Folia Canonica 5. (2002)
PROCEEDINGS OF THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE "Tra Chiesa universale e Chiesa particolare", Budapest, 2nd February 2002 - Adriano Garuti: Origine e natura dei patriarcati
262 ADRIANO GARUTI esaminare e forse di modificare l’attuale comprensione della struttura della Chiesa, ehe non puô più essere considerata secondo il modello del passato, proprio in particolare dell’ecclesiologia occidentale, che contemplava solo due espressioni di autorité: a livello universale e a livello diocesano.40 Tale modello non tiene presenti le strutture gerarchiche delle Çhiese Orientali, considerate come appendici della Chiesa cattolica, identificata con la Chiesa latina.41 Soprat- tutto non puo essere applicato alle Chiese orientali perché non contempla le autorité intermedie che le govemano, considerate come una minaccia all’autorité suprema o una usurpazione dell’autorité dei vescovi diocesani.42 Ecco perché i po- teri patriarcali venivano considerati come una parziale partecipazione alia suprema autorité della Chiesa.43 Pertanto viene proposto un modello di gerarchia ecclesiastica ehe contempla tre livelli, compreso quello intermedio dei patriarca, che in futuro, secondo le circostanze, potrebbero anche mutare.44 40 Faris, Eastern (nt. 30), 140: “To understand the nature and juridic status of an autonomous church (ecclesia sui iuris), there is a need to examine and perhaps modify our understanding of the structure of the Catholic Church. Traditional ecclesiology, especially Western ecclesiology, portrays the Church as a monolithic structure with two levels of authority: on the upper level is the supreme authority which is exercised by an ecumenical council or the Roman Pontiff over the universal church and on the lower level is episcopal authority which is exercised over a diocese”. 41 /vi: “As was the case with the hierarchical structures, the Eastern Catholic communities themselves were not adequately accommodated in the schematic model of the Church because the models were two-tiered and there was no place for them. Thus, they were often treated as appendages of the Catholic Church, which was mistakenly identified with the Latin Church. This ecclesiological approach might have been one of the factors which contributed to the unfortunate latinization which occurred in so many of the Eastern Catholic Churches. The Latin tradition was mistakenly identified as the only true Catholic tradition and, thus, to be truly Catholic, one had to be Latin. Denial of a rightful place contributed to the diminishment of an ec- clesial personality and identity”. 42 Ivi: “If the entire Catholic Church were comprised of the Latin Church, this two-tiered model might be adequate for today. However, when the Eastern Catholic Churches are taken into consideration, this two-tiered model is inadequate since there is no place in the hierarchical structure for the intermediate authorities which govern them. In the past, recognition of the inherent authority of the patriarchs or their juridic counterparts was in some way considered a threat to the supreme authority of the Church or an encroachment on the authority of the diocesan bishop. Ecclesiologies of the past and, likewise, the former legislation did not perceive the patriarchal office in possession of certain inherent rights, but viewed it only as a partial participation in the supreme authority of the Church”. 43 Valiyavilayil, The notion (nt. 36), 70: “All superepiscopal powers in the Church are seen as deriving from the Supreme Authority and a participation in this authority”. 44Faris, Eastern (nt. 30), 141-142: "With modem technological advances, the ecclesial renewal of Vatican Council II, and the political, social and religious upheavals of the twentieth century that resulted in the emigration of Eastern Catholics to all parts of the world, the need arose for a better understanding of the place of the Eastern Churches and traditions in the broader context of the Catholic Church. To do so requires a basic modification of our conceptuali
