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!