That Pope Benedict XVI change the discipline of the Catholic church regarding the calculation of the date of the celebration of the Resurrection.
There is no common agreement among Christians concerning the date for the celebration of the feast of the Resurrection. Most Orthodox churches calculate the date taking into consideration the date of the Jewish celebration of the Passover; also some follow the Julian rather than the Gregorian calendar.
It is impossible for the Orthodox churches to change their calculation, since they have no central authority; on the other hand it is very easy for the Catholic churches to change, since they do.
Further, it would have no practical impact on the life of the Catholic faithful, since the feast of the Resurrection is a movable feast occurring at a different time every year. Accordingly, it would help to promote Christian unity and relieve tension and frustration among the Christian faithful if:
1. The general discipline of the Catholic church would be to celebrate the feast of the Resurrection on the first Sunday after the celebration of the Jewish Passover (which means the first Sunday after the first full moon of the spring equinox, providing it does not occur before the Passover).
2. In countries where the majority of the Orthodox churches follow another calculation, the national conference of Catholic bishops would have the faculty to choose to follow that calculation, providing there is unanimity to do so.
That Pope Benedict XVI remove restrictions on the exercise of their jurisdiction by the patriarchs and major archbishops of the sui iuris Catholic churches
According to the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, the jurisdiction of Eastern patriarchs and major archbishops is limited to their historical homelands. First, this presumes a territorial and geographical model of a sui iuris church, and, further, there is no clear definition of their historical homelands (territorium proprium). If anything, it is no more than a snapshot of their existing exercise of jurisdiction at one or another particular moment of history.
It is more helpful to view a sui iuris church (any sui iuris Catholic church, including the Latin) primarily as a personal network; the definition of geographical boundaries is needed to distinguish the exercise of jurisdiction of ordinaries of the same sui iuris church, one from the other; it is not needed nor are is it appropriate to distinguish the exercise of jurisdiction of ordinaries of different sui iuris churches, one from the other.
That the jurisdiction of Congregation for the Eastern Churches be extended to include shared jurisdiction with the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples over the Arabian Peninsula
For the purpose of the Special Assembly for the Middle East of the Synod of Bishops, the definition of “Middle East” has included the countries of the Arabian Peninsula. Until now the life of Christians and the presence of the Catholic Church in that region has been left to interventions of the Secretariat of State and to the normal jurisdiction of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples.
However the Arabian Peninsula and its countries are the heartland of the Arab world and, in the case of Saudi Arabia, the heartland of Islam; except for the Arabian Peninsula, the Middle East is a region otherwise under the jurisdiction of the Congregation for the Eastern Churches.
Further, the countries of the Arabian Peninsula have an enormous Catholic population, not indigenous, equal in dimension to the Catholic population of the rest of the Middle East and consisting of both Latin and Eastern Catholics.
Provision should be made for a sharing of jurisdiction between the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples and the Congregation for the Eastern Churches to ensure that the Eastern churches and their faithful are not subordinated to the Latin church, nor vice-versa.
That the mission, scope of action, and authority of the dicasteries of the Holy See be better clarified and delineated
There are multiple dimensions to the role of the Holy Father; they include his roles as bishop of Rome, father and head of the Latin (Roman) Catholic Church, and successor of Peter with a ministry and service of unity to the entire Church of Christ. The Holy Father utilizes a variety of dicasteries and structures to assist him in these multiple responsibilities; however, there are often “grey areas” concerning the scope of action and authority among these dicasteries.
It would be helpful to distinguish those dicasteries concerned exclusively with the governance and life of the Latin (Roman) Catholic Church from those concerned with governance and life of the non-Latin Catholic churches, from those concerned with the governance and life of all the sui iuris Catholic churches (both Latin and Eastern), and from those concerned with the entire Church of Christ.
In particular, so that the work of the Catholic Church and its relations among Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, and Evangelical churches and ecclesial communities may be better advanced and coordinated, it is recommended that the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples share competence and jurisdiction with the Congregation for the Eastern Churches not only in the Arabian Peninsula [as above] but also in Ethiopia and India.
That the equal dignity and status of all sui iuris Catholic churches be respected not only in Canon Law but also in administrative structures and practice
Historically, some communities of most Eastern Orthodox churches have sought communion with the church of Rome and the Successor of Peter. Although the joint Orthodox-Catholic Balamand Declaration recognized the historic legitimacy and value of these “uniate” churches, it advocated a different ecclesiological model of unity. However, the Orthodox churches in particular are carefully observing the status and treatment of the Eastern Catholic churches in the Catholic church family, seeing this as a possible paradigm for the future of church unity.
Regrettably, the Eastern Catholic churches are frequently little understood and often undervalued by many sectors of the Latin (Roman) Catholic Church. Although very small and substantially more ethnic in comparison to the huge, world-wide Latin Church, they have radically equal status and value. In practice, the Latin Church is frequently favored over the Eastern churches and is often considered as the “default” Catholic church. To put it another way, the Eastern Catholic churches, in many countries, are considered as “exceptions to the rule” of the Latin.
In particular, any sui iuris Catholic church should have the right to fully exercise its own discipline and follow its own customs wherever it is established; some of the restrictions placed on its practice in some parts of the world — e.g., the ordination of married men to the priesthood — although understandable because of historical factors as well as prejudice and misunderstanding, are inappropriate.
Further, any person anywhere seeking to become a member of the Catholic church has the right to affiliate with and to be received by any sui iuris Catholic church anywhere; the work of evangelization and the Catholic Church’s missionary outreach and its support should not be considered as primarily the activity and prerogative of the Latin Church.
That appropriate permanent consultative ecclesial structures be created to assist the Holy Father in his role as Successor of Peter with the special ministry of unity
Occasionally, the Holy Father meets with and consults the patriarchs and major archbishops of the Catholic Eastern churches; some of them are also named cardinals of the Roman church. If a cardinal is perceived as a member of the Latin (Roman) Catholic Church, this is very awkward; if a cardinal is perceived as a counselor to the Successor of Peter in the exercise of his ministry for the union of the Church of Christ, it is very appropriate.
In this latter sense, it would be good if all the heads of sui iuris Eastern Catholic churches were to be named members of the College of Cardinals, all in the first category of cardinal patriarchs, with precedence over the other ranks. Otherwise, no heads of churches should be cardinals and all should have precedence over cardinals; in this case, it would be good to have a special council of patriarchs and major archbishops that would regularly meet with the Pope.
