Monday, January 25, 2010

Pope Working Toward Unity with EO



"The Pope Is the First Among the Patriarchs"



"With Benedict XVI, for the first time in history, the Orthodox have agreed to discuss the primacy of the bishop of Rome, according to the model of the first millennium, when the Church was undivided."

See full article here.

Please also continue to the comments section here for a discussion on ethnicity and rights of the rites in other jurisdictions.

In JMJ,
Scott

9 comments:

  1. It seems while some are content to continue to stir polemical arguments, real progress may be being made toward ultimate reconciliation. Let us continue to pray for this end.

    In JMJ,
    Scott<<<

    ReplyDelete
  2. Orthocath (OC) blogged about married priests and asks if coexistence can really take place with one side having married clergy. My response was YES! We already coexist with this!

    OC states: "as of now, married candidates for ordination in Eastern Catholic Churches need to obtain dispensations from Rome. In some countries they are not even allowed to ordain married men. Is that showing respect for a tradition that would be viewed as equal? Does the Pope have the right to restrict this tradition?"

    Part of OC's problem here is to realize that not only is this a matter of jurisdiction, it is a matter of ethnicity. Eastern churches tend to be quite ethnic, and Rome respects this. By the same token, local ethnicity must be respected. Consider how well it would go over if a Latin Rite Catholic parish were to open in downtown Moscow and demand everything be equal! Moscow is ethnically Eastern - and thus it would be wrong to expect a Latin Rite parish to just open up and expect everyone to be treated absolutely as equals. Likewise, in the West - which is predominately Western European ethnicity wise - Eastern Church cannot expect to just plop down in a jurisdiction not their own and just do as they please. Cooperation with the local bishop is necessary and respect for the local ethnic background needs to be respected. This is just the way things ought to be.

    Orthodoxy is not a Western church, they did not settle the West and did not bring the Gospel to the natives as did the Latin Church. Centuries later those of Eastern ethnicity settled in the "New World" - and you know what, the West has made allowances for their ethnicity to be brought with them! Again, local ethnicity should be respected and overt proselytizing should not only be avoided, but officially restricted. Likewise, consider that Latin parish in downtown Moscow - should they be allowed go out recruiting from the ranks of Orthodoxy? Or, should they be permitted to exist for any small pocket of Latin Rite Catholics who may live in and/or be visiting Moscow?

    This pendulum swings both ways.

    In JMJ,
    Scott<<<

    ReplyDelete
  3. It's got nothing to do with ethnicity. It might have something to do with religious heritage, but the original heritage is Pilgrim, which is not Catholic at all. Or you could go back the indians I suppose.

    If you want to know whether Eastern or Western Christianity came to America first, technically it was Eastern.

    How are you going to deal with a new continent? Are you going to break it up by country? That's kind of tough, because the United States didn't pop out fully formed in 1776. Russians were practicing in 1794 in Alaska back when the United States was a tiny east coast colony.

    And of course, back in 1054, southern Italy was very Greek in nature. Southern Italy was Eastern rite, which is why the Pope's interfering in the Eastern rite is the original root cause of the dispute of the 1054 schism. (This has been going on for a while now).

    People arrived from all over the place in America setting up Churches. I think its a bit late to claim it exclusively for one rite.

    But if you think that's great, why isn't it applied consistently? Why not obliterate the Eastern rite if you think it has no place here? Of course, they would all rebel and join Orthodoxy like they did a hundred years ago, but at least be consistent.

    If you think you can convince Orthodox churches to join Rome, oh and by the way you're plopped down in Western rite territory, I think you're living in the dreamworld that led us to where we are now. Eastern rite would have to be a first class citizen in the new world, not a second class one like Rome considers it now.

    ReplyDelete
  4. > John wrote: It's got nothing to
    > do with ethnicity. It might have
    > something to do with religious
    > heritage,

    sw: Um, that's "ethnicity."

    > but the original heritage is
    > Pilgrim, which is not Catholic at
    > all.

    sw: "Pilgrim" is not a religion. The Pilgrims were primarily Puritans escaping England. And if you study your history a bit I believe you'll find that the Puritans came out of WESTERN heritage, and thus THEIR heritage is Catholic.

    > Or you could go back the indians
    > I suppose.

    sw: We're talking "Christian."

    > If you want to know whether
    > Eastern or Western Christianity
    > came to America first, technically
    > it was Eastern.

    sw: Sure, in Alaska, not the 48 contiguous states. You would have a point in arguing for Alaska to have Eastern heritage, Christianity wise anyway.

    > How are you going to deal with a
    > new continent? Are you going to
    > break it up by country? That's
    > kind of tough, because the United
    > States didn't pop out fully
    > formed in 1776.

    sw: Actually, you're about 11 years too early, it was 1787 before the Constitution was signed. In 1776 a bunch of British citizens were starting a revolution. Again, they were still Western in heritage.

    > Russians were practicing in 1794
    > in Alaska back when the United
    > States was a tiny east coast
    > colony.

    sw: Maybe I was giving Alaska too early of credit? I thought it was earlier than that.

    > And of course, back in 1054,
    > southern Italy was very Greek in
    > nature. Southern Italy was
    > Eastern rite, which is why the
    > Pope's interfering in the Eastern
    > rite is the original root cause
    > of the dispute of the 1054
    > schism. (This has been going on
    > for a while now).

    sw: Southern Italy is STILL very Eastern in heritage!

    > People arrived from all over the
    > place in America setting up
    > Churches. I think its a bit late
    > to claim it exclusively for one
    > rite.

    sw: They were predominately Western in heritage, and I did not argue for exclusivity, now did I? No, I argued for the predominant culture.

    > But if you think that's great,
    > why isn't it applied
    > consistently? Why not obliterate
    > the Eastern rite if you think it
    > has no place here? Of course,
    > they would all rebel and join
    > Orthodoxy like they did a hundred
    > years ago, but at least be
    > consistent.

    sw: Again, I made NO suggestion to obliterate the Eastern Rite! It is this sort of polemics which poisons the well for serious talks about reconciliation. You didn't deal with my example of a Latin Rite parish opening in Moscow - how should THAT be treated in the predominately Eastern culture? I have been VERY consistent - how about dealing with that scenario? Let's see how consistent you are, shall we?

    > If you think you can convince
    > Orthodox churches to join Rome,
    > oh and by the way you're plopped
    > down in Western rite territory, I
    > think you're living in the
    > dreamworld that led us to where
    > we are now.

    sw: I live in reality, I do not live in a reality which clings to past and FAILED polemics.

    > Eastern rite would have to be a
    > first class citizen in the new
    > world, not a second class one
    > like Rome considers it now.

    sw: Eastern Rites are NOT "second class citizens!" In THEIR homelands THEY have precedence, but in OTHER homelands - they should EXPECT to give precedence to the cultural church which predominates the territory.

    In JMJ,
    Scott<<<

    ReplyDelete
  5. I didn't detect the link earlier which shows "Connecticut" - but "first" is not what I refer to, rather "predominate." IF this Eastern colony had prevailed, remained and grew - THEN you'd have a point against mine. The FACT is, that excavation is a relatively modern find - and Eastern Christianity was quite foreign to "the New World" for at LEAST another millennium. Thanks for posting that though, it IS fascinating!

    In JMJ,
    Scott<<<

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Um, that's "ethnicity.""

    Um, no it isn't. The religious heritage of my ancestors may end up being Orthodox, but not their ethnicity.

    "And if you study your history a bit I believe you'll find that the Puritans came out of WESTERN heritage, and thus THEIR heritage is Catholic."

    Come to that, the apostles came out of the East, so Catholic heritage is Eastern. How far back are you going to go?

    "sw: We're talking "Christian."

    Oh, so heretical Christian counts with a distinctly non-canonical rite, but non-Christian doesn't? Perhaps you can cite some canon law on that.

    " I did not argue for exclusivity, now did I? No, I argued for the predominant culture."

    But why did you so argue? Roman Catholicism has the concept of a mixed diocese. I can understand that the bishop might be western rite in such a diocese, but that is not at issue. But why do you demand the "predominant" culture overrides the other one? If through political turmoil a lot of Greeks move to Rome, do you mind if Eastern rite practices suddenly become enforced on existing western parishes? Do you mind if the Pope becomes subject to Eastern canon law in such a scenario? Do you mind in the case of a theoretical union that the Eastern rite bishop in Alaska appoints married clergy to existing Roman parishes? Do you mind if they are converted to Eastern rite?

    By what logic do you maintain that the predominant rite gets to force practices of that rite on the other rite?

    "I made NO suggestion to obliterate the Eastern Rite"

    Oh right, only partially obliterate it. Latinize it until you can't tell it is Eastern, or make it Eastern only on the surface with all the major Eastern distinctives washed out.

    "You didn't deal with my example of a Latin Rite parish opening in Moscow - how should THAT be treated in the predominately Eastern culture?"

    I don't see the problem. Russian bishops DO have western rite parishes. Perhaps not in Moscow, mainly because of lack of demand, but I see no reason they would be against one in principle. If a ton of Roman Catholics moved to Moscow and converted to Orthodoxy, I can well imagine a western rite parish coming into being in Moscow under the Moscow patriarchate.

    Remeber the 1054 schism? The Pope was forcing Eastern rite parishes in Southern Italy to use Western practices. The Ecumenical Patriarch retaliated by forcing the Western rite parishes in his area to use Eastern rite practices. He had Western rite parishes! Latins living in his area had their own rite, and they were allowed to co-exist until the Pope's politics caused problems.

    " Eastern Rites are NOT "second class citizens!" In THEIR homelands THEY have precedence, but in OTHER homelands - they should EXPECT to give precedence to the cultural church which predominates the territory."

    How are they not second class citizens IN THE NEW WORLD, when they can't practice the Eastern rite?

    See the thing is, the Eastern rite has its canon law. Eastern canon law specifically says that nobody should be denied the rank of presbyter on the basis of being married. You want Eastern rite parishes that do not obey Eastern canon law. That is not an Eastern rite parish. That is a Western rite parish wearing Eastern clothing.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I've decided to make a new blog entry to respond...

    ReplyDelete

Keep in mind while posting:
1) Please respond ON TOPIC to the article at hand.
2) Posts more than 4 weeks old are set to automatically save new comments for moderation - so your comment may not show up immediately if you're responding to an older post.
3) The "Spam Filter" is on - and randomly messages get caught in that filter. I have no control over which messages get caught in the spam filter and those that do must wait for me to mark them as "not spam." A message caught by the spam filter may show up for a moment, making you think it posted, and then disappear. Do not assume I have deleted your comment, it's probably just the spam filter and it will show up.