From the National Catholic Reporter: Protests against ‘Roman imperialism’ at Middle East synod

While the Christians of the Middle East face a staggering variety of external challenges, from the Israeli/Palestinian problem to the rise of radical Islam, it was internal ecclesiastical questions which actually loomed largest during day two of the Oct. 10-24 Synod of Bishops for the Middle East.

Concretely, several representatives of the Eastern Churches of the region registered strong protests against what they almost seem to regard as a sort of “Roman imperialism” inside global Catholicism. Their basic argument is that reforms are required if the identity, authority and heritage of the 22 Eastern Churches in communion with Rome are to be preserved.

Six different Eastern churches from the Middle East are represented in the synod: Armenian, Chaldean, Coptic, Maronite, Melkite, and Syrian. Concretely, different prelates from those churches proposed:

• Eastern Churches in Europe, North America, and elsewhere should be allowed to ordain married priests, not just in the “historical” territories of those churches;
• Patriarchs and other heads of Eastern Churches should have authority over their communities all around the world, not just those back home;
• Eastern Patriarchs should automatically have the right to cast votes in papal elections, and should take precedence over cardinals;
• The process of papal approval of the election of bishops by the synods of Eastern Churches should be simplified and sped up.

Whether any of those ideas actually survives in the propositions which the Synod of Bishops will eventually deliver to the pope remains to be seen, but collectively they suggest a fairly widespread frustration with what leaders of the Eastern Churches sometimes perceive as a sort of second-class citizenship within Catholicism.

The proposal for married priests came from Archbishop Antonios Aziz Mina, a Coptic prelate from Egypt.

“Since the 1930s there has been a ban on the ordination of and the practice of the ministry by married priests outside the territories of the Patriarchy and the ‘Historically Eastern regions,’ Mina said.

“I think, in line with whatever the Holy Father decides, that the time has come to take this step in favor of the pastoral care of the Eastern faithful throughout the diaspora,” he said.

Historically, the Vatican has been reluctant to countenance the ordination of married priests for communities of Eastern faithful outside their home regions, partly on the grounds that it might call into question the practice of mandatory celibacy for Latin rite priests as well.

Bishop Vartan Waldir Boghossian, responsible for Armenian Catholics in Latin American and Mexico, delivered the most forceful argument in favor of extending the authority of Eastern patriarchs and other church leaders over their faithful who have emigrated outside the traditional territories of that church.

“It is difficult to understand why the activities of the patriarchs, the bishops and the synods of the Eastern Churches should be limited to their territory,” he said. “Of the 23 Churches that today in their own right make up the Catholic Church, only one, the Latin Church, is not subject to this limitation.”

“This paternity and jurisdiction must not be limited to a territory,” Boghossian said. “Limiting it to its faithful is perfectly logical, but not limiting them to a territory, especially if there are no longer members of the Church in that territory!”

The same point was made indirectly by American Monsignor Robert Stern of the Catholic Near East Welfare Association, which said that limiting the power of Eastern structures makes sense given an older “geographic” model of the church, but not so much in light of a more personal approach.

“The limitation of the jurisdiction of Eastern heads of churches ‘outside’ their homelands presumes a geographic model,” Stern said. “ If a personal network, this is not appropriate.”

Mina, the Coptic bishop from Egypt, echoed the argument in favor of extending the jurisdiction of Eastern patriarchs.

Boghossian was also the prelate who insisted that Eastern patriarchs should vote for the pope and trump cardinals, since a patriarch is actually the head of a church in its own right.

“The Patriarchs of the Eastern Catholic Churches, because of their identity as fathers and leaders of ‘sui iuris’ churches that go to make up the Catholicism of the Catholic Church, should be ipso facto members of the college that elects the pontiff without the need for the Latin title of ‘cardinal’,” he said.

“For the same reason, they should also take precedence over [the cardinals],” Boghossian argued.

Mina also offered several practical suggestions for streamlining and expediting papal approval of the election of bishops in the Eastern Churches, which is typically done by the body of bishops meeting in a synod. In effect, he suggested that the pope be regarded as a member of each synod even if he’s not physically present, and that his consent to an election generally be presumed.

Finally, one additional “outside the box” idea was floated in the synod this morning: the creation of a bank of priests ready to give three months to a year in service to a community in the Middle East or some other exceptionally priest-starved region of the world…

The best comment on the whole thing which points out the one major obstacle to Church unity:

Eastern rite Catholics have always been treated by Rome as second class citizens. They’d be better off seeking union with their Eastern Orthodox counterparts until such time as Rome sees the light and ends it’s attempts to exercise direct control of the universal church, both east and west.

The imperial or Caesarian papacy always was fictional and the sooner it dies the better. The pope has no authority beyond his own diocese and the Petrine primacy is meaningless outside a synodical or conciliar structure.

Christ did not choose Peter “Lord of the Church”. Which, due to the exigencies of history, he has come and made of his office. A monarchical office exercising overlordship in all matters. Thus, rendering the local bishop little more than a water carrying toady and “Yes Man” for Peter who gave him his job. This has no warranty in scripture or in the pre-Nicene Church.

There can be no true ecumenism as long as the Church of Rome’s model for governance continues.

Reading between the lines, the Synod is worried. In their native lands, they are divided against their very brothers in Orthodoxy (some more than others, but none are one). In their native lands, the number of people practicing is dramatically decreasing due to emigration resulting from persecution. This is the “staggering variety of external challenges.” Unless these Churches can consolidate and extend their authority over the diaspora, they will wither away. Unless they can be who they truly are, who they are will be lost (except in text books and well meaning encyclicals). As a commentator at Byzantine TX implies: They are not a bridge.

For members of the PNCC looking at this, take note and learn. Unity with Rome means that you may well cease to be who you really are. You will lose what is unique and special about your character, your contribution to the life of the Church may be washed away. These folks have been unified for centuries and they are loosing more than they have gained, gaining only unity with an idea of “Peter” which doesn’t bear up under Church Tradition.

The R.C. Church has frequently directed the Eastern Churches in union with it to be who they are. They should maintain their unique Rites and uses, including the liturgies. They should be considered to have equal bearing and dignity with the Church of the West in communion with Rome. They should not attempt to change themselves (self-latinize – see long discussion here) into something they are not. Unfortunately, the reality is at best mixed to something quite different.

As the Synod points out, well meaning directives never reach reality. Internally, many of these Churches have self-latinized trying to fit in with the much larger Western Church. They have introduced devotions and styles not in their tradition (while anyone can practice whatever private devotions he or she chooses, things outside the tradition of a Church should not be liturgically practiced – in fact, not what the R.C. Church teaches). Externally, the more formal reality can be gleaned from relations among the Churches under Rome, as is pointed out above: the traditions of the Eastern Churches are not fully respected, rather they are “adapted” to whatever the West sees as best for itself (Patriarchs powers are limited, celibacy is a rule if you happen to have a site in the west, and the decisions of the various Synods on election of bishops is long delayed in Rome).

In my view, the best step forward would be the dissolution of these Eastern Churches back into communion with Orthodoxy in their ancient Sees. That would start the process of absolving centuries of mistrust that have built up from the very day these Churches were established. Politically, their very reason for existence (at least at the start) was to stand against the rightful Eastern Orthodox Churches, and to sheep steal. Those hurts remain real to this day. For instance, I have spoken with members of the Armenian Apostolic Church who see the very existence of these Churches as hurtful. They have asked, Why is there an Armenian Church in communion with Rome dividing the small Armenian population in Poland? It may be time for an honest assessment of their reasons for existence, and for some wisdom of this ‘middle ground’ existence. Changing the outward explanations for existence will not suffice.

Another interesting study on this issue from Orthocath in Can East & West Coexist With Married Priests? Thank you to the Young Fogey for the link.