Could the Papacy switch rites?

[KyivAndrew]

Originally Posted by Nine_Two

When did Peter give the keys to the second bishop of Rome?

KyivAndrew didn't address my point, nor apparently do you want to.

What point was I supposed to address? I was commenting on dcointin's post and thought that was it. O.K. Nine, you know I'm in an earlier time zone than you which means I am usually collapsed by the time you come flying in with a footnoted rebuttal. It's 11:30 p.m. here.

On "The Church" in Orthodoxy. O.K. I thought you may have agreed with me on another thread that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Ukraine should be allowed to return under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate as it was until 1686 if it so wishes. The major Orthodox Church in Ukraine by numbers is the uncanonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Kyivan Patriarchate) which I believes numbers something like 12-14 million believers versus the canonical Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine (or as it is called Ukrainian Orthodox Church - MP) which I believe numbers 9 million. These 12 or so million Ukrainians will have nothing to do with the Moscow Patriarchate which many of them see by and large as a tool of the Kremlin in Moscow and its political machinations. I believe this (Ukrainian Orthodox - Kyivan Patriarchate) to be the largest population of "Orthodox" in the world without canonical status. They hold the same tenets as do the Orthodox.

So, Nine, are these roughly 12 million Ukrainian Orthodox children, women, men apostates? Are their sacraments valid? Are they less Orthodox Christians in the eyes of God because of their canonical status which seems to hinge on a power struggle between Moscow, Constantinople, and Kyiv? How exactly do they fit into the εκκλησια? Or do they not fit in it at all? These are the questions I have of Orthodoxy.


p.s. i really didn't think I'd get in a debate this late, so out.

[Nine_Two]

Originally Posted by KyivAndrew

What point was I supposed to address? I was commenting on dcointin's post and thought that was it. O.K. Nine, you know I'm in an earlier time zone than you which means I am usually collapsed by the time you come flying in with a footnoted rebuttal. It's 11:30 p.m. here.

You weren't supposed to answer anything, ByzCath merely stated that you had answered my point in the post prior to my making it, I was just saying you hadn't dealt with that. Nothing wrong on your part.

On "The Church" in Orthodoxy. O.K. I thought you may have agreed with me on another thread that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Ukraine should be allowed to return under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate as it was until 1686 if it so wishes. The major Orthodox Church in Ukraine by numbers is the uncanonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Kyivan Patriarchate) which I believes numbers something like 12-14 million believers versus the canonical Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine (or as it is called Ukrainian Orthodox Church - MP) which I believe numbers 9 million. These 12 or so million Ukrainians will have nothing to do with the Moscow Patriarchate which many of them see by and large as a tool of the Kremlin in Moscow and its political machinations. I believe this (Ukrainian Orthodox - Kyivan Patriarchate) to be the largest population of "Orthodox" in the world without canonical status. They hold the same tenets as do the Orthodox.

Actually I think it would be a bad idea for them to return to the EP, since that would just serve to provoke Moscow (I know that isn't the intention). I think the ideal situation is that everyone involved sit down and iron something out, personally I see no reason why the Ukrainian Church shouldn't be given autocephaly, but I have no say in the matter.

So, Nine, are these roughly 12 million Ukrainian Orthodox children, women, men apostates? Are their sacraments valid? Are they less Orthodox Christians in the eyes of God because of their canonical status which seems to hinge on a power struggle between Moscow, Constantinople, and Kyiv? How exactly do they fit into the εκκλησια? Or do they not fit in it at all? These are the questions I have of Orthodoxy.

I wouldn't call them apostates, they are schismatics, though not far removed from Holy Orthodoxy - strangely over the same type of issue that once was the sole separation between the Orthodox and Rome - the idea of hierarchy. As for their sacraments, my opinion carries no weight in reality, but I would say they probably all are. They are certainly a church, a body of Christians, but they are not part of "the" Church.

I would answer the same way about Catholicism in general (keeping in mind that Catholicism has very much the same view of Orthodox).

p.s. i really didn't think I'd get in a debate this late, so out.

Don't worry about it, I just took an incredibly long time to write this, most of it spent staring off into space not really thinking.

[KyivAndrew]

Originally Posted by Nine_Two

Don't worry about it, I just took an incredibly long time to write this, most of it spent staring off into space not really thinking.

Sorry I cannot read what you wrote above because I am now sleeping.

[guanophore]

Originally Posted by dcointin

Orthodoxy doesn't think of unity in terms of *administration*, but in terms of *sacramental communion*. The Church is the "mystical body of Christ", united with Christ through faith and the sacraments, and with one another through him. As long as churches are in communion with each other, i.e. freely share the sacraments with one another, they are *one* in Christ. I think that Catholics too often ignore this fundamental reality with their emphasis on office of the papacy as the source of unity.

Originally Posted by ByzCath

The source of our unity is shared communion. It is just most visible through the papacy.

This is well said. The office of the papacy is not a "source of unity". Unity, as Jesus made clear in the gospel accounts, is found in adherance to the Truth. When all embrace the Truth, then there is unity among the brethren. Unity is lost when part of the Truth is lost.

The Pope is the visible sign of the unity that exists sacramentally among those who adhere to the Truth. It is the task of Peter to strengthen the brethren.

[Nine_Two]

Originally Posted by KyivAndrew

Sorry I cannot read what you wrote above because I am now sleeping.

By the way, I got that Russia and the Russians book you recommended, and got the name of another from its bibliography, so thanks for the leads.

[guanophore]

Originally Posted by dcointin

That's correct, Orthodox Churches are in communion with each other (i.e. share the sacraments, concelebrate at certain occasions, participate in councils together, etc.) because they recognize that they have the same faith and essential practices. What I was trying to do is contrast the Orthodox mystical view of communion against the Catholic administrative one. It just seems to me that Catholics seem to stress "submission to the Pope" so much that the essential nature of what communion really is seems to be lost. I believe that it's not primarily a thing of submission to an authority, although certainly the historic hierarchy of the Church's administration is important.

The two are not separated. When we are in unity with the successor of Peter, we are in unity with the faith of Peter, for whom Christ prayed. Jesus told them that Satan would sift all of them, but His prayer was only for Peter (singular). Therefore, if we wish to get in on the prayer to be preserved in faith, then we have to get in on the prayer for Peter.

I think "submission to the Pope" gives the impression of improper use of temporal authority. It is is more a matter of being in submission to the faith that for which the Pope is a visible sign of unity.

[POPE_PETER]

The Pope is The Supreme Pontiff. Of course he can. But it's like asking an Eastern Rite Church if they will change to "A" Latin Rite... The purpose of a "Rite" is it's Worship style and discipline and it's Respective Tradition. Rome is of The Latin Rite and while The Pope can change it, he won't. It's a silly question.