One of the biggest shifts of the last few centuries is viewing dioceses and geography separately. If there can be three valid sets of bishops over Ukraine and so also is the situation elsewhere and even in the United States there are so many overlapping jurisdictions. This began with the medicant movements 1000 years ago and has been increasing since.
A big problem with ecuminism and even with Eastern Catholics and religious orders has been the question of who is actually in charge of the Catholic Church in a particular location. This extends to Catholic media being allowed or not allowed to call itself Catholic. Who decides that question if there are 5 overlapping dioceses and 10 potentially overlapping jurisdictions (ordinariates etc.)? The tendency has been for the Latin geographic bishop to have a sort of primacy over his brother ordinaries.
One solution to this is an ultrapope who manages everything from Rome. Since he is actually in charge, any local disagreements can be settled by appealing to the emperor-pope. If the pope says that Restorers are evil, then every ordinary knows what to do about restoration. The whole Church then just becomes an expression of a fading intellect fighting the battles of his youth.
An alternative is membership-based Churches. This has been happening on a smaller scale in cities where parishes are no longer geographic but membership-based. The danger of this of course is that the parishes begin to see each other as the enemy. The restorationist parish sees the social justice parish as evil and vice-versa. When saints are in charge of the Franciscans and Dominicans, they can embrace, but that will not easily last.
Further, when bishops see priests as basically empty functionaries who can be moved around like pieces on a board, it is upsetting to a parish who has had 10 years of a restorationist pastor to have a renovationist pastor show up, and vice-versa.
Christ did not found a geographic Church but a membership-based one. He attracted followers. These followers often disagreed with each other. Peter led, but people challenged him. Paul and James could get along but their followers did not always, nor did their successors always.
We cannot overestimate the value of a humble pope who does as little as he possibly can while maintaining unity. And we must have a generous attitude toward the other Churches, especially the ones we share geography with, and I think that the varieties of ordinariates will keep increasing. Neither individualized diversity nor suffocating unity will work.
Father, are you implying that there should not be Eastern Eparchies but that all of them should be under the jurisdiction of one bishop even if a hierarch of another ritual Church?
If so the Eastern Catholic Churches would suffer greatly and some might reunite with their Mother Orthodox Churches. Rightfully so.
It is funny how internet comments work. No, the opposite of that. Multiple expressions of the one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church can coexist in the same geography. To deny that would be to deny the validity of the current structures of eparchies and ordinariates. This can work one of two ways: the pope can just run everything from Rome and no one has real authority. There can be overlapping branch managers because the CEO is actually running everything. That is what we are currently doing. I don't like it. The other is membership based Churches. Each bishop has authority over the members of his Church. Any sufficiently large group of the faithful has a right to a bishop over them. This has always been fought against by geographic bishops, especially in Donatist Africa, but it might be the best option of the three.
If there can be 4 valid bishops with authority in Kiev, why cannot there be 10? In the early Church this was accomplished by having bishops in every small town. In the age of modern travel and the internet, we do not have to be geographically tied together. If there should be a Ukrainian bishop in Philadelphia, why not an SSPX one?
I think the idea has possibilities, but there are also potential dangers. Not just enmities (as you mention) but Protestant-style "church shopping" and, worse, parishes that are ethnically or economically exclusive.
I have sometimes thought that we'd be better off with each town having its own bishop, so that the bishop can genuinely know his people. And it would help rid us of the absurdity of purely titular bishops, too!
"If everything depended on Patriarch Bartholomew and Pope Francis, they could reach the restoration of the communion. "
This seems to be the hopeful thrust of this article. But realistically, how many Orthodox churches and parishes would follow the Ecumenical Patriarch into such a union? Wouldn't we just see yet another split in the Orthodox churches, with uniates on one side and the "new" Orthodox churches on the other?
The Synods of bishops of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, the Church of Greece, Bulgaria, Georgia and more would never accept full communion and a common chalice anytime soon. This ideas that they would is pure fantasy. We have to remember that the Ecumenical Patriarch is nothing like a pope of the Catholic Church.
I really don’t think that a bishop of Rome like Francis has the values, ecclesiology or
praxis to come close enough to Orthodoxy to effect full communion. The Orthodox clergy I know want nothing to do with his agenda.
We have to remember that the Orthodox watch the Eastern Catholic Churches and they see that “sui juris” does not mean “self governing”. The Eastern Code of Canons of the Catholic Church are “one size” fits all when there is a diversity of Liturgy, traditions and practice. These Canons “latinize” the Eastern Churches in many ways. They are also handed down from Rome.
The Orthodox also see how Rome controls the Eastern Catholic Churches by appointing bishops outside of the original homelands. All this flies in the face of the Orthodox ways.
One of the biggest shifts of the last few centuries is viewing dioceses and geography separately. If there can be three valid sets of bishops over Ukraine and so also is the situation elsewhere and even in the United States there are so many overlapping jurisdictions. This began with the medicant movements 1000 years ago and has been increasing since.
A big problem with ecuminism and even with Eastern Catholics and religious orders has been the question of who is actually in charge of the Catholic Church in a particular location. This extends to Catholic media being allowed or not allowed to call itself Catholic. Who decides that question if there are 5 overlapping dioceses and 10 potentially overlapping jurisdictions (ordinariates etc.)? The tendency has been for the Latin geographic bishop to have a sort of primacy over his brother ordinaries.
One solution to this is an ultrapope who manages everything from Rome. Since he is actually in charge, any local disagreements can be settled by appealing to the emperor-pope. If the pope says that Restorers are evil, then every ordinary knows what to do about restoration. The whole Church then just becomes an expression of a fading intellect fighting the battles of his youth.
An alternative is membership-based Churches. This has been happening on a smaller scale in cities where parishes are no longer geographic but membership-based. The danger of this of course is that the parishes begin to see each other as the enemy. The restorationist parish sees the social justice parish as evil and vice-versa. When saints are in charge of the Franciscans and Dominicans, they can embrace, but that will not easily last.
Further, when bishops see priests as basically empty functionaries who can be moved around like pieces on a board, it is upsetting to a parish who has had 10 years of a restorationist pastor to have a renovationist pastor show up, and vice-versa.
Christ did not found a geographic Church but a membership-based one. He attracted followers. These followers often disagreed with each other. Peter led, but people challenged him. Paul and James could get along but their followers did not always, nor did their successors always.
We cannot overestimate the value of a humble pope who does as little as he possibly can while maintaining unity. And we must have a generous attitude toward the other Churches, especially the ones we share geography with, and I think that the varieties of ordinariates will keep increasing. Neither individualized diversity nor suffocating unity will work.
Father, are you implying that there should not be Eastern Eparchies but that all of them should be under the jurisdiction of one bishop even if a hierarch of another ritual Church?
If so the Eastern Catholic Churches would suffer greatly and some might reunite with their Mother Orthodox Churches. Rightfully so.
It is funny how internet comments work. No, the opposite of that. Multiple expressions of the one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church can coexist in the same geography. To deny that would be to deny the validity of the current structures of eparchies and ordinariates. This can work one of two ways: the pope can just run everything from Rome and no one has real authority. There can be overlapping branch managers because the CEO is actually running everything. That is what we are currently doing. I don't like it. The other is membership based Churches. Each bishop has authority over the members of his Church. Any sufficiently large group of the faithful has a right to a bishop over them. This has always been fought against by geographic bishops, especially in Donatist Africa, but it might be the best option of the three.
If there can be 4 valid bishops with authority in Kiev, why cannot there be 10? In the early Church this was accomplished by having bishops in every small town. In the age of modern travel and the internet, we do not have to be geographically tied together. If there should be a Ukrainian bishop in Philadelphia, why not an SSPX one?
I think the idea has possibilities, but there are also potential dangers. Not just enmities (as you mention) but Protestant-style "church shopping" and, worse, parishes that are ethnically or economically exclusive.
I have sometimes thought that we'd be better off with each town having its own bishop, so that the bishop can genuinely know his people. And it would help rid us of the absurdity of purely titular bishops, too!
Father, apologies, I completely misunderstood you. I agree with you.
"If everything depended on Patriarch Bartholomew and Pope Francis, they could reach the restoration of the communion. "
This seems to be the hopeful thrust of this article. But realistically, how many Orthodox churches and parishes would follow the Ecumenical Patriarch into such a union? Wouldn't we just see yet another split in the Orthodox churches, with uniates on one side and the "new" Orthodox churches on the other?
The Synods of bishops of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, the Church of Greece, Bulgaria, Georgia and more would never accept full communion and a common chalice anytime soon. This ideas that they would is pure fantasy. We have to remember that the Ecumenical Patriarch is nothing like a pope of the Catholic Church.
We should continue to pray for unity amongst Catholics and Orthodox.
I really don’t think that a bishop of Rome like Francis has the values, ecclesiology or
praxis to come close enough to Orthodoxy to effect full communion. The Orthodox clergy I know want nothing to do with his agenda.
We have to remember that the Orthodox watch the Eastern Catholic Churches and they see that “sui juris” does not mean “self governing”. The Eastern Code of Canons of the Catholic Church are “one size” fits all when there is a diversity of Liturgy, traditions and practice. These Canons “latinize” the Eastern Churches in many ways. They are also handed down from Rome.
The Orthodox also see how Rome controls the Eastern Catholic Churches by appointing bishops outside of the original homelands. All this flies in the face of the Orthodox ways.