The universal church and the local churches

America | various | Card. Kasper, Card. Ratzinger, Card. Dulles

[Kolokotronis]

" Perhaps, but would you argue with the premise that the historical development of the Church was: universal church => local churches => grouping of local churches into regional patriarchates"

From a purely historical perspective, no, I would not disagree, but then again, I don't think that Pentecost was some "construction" of +Luke as +Kasper apparently does.

"In addition to the question of historical formation, would you object to the statement that the local churches flow ontologically from the universal church?"

Not at all. But as I have said before, the fullness of The Church is found in an individual diocese.

[Kolokotronis]

K: "I think it is completely wrong and distorted ecclesiology to think that the structures of these particular churches was some sort of administrative necessity."

M: "Besides which it begs for focus on institutionalizing of the church. And that, imho, leads further and logically to clericalism and perhaps even legalism."

That's the danger I see in the comments of +Avery Dulles.

[x5452]

Ultimately these things, if there is a union, must take on a physical reality.

We cannot have a primacy of jurisdiction because it would lead to a massive 'land grab'. Rome cannot own the orthodox churches down the street. Separate but equal and in communion must prevail.

Similarly if in communion (and seriously even now, when most agree that the Catholic and Orthodox doctrine are sufficiently similar in terms of salvation), the Catholic church cannot be trying to covert the converted in the Orthodox church (And vice versa). In America we don't see this really. In fact I was originally encouraged to investiage the Orthodox Church in my 7th grade religion class. But there are places where this is definitly occuring.

We can't have and understanding of primacy that leads individual parishes preaching to convert Greeks to the Roman church on the basis Rome is first amoung equals.

[x5452]

The problem of the local groupings under patriarchs is that with schisms it has gcome to be that numerous patriarchs and parishes in the same area under different patriarchs are the norm. In the event of communion between Rome and any of the Orthodox I cannot see uniting the Orthodox parishes under the existing Catholic Bishop nor vice versa. Even the Orthodox struggle with this in East Europe, and in America. There's AT LEAST 3 patriarchs for New York (OCA, ROCOR, and MP), and especially a few decades ago churches were actively going back and forth between them, and properties were being disputed. I don't see geography as being much of a way going forward to group churches, and that's a problem seeing as the only way it was ever canonicaly done was geographically.

[Petrosius]

We cannot have a primacy of jurisdiction because it would lead to a massive 'land grab'. Rome cannot own the orthodox churches down the street.

This should not be a problem. Rome does not even own my church. The property is owned by legal corporation whose board of trustees is composed of the bishop, the pastor (both ex officio), and two appointed lay trustees. I imagine that the arrangement differs from state to state but I would guess that they all recognized the bishop as the head of the corporation.

Similarly if in communion (and seriously even now, when most agree that the Catholic and Orthodox doctrine are sufficiently similar in terms of salvation), the Catholic church cannot be trying to covert the converted in the Orthodox church (And vice versa).

With union this would be a moot question; there would be one church. What would someone say: "Hey, buddy, you should convert from Catholic/Orthodox to Catholic/Orthodox. We Catholic/Orthodox know that we are the one true church and that you Catholic/Orthodox are heretics" ?

[Kolokotronis]

In all honesty, I don't think you'd see a massive land grab were there to be a reunion nor do I see any real problem with overlapping Orthodox/Latin dioceses. To the extent that Rome comes to truly accept that the Latin Church is merely a particular church within The Church, Rome's local or national hierarchs come to understand that they are more than simply Rome's hit men and that they have absolutely zero authority over the hierarchs of the other particular churches ( and vice versa under the appropriate circumstances), there shouldn't;t be a problem. As for the overlapping Orthodox jurisdictions, well frankly I think in the "New World", that's just a problem of form not substance, though I'll probably get flamed for that!

I can accept, P, your comfort that the Latins wouldn't be out trying to "convert" the Orthodox any more than we go around trying to "convert" the Antiochians or the Serbs or the Russians. It would be the same church. However, I do think there may be some reason for concern. Were I to start going to the Serbian Church we have here, I wouldn't need anyone's permission to switch to that parish. I'd just register and that would be that. In the Latin Church in this country, however, it doesn't work that way. Were I a Roman Catholic and I decided I'd had enough of the NO and the shenanigans which go on in some quarters of the Roman Church here and decided to join a Maronite parish, I'd have to go through a major process to "change rites" and get the permission of both my Latin Rite bishop and the Maronite Rite bishop. That level of control over the laity, in effect preventing the laity from voting with their feet, speaks volumes about the Roman system and we Orthodox would never countenance such a thing.

[Petrosius]

I think that your concern of the need permission to change rites is really one of form over substance. Although permission is needed to formally change rites, any Catholic can worship in a church of any rite that he chooses. I believe the whole question of the need for permission to change rites was actually instituted in order to protect the smaller Eastern rites from their rapacious Latin brothers. In other words, it was instituted to prevent exactly the activity that x5452 was worrying about.

[Kolokotronis]

"I believe the whole question of the need for permission to change rites was actually instituted in order to protect the smaller Eastern rites from their rapacious Latin brothers. In other words, it was instituted to prevent exactly the activity that x5452 was worrying about."

Huh! Never thought of that! I first heard of this from a Latin Rite Catholic who wanted to change rites and was denied, at least for the time being. But I see your point, which makes good sense, given the history of the Latins with the Eastern Rite types in this country.

I've actually seen something like this with some Roumanians. They are or were "Orthodox" but when their kids got to be school age and they wanted Catholic School for them, they quite suddenly moved over to the Latins...and got the tuition discount! Truth be told, under the circumstances I'd say we suffered no great loss nor the Latin parish any great gain! :)

[x5452]

So what's it boil down to. Would you say the filoque and acknowledge papal supremacy for 3 grand a year? (its potentially at least that for multiple children).

[Kolokotronis]

"So what's it boil down to. Would you say the filoque and acknowledge papal supremacy for 3 grand a year? (its potentially at least that for multiple children)."

So it would appear...by the way, it hasn't been three grand a year for a long time around here!

[x5452]

What's it run actually? I'm quite interested. Our children are not yet of school age and I'm quite concerned. There's no nearby Orthodox private schools so we plan to send them to a Catholic school.