Why is a Latin Cardinal in charge of the Congregation for the Eastern Churches? (As if the average Catholic knows the meaning of "Dicastery" is). We can't simply use the word "Office" for the Congregstions?
In the past Eastern hierarchs have held the position. But the position of head of the Congregation represses the order of things as should be practiced according to Eastern ecclesiology. The prefect of this Congregation really functions as a "super patriarch" over all of the Catholic Eastern Churches.
If anything the heads of sui juris (a word used that really is not factual) Churches should have direct contact with the pope of Rome.
Rome speaks (empty words) about union with Orthodoxy, but the reality is seen by the Orthodox in how Catholicism actually treats the Eastern Catholic Churches.
Yeah, couldn't agree more. The role of the now-Dicastery should be sharply limited to acting as a point of contact between the Eastern churches and the Holy See and administering any logistical/financial/ecclesiastical assistance the Holy See offers to the Eastern churches. But the patriarchs (and patriarchs-but-in-name) of the autonomous churches should have plenary authority to control the internal affairs of their churches. What's more, they should share in the government of the universal Church under the fraternal headship of the Pope. It's hard to see how that is properly actualized in the Church today, and until proper ecclesiology is reflected in actual ecclesiastical organization, it's impossible to imagine serious progress toward reunion.
Imagine the proud, ancient, independent churches of the East submitting to the second-class status that the Eastern Catholic Churches possess. How can one even blame them for resisting communion with Rome if those are the apparent conditions of such communion?
Part of the difficulty with your second point is that it prioritizes history over present reality. As important as the Chaldean Catholic Church is, for instance, worldwide it has fewer Catholics than the Diocese of Dallas. Is the Patriarch of the Chaldeans really supposed to have that much more authority than the Bishop of Dallas just because of historical circumstances?
If the Church really should be Rome-centered in the modern era, then it should be Rome-centered. If subsidiarity is really the way to go, then every Latin archdiocese should have a patriarch. Why would there be a patriarch for the Catholics in Iraq but not one for all of China? Just because? Either culture divides us enough that subsidiarity is the answer or we are strongest when we are strongly united around Rome.
If the Orthodox have really figured out the correct model, then why can't they ever stay united among themselves? If a gentle statement of Communion between patriarchs is enough despite real differences and even wars, then the Orthodox could solve the question quite simply. Announce that they are going to be in union with Rome under the circumstances that you suggest, and that there will be inter-Communion now and that the theological problems will be worked out over time. We all know that Rome would drop the filioque just because we care so little about theology now anyway and accept near-zero jurisdiction. Why don't the Orthodox do it? Not because of the reasons you suggest, I do not think, but because resentment takes over. It is the same reason why SSPX could not come back under Benedict. When you are so used to seeing someone as the enemy, it is nearly impossible to decide to just treat them like a friend.
My goodness. No wonder the church has so many challenges. It is a top heavy male dominated hierarchical institution. Jesus only needed 12 fishermen. This all needs change. Come Holy Spirit!
Why is a Latin Cardinal in charge of the Congregation for the Eastern Churches? (As if the average Catholic knows the meaning of "Dicastery" is). We can't simply use the word "Office" for the Congregstions?
In the past Eastern hierarchs have held the position. But the position of head of the Congregation represses the order of things as should be practiced according to Eastern ecclesiology. The prefect of this Congregation really functions as a "super patriarch" over all of the Catholic Eastern Churches.
If anything the heads of sui juris (a word used that really is not factual) Churches should have direct contact with the pope of Rome.
Rome speaks (empty words) about union with Orthodoxy, but the reality is seen by the Orthodox in how Catholicism actually treats the Eastern Catholic Churches.
Words mean little when actions contradict them.
Yeah, couldn't agree more. The role of the now-Dicastery should be sharply limited to acting as a point of contact between the Eastern churches and the Holy See and administering any logistical/financial/ecclesiastical assistance the Holy See offers to the Eastern churches. But the patriarchs (and patriarchs-but-in-name) of the autonomous churches should have plenary authority to control the internal affairs of their churches. What's more, they should share in the government of the universal Church under the fraternal headship of the Pope. It's hard to see how that is properly actualized in the Church today, and until proper ecclesiology is reflected in actual ecclesiastical organization, it's impossible to imagine serious progress toward reunion.
Imagine the proud, ancient, independent churches of the East submitting to the second-class status that the Eastern Catholic Churches possess. How can one even blame them for resisting communion with Rome if those are the apparent conditions of such communion?
Part of the difficulty with your second point is that it prioritizes history over present reality. As important as the Chaldean Catholic Church is, for instance, worldwide it has fewer Catholics than the Diocese of Dallas. Is the Patriarch of the Chaldeans really supposed to have that much more authority than the Bishop of Dallas just because of historical circumstances?
If the Church really should be Rome-centered in the modern era, then it should be Rome-centered. If subsidiarity is really the way to go, then every Latin archdiocese should have a patriarch. Why would there be a patriarch for the Catholics in Iraq but not one for all of China? Just because? Either culture divides us enough that subsidiarity is the answer or we are strongest when we are strongly united around Rome.
If the Orthodox have really figured out the correct model, then why can't they ever stay united among themselves? If a gentle statement of Communion between patriarchs is enough despite real differences and even wars, then the Orthodox could solve the question quite simply. Announce that they are going to be in union with Rome under the circumstances that you suggest, and that there will be inter-Communion now and that the theological problems will be worked out over time. We all know that Rome would drop the filioque just because we care so little about theology now anyway and accept near-zero jurisdiction. Why don't the Orthodox do it? Not because of the reasons you suggest, I do not think, but because resentment takes over. It is the same reason why SSPX could not come back under Benedict. When you are so used to seeing someone as the enemy, it is nearly impossible to decide to just treat them like a friend.
My goodness. No wonder the church has so many challenges. It is a top heavy male dominated hierarchical institution. Jesus only needed 12 fishermen. This all needs change. Come Holy Spirit!