Eastern Orthodox at Pope's Funeral? (Vanity)

[Kolokotronis]

"Does it bother you that Eastern Catholics were allowed to do a rite, rather than the Eastern Orthodox, considering that the Eastern Catholics are like, Catholics and all, and JPII was like, you know, Catholic?"

All members of the canonical Orthodox Churches are Catholics, just not Roman Catholics and not in communion with the Pope. It is unfortunate that the term has come to be co-extensive with "Roman Catholic" in the popular mind. There has been an agreement of sorts that the Orthodox and the Romans will refrain from calling the Eastern European churches which look Orthodox but are in communion with Rome "Uniates" since the term is seen as offensive to those churches which wish to be considered sui juris and particular churches within The Church. I suspect this "Eastern Catholic" appellation comes from that decision. From my personal point of view, "Uniate" seems far more appropriate and truthful and the desire of these churches to be seen as sui juris, while being quite understandable, nevertheless is a rather disingenuous denial of their own rather sorry history. They are one of the major stumbling blocks in the way of closer relations between Rome and Orthodoxy in a way that the particular Churches of the Middle East and Orient, like the Melkites and the Maronites among others, simply aren't and likely never will be.

[Kolokotronis]

"You are a joy and a delight!"

Why thank-you! You are, madame, too kind to an old man!

[Cronos]

Gotta agree with Conservative, Kosta, you are being petty. We couldnt' invite the EO Patriarch's to conduct the ceremony as they wouldn't do it. We have Eastern Rites in the Catholic Church -- remember that the Catholicos of the Maronnite, Syro-Malankara and Syro-Malabar Churchs are equal in dignity to the Bishop of Rome, so the church conducted the ceremony in the Eastern rites as well. I consider it a big step for the EO to come along -- and they were very welcome.

[Kolokotronis]

"We have Eastern Rites in the Catholic Church -- remember that the Catholicos of the Maronnite, Syro-Malankara and Syro-Malabar Churchs are equal in dignity to the Bishop of Rome, so the church conducted the ceremony in the Eastern rites as well"

Are you sure about this one, Cronos? If this is correct, I think we all will have to rethink our perceptions of Roman ecclesiology and the appropriate functions of the Petrine Office. The impact of proclaiming that the Catholicos of say, the Syro-Malabar Church is equal in dignity to the Pope of Rome means either a) the Pope is simply an equal, not even the first among equals or b)such a Catholicos is superior in honor to the Ecumenical Patriarch. Either is non canonical.

[Cronos]

If this is correct, I think we all will have to rethink our perceptions of Roman ecclesiology and the appropriate functions of the Petrine Office

Have read it up -- in respect to the elevation of the Syro-Malankara or Syro-Malabar head of to the rank of Catholicos. Let me get a link. I would guess that NYer would be able to verify/correct this

[Cronos]

Got this:

Some Eastern Churches have patriarchs, all of whom are equal in dignity but some of whom retain traditional places of honor in assemblies.

It is opportune, in the light of these words of Pope John Paul II, to offer some reflections on the Eastern Churches themselves. As Vatican II taught, the autonomous ritual Churches - whether of the East or of the West - are of equal dignity so that none of them is superior to another

Agin, the post where I saw this, was in an online paper, saying that the Indian Patriarchs were made Catholicos and that this meant that they were equal to the Pope. I haven't found that link, nor been able to verify this at the offical Catholic sites, however, I've not been able to disprove it. Note that it is for these two Indian prelates only, no mention of the Byzantine Rite or Greek rite prelates.

[Cronos]

On reading your post again:
The impact of proclaiming that the Catholicos of say, the Syro-Malabar Church is equal in dignity to the Pope of Rome means either a) the Pope is simply an equal, not even the first among equals or b)such a Catholicos is superior in honor to the Ecumenical Patriarch

I should have been more clearer. The statement in no way negated that the Pope is the First among equals or that the Ecumenical Patriarch is the next in line of honour. All the statement said was that these Catholicos were equal in honour. I took that to mean in the same way as how the Russian Patriarchate was formed and how the Russian (and Romanian etc.) Patriarchates are equal to the EP but the EP is the first among equals (when the Patriarch of the West is not present).

[kosta50]

Cronos, when the Pope came to America, he was greeted first by the Greek Orthodox representative of the EP, because the EP is next in precedence. Pope John-Paul II honored that because he was just that type of a man.

That's protocol. The EP is the second in honor to the Pope. We recongize that. The Latins should recognize it too as long as they claim they recognize the first Seven Councils.

I didn't ask for the EP to conduct the service. No need for that. I expected the EP to be plainly visible, and recognized as the highest dignitary of the Church. After all, JPII celebrated the Mass with the EP on two occasions. I am sure he would not have minded if the EP performed this last Mass either. But, considering our division, it is understandable that it would not be appropriate. That does not change the fact that there was no other senior clergyman in honor in the Church. And he was nowehere to be seen -- except by those who know him. Not a word, not a moment of respect. Sad, very sad.

If you can't see that, I am sorry.

[Agrarian]

"You may be right but I note that +Demetrios presided at the funeral of +Anthony of San Francisco rather than the senior priest of that diocese."

Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I meant to be. I meant that the senior most hierarch in the local/national church -- i.e. the senior-most hierarch in the Synod of Bishops for his country/jurisdiction -- which would of course have been Abp. Demetrios. I would expect a bishop to ordinarily have his funeral presided over by another bishop from his national church whenever possible, and not by a priest.

Also, I think that you are very correct regarding the fact that there are probably differences between precedence at a funeral (which does not contain the serving of the Divine Liturgy) and what would happen at a Divine Liturgy.

Again, at a Divine Liturgy, I'm not sure anyone has precedence over the diocesan bishop (permanent or acting) of the church where the Liturgy is being served. In the OCA, when a hierarch dies, I believe that the general protocol is that the primate is the acting diocesan bishop until a new bishop is elected and installed. If this is true in the Greek Archdiocese, then Abp. Demetrios would have been acting both as the senior bishop of the national church and as the acting diocesan bishop of San Francisco.

At any rate, the important thing is that all be done in good order. There was certainly plenty of order in the Vatican this week...

[Kolokotronis]

"Cronos, when the Pope came to America, he was greeted first by the Greek Orthodox representative of the EP, because the EP is next in precedence. Pope John-Paul II honored that because he was just that type of a man."

I remember that incident and the ruckus it caused among some Romes well. One of our hierarchs told me that +Iakovos and some members of the Eparchial Synod were at the tarmac with the American cardinals. As the Pope's plane taxied up, two cardinals told +Iakovos that they and their wished for him to be the first to greet the Pope and welcome him to America, because "You are our elder brother and to you belongs the precedence since you represent the Ecumenical Patriarch". It turns out that +Iakovos didn;t know about this in advance although it had been planned in the Vatican. When you think about it, of course, it is proper protocol.

[NYer]

"We have Eastern Rites in the Catholic Church -- remember that the Catholicos of the Maronnite, Syro-Malankara and Syro-Malabar Churchs are equal in dignity to the Bishop of Rome, so the church conducted the ceremony in the Eastern rites as well"

I'm sure I've posted this before but, if not, here it is again. My resource for this information is Rev. Anthony J. Salim, author of Captivated By Your Teachings - a resource book for Maronite Catholics. He says:

In the 16th century, several Eastern Churches began a process of restoring communion with the Vatican in Rome, which by now had clearly become the center of the Catholic Church in the West. To some degree, these newly reunited Churches retained their Eastern traditions and became known as the "Eastern Catholic Churches", as distinct from their Orthodox counterparts. (exceptions: Maronite Catholic Church and the Italo-Albanian Catholic Church which never separated from Rome.)

The process of reunion adopted then was known as "Uniatism", implying union with Rome. Such union was one-sided in that it meant a union on Western (Latin) terms. Practically speaking, this meant te loss of some authentically Eastern liturgical customs and disciplines (ex: iconostasis of the Byzantine Tradition and use of unleavened bread in any Eastern Tradition). Ultimately, uniatism came to be perceived as a pejorative term in both Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

Even for the Maronite Church, the pressure to conform to a Latin norm caused deep scars.

The Second Vatican Council recognized that a high price was paid by the Eastern Cathoic Churches in terms of latinization. Thus, the Council directed that the process of coming into communion of the Churches needs to be done differently and the terms "uniatism" and "uniate" must never again be used.

In its Decree ORIENTALIUM ECCLESIARUM , the Council clearly stated the equality of all the ancient Traditions of the Church, East and West. It acknowledged the need for these Eastern Churches to reform what was needed, so that thsese living Churches could be a more authentic witness to their ancient Eastern heritages.

Prior to the Second Vatican Council's "Decree on the Eastern Catholic Churches", a common incorrect way of referring to Eastern Catholics was that they belonged to a "Rite," with no appreciation of them as self-governing (sui iuris) Churches. In the years after the Council a better understanding - because more ancient and authentic - of Eastern ecclesiology was revived. This seemingly newer understanding appreciates more the proper distinctions that need to be observed when we talk about Eastern Catholics. The Council, then, caused us to become more precise abut our individual designations by making the proper distinction between a "Rite," a 'Tradition" and a sui iuris "Particular Church."

While it is preferable to say that an Eastern Catholic individual is a member of a particular Eastern Catholic Church, it is also correct to say that she or he follows a liturgical Rite (or Tradition).

A Rite is a prayer ritual, or, by extension, a liturgical Tradition.

A Tradition has its own natural ways of expressing Catholicism according to proper language, native customs, discipline, theology, spirituality and liturgy. Tradition is broader than and includes rites, hence it is preferable to use the tern Tradition, as in Byzantine Tradition.

A sui iuris Church (sui iuris is Latin for "in" or "according to" "its own right") is a hierarchically-organized, self-governing Church within the Catholic Communion of Churches, derived from a particular Tradition. By "hierarchically-organized" is meant that the individual Church has some kind of governing leader (patriarch, metropolitan, major archbishop) and makes its own decidions for governing the ordinary life of the Church.

Of the one billion Catholics in the world, almost 20 million (2%) follow Eastern Traditions. They are grouped into Particular Churches deriving from 5 major Traditions:

1) Byzantine (Constantinopolitan) - the largest, with 13 Particular Churches;
2) West Syriac-Antiochene, with 3 Churches;
3) East Syriac/Assyrian "Church of the East," with 2 Churches;
4) Alxandrine, with 2 Churches; and
5) Armenian Church.

In the US, there are 16 Eastern Catholic jurisdictions representing 4 Traditions: 10 Byzantine jurisdictions; one Syrian (or Syriac) Catholic jurisdiction and 2 Maronite jurisdictions (both Syro-Antiochene); and one each from the Armenian Catholic, the Chaldean Catholic and Syro-Malabar Catholic. The total Eastern Catholic population in the US is nearly half a million.

[Agrarian]

"When you think about it, of course, it is proper protocol."

This was a fascinating little event. The proper person to greet the Pope would be the senior hierarch having jurisdiction over the country. By this action, the Roman Cardinals seem to have given credence to the EP's claim that "barbarian lands" like America belong to the jurisdiction of the EP, and not to any other Patriarch, including the Patriarch of Rome! :-)

The rationale that the representative of the EP should greet the Pope since he is second in honor doesn't make any sense at all -- if this were true, the EP's representative would greet the Pope every time he enters almost any country, since the EP has some presence almost everywhere. This would then reinforce the idea that the Pope has universal jurisdiction as pontiff and that the EP has a nearly universal jurisdiction as a greeter!

I view the actions of the Cardinals as a very nice and kind, if befuddled, gesture, and Iakovos absolutely did the right thing in responding in kind with graciousness and saying "thank-you very much" and going on to greet the Pope.

[Kolokotronis]

"The rationale that the representative of the EP should greet the Pope since he is second in honor doesn't make any sense at all -- if this were true, the EP's representative would greet the Pope every time he enters almost any country, since the EP has some presence almost everywhere. This would then reinforce the idea that the Pope has universal jurisdiction as pontiff and that the EP has a nearly universal jurisdiction as a greeter!"

Oh, I don't know, maybe the EP's rep should always greet the Pope outside his own diocese (the Pope's) or perhaps outside the European West. After all, the Roman bishops and cardinals are sort of like the Pope's employees whereas the rep of the EP is just that, the rep of the EP. Now of course that would mean that the EP should be greeted by the Pope's men wherever he goes, rather like the Chairman of Board's rep greeting the vice chairman. Its all too complicated, and a bit too silly, frankly.

I think the real reason +Iakovos greeted the Pope was that the Vatican and the cardinals viewed him as the senior churchman in "Catholic" America and probably had nothing to do with the EP at all.

[Conservative til I die]

not only petty, but outright pathetic.

Not to be provocative here, but some (repeat, *some*) Orthodox have a real "little man" complex.

They don't like the Catholic Church, think we're apostates, yet they get angry when we don't include them in our reindeer games.

[Agrarian]

Was Abp. Iakovos the oldest bishop or the one who had been a bishop the longest in America at that time? That would make more sense, if true.

[Conservative til I die]

I suspect this "Eastern Catholic" appellation comes from that decision.

No, it's because they belong to the Eastern Rite, different to the rite that Roman Catholics (and the few other non-Roman Western Rite Catholics) belong to.

From my personal point of view, "Uniate" seems far more appropriate and truthful and the desire of these churches to be seen as sui juris, while being quite understandable, nevertheless is a rather disingenuous denial of their own rather sorry history.

Nothing but condescension and insults from the Orthodox.

[Conservative til I die]

The impact of proclaiming that the Catholicos of say, the Syro-Malabar Church is equal in dignity to the Pope of Rome means either a) the Pope is simply an equal, not even the first among equals or b)such a Catholicos is superior in honor to the Ecumenical Patriarch. Either is non canonical.

I think he may have mean that in the Pope's eyes, they are equal in dignity as other Catholics are. I could be wrong, but the wording does leave room for some confusion as to its meaning.

[Kolokotronis]

"Nothing but condescension and insults from the Orthodox."

You are probably right, though the continuing existence of those Eastern European Churches in communion with Rome, in light of the reason for which, and how, they were created in the first place, is an on going insult to Orthodoxy, especially within the jurisdiction of the Pat. of Moscow. The fact that the other Eastern Churches in communion with Rome do not engender such a response (indeed as some of us have noted on other threads there is actually a de facto intercommunion in some parts of the Middle East)indicates that the history of these churches carries a very different meaning than that of the others elsewhere. Ultimately, it may be the existence of these churches which will prevent any reunion between Orthodoxy and Rome. I'll bet the next pope consecrates one of their hierarchs as a Patriarch and that will be the end of it for reunion for another 700 years, and while that isn't a good thing, its hardly the end of the world. You're not chomping at the bit to attend and participate in Divine Liturgies in Orthodox Churches and I doubt many Orthodox are anxious to run off to the local Latin Rite Church for Mass so for those of us laity, it really isn't going to mean much in the end.

[Kolokotronis]

That makes sense. It would also fit with the theme of conciliarity which the Pope often spoke of, though apparently not enough for some of your revisionist bishops, especially in the States and Western Europe.