach to the same dissemination of fundamental truth. Does any of this make sense?
"Does any of this make sense?"
Yup! But I don't like the idea of your Patriarch being "subject" to the Pope, but then again, discipline is discipline, at least thusfar.
A bishops "owes" his authority to an Apostle who received it from God. Just as the Church was where the apostles were with their flock, so it is with the bishop.
The idea that somehow all the churches make up a Body of Christ in a physical sence, and are akin to our body parts is insane! Compating churches to eyes, finger and hands of one and the same body...no, I am sorry.
We are talking transcendental God, not a circumscribed human! What happened to Orthodox apophatic knowledge? The Holy Spirit is here, there, and everywhere; yesterday, today, tomorrow, and forever.
The Church is where the bishop is. The fact that bishops "commune" and defer to each other in honor is a different story altogether.
When we say that the bishops are in communion, it means they share one and the same faith; like drinking out of one and the same cup. Why convolute things? If you teach Trinity and I teach three separate gods we can't be un communion even if we celebrate the Eucharist and everything esle exactly the same way.
"The idea that somehow all the churches make up a Body of Christ in a physical sence, and are akin to our body parts is insane! Compating churches to eyes, finger and hands of one and the same body...no, I am sorry."
Which is why I said the Churches in communion with each other Mystically make up the Body of Christ.
Kolo, I know what you meant, and you are right of course -- because you qualified it with the Mystery that God always is. I was referring to the Catholic idea that views the Body of Christ as a "sum of its parts" which seems preposterous to me from a theological point of view of a transcendental God. :-)
Kolokotronis: "Yup! But I don't like the idea of your Patriarch being "subject" to the Pope, but then again, discipline is discipline, at least thusfar."
A Patriarch being 'subject' to Pope is something really, really new and unknown to the Undivided Church. Sort of like an oxymoron.
But then, at the time of the councils, vast tracts of Western Europe were still 'barbarian lands'. Would the Phillipines then be under the Patriarch of Constantinople?
I don't think the Patriarch is 'subject' to the Pope. NYer, please could you clarify?
"But then, at the time of the councils, vast tracts of Western Europe were still 'barbarian lands'. Would the Phillipines then be under the Patriarch of Constantinople?"
Well to hear the EP justify his claim to jurisdiction in the Americas, you'd think so. Other Orthodox jurisdictions don't agree with that. I think if reunion ever comes, the hierarchs will have to work this one out and I suspect it will mean a change in the ancient jurisdictional rules since it is highly unlikely that any of us are going to be willing to give up our Rites if we live in what might have been anciently considered some other patriarch's territory. How this will work out I have no idea. Maybe those areas which were ancient territories will stay the same and the "new lands" in something of a free for all like it is now, but the Catholics in Greece and Russia and the Orthodox in France or England might not like that.
*"Religion" means bond with God.
. But mangled by hearts deceitful too often beyond their knowing ..
*It can also be mangled by individuals thinking they know more/better than those who came before them.
It doesn't really matter to me the DEGREE of horror in the Inquisitional period.
Deuteronomy 17:
When there shall be found among you within any of thy gates, which the Lord thy God shall give thee, man or woman that do evil in the sight of the Lord thy God, and transgress his covenant,
3 So as to go and serve strange gods, and adore them, the sun and the moon, and all the host of heaven, which I have not commanded:
4 And this is told thee, and hearing it thou hast inquired diligently, (Inquisition) and found it to be true, and that the abomination is committed in Israel:
5 Thou shalt bring forth the man or the woman, who have committed that most wicked thing, to the gates of thy city, and they shall be stoned.
* We Christians, the New Israel, were just trodding in the same footsteps as the Jews who were following a Divine Command.
I don't think much of Freud..
*Me either
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.