Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic

[Papist]

At the Ruthenian Church that I occasionally attend, the old liturgical books had the Filioque crossed out. When we got new books, the Filioque was simply absent.

Well, as it says in the post-communion response in the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, "We have seen the true light...." 

Lol. Well played. 

[Hermogenes]

... to parishes of the now-OCA, most of which are descendants of Ruthenian Greek Catholics who switched to the Russians around 1900, having Solemn First Communion for 7-year-olds...

I don't believe this is the case. Nowadays, roughly half of OCA members are converts; but those who were born into the church that eventually became OCA are mostly Russian (mindful of what "Russian" meant before 1917), with a generous sampling of Ukrainians, and Carpathians/Czechs. The liturgical practice is definitely Slavic, not Carpatho-Russian. I've never heard of an OCA parish having first communion for seven-year-olds. Certainly, it is not the practice in my parish. Maybe the author is mixing up OCA and C-R?

As I understand it (my experience is limited, but this is what I was told by a C-R priest), the condition set by the Carpatho-Russian metropolis in coming under the jurisdiction of the EP was that they be allowed to keep all their liturgical practices not in conflict with Orthodox canons. So, for example, they say the Angelus and have some other recognizably Latinate forms, but (of course) use the Nicean-Constantinopolitan Creed.

Under the old Metropolia, First Communion was replaced over the years by First Confession, a ritual that has for the most part faded away in the OCA but still remains in ACROD. In the early days, pictures of the First Confession classes of the Metropolia were indistinguishable from First Communion Classes of the Greek Catholics. (My mother in law grew up in a Metropolia parish in Frackville, PA and we have her class picture from around 1929 and the OCA parish in Binghamton maintained the custom through the 1960's.) This can be confirmed by referencing the Journals published in the mid 20th century, usually called the Viestnik/Messenger, be they of Metropolia or Greek Catholic or  ACROD origin. (Same name, different publishers and audiences!)

I am 57 years old and the son of an ACROD priest and I have no idea what you mean by the Angelus as I never heard that term, either in NE Pennsylvania or the southern tier of NY. It is true that there were Rosary reciters in some ACROD parishes through the early 1990's but as the old women died off who were raised with that pious tradition, so did the Rosary.

Those of us from ACROD can attest that the wisdom and patience of the EP and her Archbishops in New York, particularly the late Archbishop Iakovos, allowed the shedding of Latin innovations over time, rather than a rapid decompression as was the case in the first wave of Rusyn returnees to Orthodoxy following St. Alexis.  It also should be noted that some of the alleged 'Latinate' forms that some in the former Metropolia objected to were in fact pre-Nikonian forms that the Rusyns, being isolated geographically from Moscow and spiritually from Constantinople after 1453, adhered to through the period of the unions.

I would also contest any assertion that the majority of the original Metropolia's founders were ethnic Russians, even as defined by the old Tsarist ethnographers prior to the revolution. Most of the parishes in the Mid Atlantic and North East US were founded by Rusyn immigrants from the old Austria-Hungary or Galician/Lemko immigrants from the old Poland and Imperial Russia. While many of these people came to assert that they were 'Russian' they most certainly were not. They spoke not the Russian language and the folk customs that they brought to the new country associated with their religious life, such as Svatyj Vecer/Holy Supper, Jaslickari/Bethlehem Caroling, Pysynky/Krasanky (decorative Paschal eggs), Christmas Carols, Marian hymns and the unique liturgical chant that was native to the Rusyns and Lemkos , folk dances and folk songs were definitively not of great Russian origin. Many a young man returned to America after the War to tell how surprised to learn that the Russian soldiers they met did not speak Russian! Of course, those young Americans spoke Rusyn (po nashemu) or Galician-Ukrainian.

It is true that by 1940 or so that these Metropolia parishes had become, for all intents and purposes, Russian in name and practice. It was the loss of those customs and practices (which most Rusyns and Galicians who were not Orthodox at that time were well aware of) that led the founders of ACROD to Constantinople's omophor, rather than Moscow's (through the Metropolia at that time) and Ukrainians returning to Orthodoxy to their own jurisdiction during the same historical period.

I am not disparaging anyone's history or background, but I offer this in hopes that Orthodox from both ACROD and the OCA understand that their histories are linked and, like it or not, they have a complex relationship with Eastern Catholics both within community and family.

First Confession is done in my OCA parish.

The Angelus is a Catholic prayer said three times a day. "The angel of the Lord announced to Mary, and she conceived by the Holy Spirit. Hail Mary..." etc. Beautiful prayer, but definitely not Orthodox.

[Thomist]

There is an infallibility that is tautological in simply reinforcing or restating what is already part of the Church Tradition. This does not entail the ontological semi-divinity that most conceive papal infallibility as requiring. The infallibility of which I speak is guided by the Spirit and available to any Christian on, shall we say, an ad hoc basis. Thus St Maximos spoke infallibly when he defended the Faith, as did St Mark of Ephesus, as did St Gregory the Dialogist, and as did possibly even Christian recognized by the Roman Church as Saints who were so declared after the schism.  Rome seems to have tacitly accepted the canonizations of all Orthodox Saints in a de facto manner (John Paul II referring to "St Seraphim of Sarov" and "St Nektarios of Aegina").

The Roman Catholic Church does not believe in any special semi-divinity for the Pope.

The teaching authority of the Church is infallible. The Pope is the Church's highest court of appeals. Thus, by transitive property, when the Pope makes an official ex cathedra statement of the teaching authority of the Church, this statement is one of infallible truth.

That is the view of the Catholic Church. It doesn't include any special semi-divinity for the Pope. It's the same tautological infallibility which applies to any Christian layman, priest, or bishop, the difference is merely that the Papacy is where the buck stops. As for the papal 'pretensions' of the first millenium, the fact of the matter is simply that if the buck doesn't stop anywhere, there is no church. Which is why in point of fact there is today no 'Orthodox Church' but rather a variety of independent Orthodox Churches, each headed by its own Patriarch, which are in communion with one another but which do not form a communion. The divinely ordained primacy of the Roman See is necessary to maintain the divinely ordained unity of the Church.

It's also not true that Rome went around anthematizing people for insufficiently respecting Papal primacy. The opposite is the case. Photios anthematized the western Church for its use of the Filioque in retalation for Pope Nicholas I declaring the deposition of Patriarch Ignatios without ecclesiastical trial to be invalid. Later, Cardinal Humbert excommunicated Patriarch Cerularius personally (not the eastern church generally - and he didn't have proper authority to do even that much, as Pope Leo IX, for whom he was acting as legate, had died.) because Cerularius refused to meet with him after attacking Leo IX on the issue of unleavened bread. Cerularius' provocation was deliberate and premeditated for the purpose of creating a schism in order to serve the Patriarch's political (not religious) ambitions to usurp the Byzantine Emperor.

In neither instance did the Papacy ever try to assert the kind of 'rulership' over the eastern Church that the Orthodox claimed it did. In the first, Pope Nicholas I merely stated what is true - that it is illegal to depose a Patriarch (Ignatios) without ecclesiastical trial. In the second case, the excommunication by Cardinal Humbert of Patriarch Cerularius was invalid, and even then, it had nothing to do with Roman attempts to assert primacy. Patriarch Cerularius had made himself the supreme political authority within Byzantium, and sought to create the schism in a premeditated manner so as to also set himself up as the supreme religious authority. It worked.

[Hermogenes]

There is an infallibility that is tautological in simply reinforcing or restating what is already part of the Church Tradition. This does not entail the ontological semi-divinity that most conceive papal infallibility as requiring. The infallibility of which I speak is guided by the Spirit and available to any Christian on, shall we say, an ad hoc basis. Thus St Maximos spoke infallibly when he defended the Faith, as did St Mark of Ephesus, as did St Gregory the Dialogist, and as did possibly even Christian recognized by the Roman Church as Saints who were so declared after the schism.  Rome seems to have tacitly accepted the canonizations of all Orthodox Saints in a de facto manner (John Paul II referring to "St Seraphim of Sarov" and "St Nektarios of Aegina").

The Roman Catholic Church does not believe in any special semi-divinity for the Pope.

The teaching authority of the Church is infallible. The Pope is the Church's highest court of appeals. Thus, by transitive property, when the Pope makes an official ex cathedra statement of the teaching authority of the Church, this statement is one of infallible truth.

That is the view of the Catholic Church. It doesn't include any special semi-divinity for the Pope. It's the same tautological infallibility which applies to any Christian layman, priest, or bishop, the difference is merely that the Papacy is where the buck stops. As for the papal 'pretensions' of the first millenium, the fact of the matter is simply that if the buck doesn't stop anywhere, there is no church. Which is why in point of fact there is today no 'Orthodox Church' but rather a variety of independent Orthodox Churches, each headed by its own Patriarch, which are in communion with one another but which do not form a communion. The divinely ordained primacy of the Roman See is necessary to maintain the divinely ordained unity of the Church.

It's also not true that Rome went around anthematizing people for insufficiently respecting Papal primacy. The opposite is the case. Photios anthematized the western Church for its use of the Filioque in retalation for Pope Nicholas I declaring the deposition of Patriarch Ignatios without ecclesiastical trial to be invalid. Later, Cardinal Humbert excommunicated Patriarch Cerularius personally (not the eastern church generally - and he didn't have proper authority to do even that much, as Pope Leo IX, for whom he was acting as legate, had died.) because Cerularius refused to meet with him after attacking Leo IX on the issue of unleavened bread. Cerularius' provocation was deliberate and premeditated for the purpose of creating a schism in order to serve the Patriarch's political (not religious) ambitions to usurp the Byzantine Emperor.

In neither instance did the Papacy ever try to assert the kind of 'rulership' over the eastern Church that the Orthodox claimed it did. In the first, Pope Nicholas I merely stated what is true - that it is illegal to depose a Patriarch (Ignatios) without ecclesiastical trial. In the second case, the excommunication by Cardinal Humbert of Patriarch Cerularius was invalid, and even then, it had nothing to do with Roman attempts to assert primacy. Patriarch Cerularius had made himself the supreme political authority within Byzantium, and sought to create the schism in a premeditated manner so as to also set himself up as the supreme religious authority. It worked.

I'm not an historian, but I believe the papacy also assumed a larger role because of the political instability and fragmentation in the West after the dissolution of Western imperial institutions. Britain, for example, which had been one political unit south of the wall, broke into half a dozen or more warring kingdoms. There was a huge vacuum over which a variety of secular forces were fighting (including the Eastern emperor), and the church was the only possible source of wide-spread stability. That the church was itself in the process of becoming, as it were, didn't make the situation any easier.

[LakaYaRabb]

That is the view of the Catholic Church. It doesn't include any special semi-divinity for the Pope. It's the same tautological infallibility which applies to any Christian layman, priest, or bishop, the difference is merely that the Papacy is where the buck stops. As for the papal 'pretensions' of the first millenium, the fact of the matter is simply that if the buck doesn't stop anywhere, there is no church. Which is why in point of fact there is today no 'Orthodox Church' but rather a variety of independent Orthodox Churches, each headed by its own Patriarch, which are in communion with one another but which do not form a communion. The divinely ordained primacy of the Roman See is necessary to maintain the divinely ordained unity of the Church.

There are two major problems.

First, a Pope, in current Roman Catholic Theology cannot be deposed. This is not true to the understanding of Episcopal theology. The Pope is not an ultimate  bishop. Bishops are 'equal'. Christ attested this to the Apostles (who appointed Bishops to succeed them in specific places). Christ said that they would not have a power over each other like the power gentiles wield of others.

Second, a Pope is not required to maintain the divinely ordained unity of the Church. The Church is proof of that. We have maintained unity without the Pope of Rome.

[LakaYaRabb]

It's also not true that Rome went around anthematizing people for insufficiently respecting Papal primacy. The opposite is the case. Photios anthematized the western Church for its use of the Filioque in retalation for Pope Nicholas I declaring the deposition of Patriarch Ignatios without ecclesiastical trial to be invalid. Later, Cardinal Humbert excommunicated Patriarch Cerularius personally (not the eastern church generally - and he didn't have proper authority to do even that much, as Pope Leo IX, for whom he was acting as legate, had died.) because Cerularius refused to meet with him after attacking Leo IX on the issue of unleavened bread. Cerularius' provocation was deliberate and premeditated for the purpose of creating a schism in order to serve the Patriarch's political (not religious) ambitions to usurp the Byzantine Emperor.

The ironic thing is that the Roman Catholic ecumenical councils do not have in their number the council that reconciled St. Photios the Great which happened only ten years after the Sham council that deposed him. They even agreed to the council that recognized St. Photios! 

[Hermogenes]

That is the view of the Catholic Church. It doesn't include any special semi-divinity for the Pope. It's the same tautological infallibility which applies to any Christian layman, priest, or bishop, the difference is merely that the Papacy is where the buck stops. As for the papal 'pretensions' of the first millenium, the fact of the matter is simply that if the buck doesn't stop anywhere, there is no church. Which is why in point of fact there is today no 'Orthodox Church' but rather a variety of independent Orthodox Churches, each headed by its own Patriarch, which are in communion with one another but which do not form a communion. The divinely ordained primacy of the Roman See is necessary to maintain the divinely ordained unity of the Church.

There are two major problems.

First, a Pope, in current Roman Catholic Theology cannot be deposed. This is not true to the understanding of Episcopal theology. The Pope is not an ultimate  bishop. Bishops are 'equal'. Christ attested this to the Apostles (who appointed Bishops to succeed them in specific places). Christ said that they would not have a power over each other like the power gentiles wield of others.

Second, a Pope is not required to maintain the divinely ordained unity of the Church. The Church is proof of that. We have maintained unity without the Pope of Rome.

I'm not sure I understand how you define "unity." I can't commune with my Coptic friends, nor they with me, so I think we're pretty far away from being able to use this word accurately, to say nothing of all the non-orthodox churches. At last count, we had five orthodox bishops or metropolitans in New York, for five different jurisdictions. Unity.

Second, whether theological sound or not, popes have been deposed all through history. (Some have also resigned.) It's been awhile since that happened, but it used to be one of the simple ways cardinals expressed their displeasure with the status quo. Along with poison.

[Thomist]

The Eastern Orthodox Churches are not in unity in any but the most theoretical way. As has been pointed out, a Greek Orthodox and a Russian Orthodox might live in the same town, and yet attend different congregations with totally different liturgies and hierarchies, and be categorized in difference diocese. In theory they could each take communion at the other Church, but in reality the Orthodox Churches are parallel institutions, not a single body.

[Alpo]

The Eastern Orthodox Churches are not in unity in any but the most theoretical way. As has been pointed out, a Greek Orthodox and a Russian Orthodox might live in the same town, and yet attend different congregations with totally different liturgies and hierarchies, and be categorized in difference diocese. In theory they could each take communion at the other Church, but in reality the Orthodox Churches are parallel institutions, not a single body.

Thank you for this. You've just demonstrated how far Roman Catholicism has slipped away from Orthodoxy and how different is Orthodox and RC understanding of "Church" . Ecumenism (and Eastern Catholis) has still a lot to do to. It's actually a little depressing to realize how wide the gap between us is since I have a lot respect for RCC since I'm rather fond of Latin traditions. Kyrie eleison.

[Apotheoun]

The Eastern Orthodox Churches are not in unity in any but the most theoretical way. As has been pointed out, a Greek Orthodox and a Russian Orthodox might live in the same town, and yet attend different congregations with totally different liturgies and hierarchies, and be categorized in difference diocese. In theory they could each take communion at the other Church, but in reality the Orthodox Churches are parallel institutions, not a single body.

The Orthodox Churches are united in the common profession of the faith, which transcends the jurisdictional problems that exist in the United States and Canada.  It is rather funny when you think about it, because the Orthodox are united in their profession of the creed, while Roman Catholics in many places are united in a legal sense even when they do not believe the same things.

[Thomist]

Sorry, but I refuse to consider two people who could conceivably live down the street from one another and yet never meet one another and each never realize the other is a member of their religion to be members of the same Church. 'One Church' does not mean a collection of churches that get along with one another. It means one church. This basic lie - that the One Holy and Catholic Apostolic Church is in fact really Many Holy an Catholic Apostolic Churches - is the foundation of the Orthodox schism

[LakaYaRabb]

 

In theory they could each take communion at the other Church, but in reality the Orthodox Churches are parallel institutions, not a single body.

This sentence doesn't even make sense.

Thank you for this. You've just demonstrated how far Roman Catholicism has slipped away from Orthodoxy and how different is Orthodox and RC understanding of "Church" . Ecumenism (and Eastern Catholis) has still a lot to do to. It's actually a little depressing to realize how wide the gap between us is since I have a lot respect for RCC since I'm rather fond of Latin traditions. Kyrie eleison.

Spot on.

[LakaYaRabb]

The Orthodox Churches are united in the common profession of the faith, which transcends the jurisdictional problems that exist in the United States and Canada.  It is rather funny when you think about it, because the Orthodox are united in their profession of the creed, while Roman Catholics in many places are united in a legal sense even when they do not believe the same things.

Golden! This is exactly the point.

[Hermogenes]

The Orthodox Churches are united in the common profession of the faith, which transcends the jurisdictional problems that exist in the United States and Canada.  It is rather funny when you think about it, because the Orthodox are united in their profession of the creed, while Roman Catholics in many places are united in a legal sense even when they do not believe the same things.

Golden! This is exactly the point.

Catholics and Anglicans are united by the same profession of faith, too. They are demonstrably not united. But if I were Roman Catholic, I could commune in any church anywhere in the world that was under the jurisdiction of the See of Rome, including churches of the Eastern Rite. But as an Orthodox, I have to ask permission of the priest anytime I want to commune outside my "home" OCA jurisdiction, even at ROCOR or MP parishes. I've already mentioned the issue with the so-called Oriental churches. We simply aren't in communion with them at all, even though they are orthodox in every sense. (I bet I am gonna hear some rebukes about that.)

[Michał Kalina]

But as an Orthodox, I have to ask permission of the priest anytime I want to commune outside my "home" OCA jurisdiction, even at ROCOR or MP parishes.

What for?

[Hermogenes]

But as an Orthodox, I have to ask permission of the priest anytime I want to commune outside my "home" OCA jurisdiction, even at ROCOR or MP parishes.

What for?

I don't belong to their jurisdiction. If it's a parish where I'm known, then it's OK. My point is that I can't assume I can simply walk into another parish and receive communion. Do you have a different experience?

[Michał Kalina]

I can count on one hand situations when I participated in DL in not my own jurisdiction but I hadn't asked for permission anyone.

[Hermogenes]

I can count on one hand situations when I participated in DL in not my own jurisdiction but I hadn't asked for permission anyone.

I don't ask permission just to attend or participate.

[Michał Kalina]

From the other side: do you ask for permission before receiving Communion in an OCA Parish that is not your own?

[Hermogenes]

From the other side: do you ask for permission before receiving Communion in an OCA Parish that is not your own?

No.

[Thomist]

For the record, Catholics and Orthodox are also united by the same profession of faith. Apotheoun misrepresents that because he claims to be Catholic while denying dogmatic definitions of the Church, which incurs excommunication. The Eastern Orthodox are also united with the Oriental Orthodox in a common profession of faith.

The Orthodox deny the authority of the Popes to see that canon law is enforced throughout the whole Church and to define what the teaching of the magisterium is and has been for the whole Church (to define the already established teaching of the magisterium, not to pronounce new dogmas). That is why they are in schism. As for the claim of the Filioque, the Churches were in communion for 200 years from the pontificate of John VIII to that of Leo IX with the west using the filioque and the east rejecting it, so it is clear that it does not constitute a substantial difference in profession of faith of such a degree that it prevents communion. If I were to go to an Eastern Orthodox mass, I would have no problem singing the Nicene Creed without the filioque, and Rome would have no problem with my doing so.

Being united by a common profession of faith is not the same thing as being united as a single communion.

[Apotheoun]

The Orthodox Churches are united in the common profession of the faith, which transcends the jurisdictional problems that exist in the United States and Canada.  It is rather funny when you think about it, because the Orthodox are united in their profession of the creed, while Roman Catholics in many places are united in a legal sense even when they do not believe the same things.

Golden! This is exactly the point.

Catholics and Anglicans are united by the same profession of faith, too. They are demonstrably not united. But if I were Roman Catholic, I could commune in any church anywhere in the world that was under the jurisdiction of the See of Rome, including churches of the Eastern Rite. But as an Orthodox, I have to ask permission of the priest anytime I want to commune outside my "home" OCA jurisdiction, even at ROCOR or MP parishes.

I don't see how that is such a bad thing.  I've been to Roman Catholic parishes where the priest gives communion to everyone, and in some of those cases the persons receiving are not even Catholic.  Is that a good thing?  I don't think it is, but perhaps you do.  I still remember when President Clinton was given communion in a Catholic Church in South Africa.

Personally, I would be happier if priests were more proactive in ensuring that those receiving communion were actually in communion with the Church.

[Apotheoun]

Sorry, but I refuse to consider two people who could conceivably live down the street from one another and yet never meet one another and each never realize the other is a member of their religion to be members of the same Church. 'One Church' does not mean a collection of churches that get along with one another. It means one church. This basic lie - that the One Holy and Catholic Apostolic Church is in fact really Many Holy an Catholic Apostolic Churches - is the foundation of the Orthodox schism

When I was at Franciscan University the vast majority of students didn't even know that there were Eastern Catholic Churches.  That said, I do not see the jurisdictional problems of Orthodoxy in the United States as a huge problem, and my Orthodox friends have told me that steps are being taken, albeit slowly, to address this problem which is peculiar to areas of the world that have been more recently evangelized.

[Apotheoun]

For the record, Catholics and Orthodox are also united by the same profession of faith. Apotheoun misrepresents that because he claims to be Catholic while denying dogmatic definitions of the Church, which incurs excommunication. The Eastern Orthodox are also united with the Oriental Orthodox in a common profession of faith.

I simply refuse to elevate Western theological theories to dogmatic status, and in taking this approach I am merely following the lead of the Melkite Patriarch and Holy Synod.  Rome has not broken communion with the Melkite Catholic Church even though the Melkite Patriarch has publicly stated on several occasions that the Melkite Catholic Church only believes that there have been seven ecumenical councils.

The Orthodox deny the authority of the Popes to see that canon law is enforced throughout the whole Church and to define what the teaching of the magisterium is and has been for the whole Church (to define the already established teaching of the magisterium, not to pronounce new dogmas). That is why they are in schism. As for the claim of the Filioque, the Churches were in communion for 200 years from the pontificate of John VIII to that of Leo IX with the west using the filioque and the east rejecting it, so it is clear that it does not constitute a substantial difference in profession of faith of such a degree that it prevents communion. If I were to go to an Eastern Orthodox mass, I would have no problem singing the Nicene Creed without the filioque, and Rome would have no problem with my doing so.

You aren't being consistent, because you on occasion say that Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Catholics hold the same faith, but then you go on to say that they reject certain dogmas (e.g., papal infallibility, the filioque, etc.) of the faith.  It is not possible to profess the same faith while simultaneously not professing the same faith by rejecting supposed Western dogmas.

Being united by a common profession of faith is not the same thing as being united as a single communion.

It would also be nice if you stopped judging the Orthodox Church by what Westerners think about ecclesiology.  It must be evident to you by now that Eastern Christians approach ecclesiology differently than Western Christians.  Easterners are not set upon trying to dogmatize structures that only developed centuries after the completion of the composition of the New Testament.

The ecclesiological views of Eastern Orthodox Christians, even according to Cardinal Ratzinger in his book "Principles of Catholic Theology," are more ancient than those of the West.

[Apotheoun]

The following quotation is taken from the book, "Principles of Catholic Theology," by Joseph Ratzinger:

"Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium. When the Patriarch Athenagoras, on July 25, 1967, on the occasion of the Pope's visit to Phanar, designated him as the successor of St. Peter, as the most esteemed among us, as one also presides in charity, this great Church leader was expressing the essential content of the doctrine of primacy as it was known in the first millennium. Rome need not ask for more. Reunion could take place in this context if, on the one hand, the East would cease to oppose as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millennium and would accept the Catholic Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she had acquired in the course of that development, while, on the other hand, the West would recognize the Church of the East as orthodox and legitimate in the form she has always had."

I find it interesting that Ratzinger admits that the East has not changed its understanding of the nature of the Church, while the West has done just that.

[Iconodule]

The following quotation is taken from the book, "Principles of Catholic Theology," by Joseph Ratzinger:

"Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium. When the Patriarch Athenagoras, on July 25, 1967, on the occasion of the Pope's visit to Phanar, designated him as the successor of St. Peter, as the most esteemed among us, as one also presides in charity, this great Church leader was expressing the essential content of the doctrine of primacy as it was known in the first millennium. Rome need not ask for more. Reunion could take place in this context if, on the one hand, the East would cease to oppose as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millennium and would accept the Catholic Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she had acquired in the course of that development, while, on the other hand, the West would recognize the Church of the East as orthodox and legitimate in the form she has always had."

I find it interesting that Ratzinger admits that the East has not changed its understanding of the nature of the Church, while the West has done just that.

Nonsensical double-talk.
Papal infallibility and papal supremacy are, by their nature, not local dogmas. It is impossible to accept these ideas as "orthodox and legitimate" without applying them to oneself.

[Apotheoun]

The following quotation is taken from the book, "Principles of Catholic Theology," by Joseph Ratzinger:

"Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium. When the Patriarch Athenagoras, on July 25, 1967, on the occasion of the Pope's visit to Phanar, designated him as the successor of St. Peter, as the most esteemed among us, as one also presides in charity, this great Church leader was expressing the essential content of the doctrine of primacy as it was known in the first millennium. Rome need not ask for more. Reunion could take place in this context if, on the one hand, the East would cease to oppose as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millennium and would accept the Catholic Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she had acquired in the course of that development, while, on the other hand, the West would recognize the Church of the East as orthodox and legitimate in the form she has always had."

I find it interesting that Ratzinger admits that the East has not changed its understanding of the nature of the Church, while the West has done just that.

Nonsensical double-talk.
Papal infallibility and papal supremacy are, by their nature, not local dogmas. It is impossible to accept these ideas as "orthodox and legitimate" without applying them to oneself.

You may be right, but I have no way of judging Ratzinger's intention in saying what he did in the quotation.

[Aindriú]

Nonsensical double-talk.
Papal infallibility and papal supremacy are, by their nature, not local dogmas. It is impossible to accept these ideas as "orthodox and legitimate" without applying them to oneself.

I agree.

[Apotheoun]

Whatever Ratzinger's intention was in saying what he did, the point remains that according to him the Eastern Orthodox Church maintains the same form she has always possessed, that is, she has not altered her ecclesial self-understanding in the way that the West has changed hers.

[Aindriú]

Whatever Ratzinger's intention was in saying what he did, the point remains that according to him the Eastern Orthodox Church maintains the same form she has always possessed, that is, she has not altered her ecclesial self-understanding in the way that the West has changed hers.

So, you don't consider yourself one Church and united in faith then?

[Apotheoun]

Whatever Ratzinger's intention was in saying what he did, the point remains that according to him the Eastern Orthodox Church maintains the same form she has always possessed, that is, she has not altered her ecclesial self-understanding in the way that the West has changed hers.

So, you don't consider yourself one Church and united in faith then?

As a Melkite Catholic I belong to the one Church, and I profess the one faith, but I do not confuse theoria, which can be right or wrong, with dogma.

I don't know why you asked me this question, since all I did was quote Joseph Ratzinger in the post above.  Perhaps you should ask him the question. 

[Aindriú]

Whatever Ratzinger's intention was in saying what he did, the point remains that according to him the Eastern Orthodox Church maintains the same form she has always possessed, that is, she has not altered her ecclesial self-understanding in the way that the West has changed hers.

So, you don't consider yourself one Church and united in faith then?

As a Melkite Catholic I belong to the one Church, and I profess the one faith, but I do not confuse theoria, which can be right or wrong, with dogma.

I don't know why you asked me this question, since all I did was quote Joseph Ratzinger in the post above.  Perhaps you should ask him the question. 

I'm not sure what the pope was thinking either. I asked you because, I too am mystified by the rejection of things in ECs that don't appear to be partially acceptable.

[Thomist]

The Melkite Catholic Church is allowed to name the councils however they like. But every dogmatic definition of every council, 1 through 21, is entirely binding upon every Catholic, of any rite. To deny them is to be excommunicated.

Ratzinger is being diplomatic, probably to an unwise extent. In the first millenium Rome never brooked any dissent from any other Church once she had taken an official position on what the teaching of the magisterium was. Quite the opposite, regularly she threatened to excommunicate, or did, eastern patriarchs for continuing in error against her definitions of magisterial teaching or her rulings on matters of canon law.

On the issue of unity: The filioque is not a dogma both Churches must accept, unless the Orthodox take the view that to include the filioque is heresy. Their view on this has hemmed and hawed over the years. On the issue of the dogma of Papal infallibility it is true that the EO are outside of the faith, I will give you that one.

As far as ecclesiology goes, autocephaly is definitely not the ancient view of the Orthodox. The Churches that became the "Eastern Orthodox" were in ancient days those churches which were the state Churches of the Byzantine Empire, and they were legally answerable to the government thereof. That they were sometimes rebellious certainly does not mean they had any articulated notion of autocephaly the way the Orthodox do now. That grew gradually as the Empire shrank.

[Apotheoun]

The Melkite Catholic Church is allowed to name the councils however they like. But every dogmatic definition of every council, 1 through 21, is entirely binding upon every Catholic, of any rite. To deny them is to be excommunicated.

It is pretty clear that we will not agree on the second part of you comment. 

I see no need to accept Western theological formulas (e.g., the Tridentine views on the original sin, or created grace, or the idea that divinity is not present within icons and relics) as binding upon me as a Melkite Catholic.  I will stick with the theological tradition of my own self-governing Church when it comes to speaking about the Christian mystery, whether I am referring to the Trinity, the Incarnation, the doctrine of Theosis, or even the doctrine of the Divine Energies.

[Apotheoun]

Ratzinger is being diplomatic, probably to an unwise extent. In the first millenium Rome never brooked any dissent from any other Church once she had taken an official position on what the teaching of the magisterium was. Quite the opposite, regularly she threatened to excommunicate, or did, eastern patriarchs for continuing in error against her definitions of magisterial teaching or her rulings on matters of canon law.

I suppose that anything is possible, but I think it is best not to try and guess at Joseph Ratzinger's subjective disposition. 

[Thomist]

You can believe whatever you like, of course. But your beliefs put you outside the Catholic Church if you fail to assent to the dogmatic definition of any council.

I'm assuming Razinger is being diplomatic, granted. I can't imagine he'd really believe that it's possible to believe in a geographically limited Papal infallibility. Either way, his personal views on it aren't the views of the Catholic Church.

[Apotheoun]

On the issue of unity: The filioque is not a dogma both Churches must accept, unless the Orthodox take the view that to include the filioque is heresy. Their view on this has hemmed and hawed over the years. On the issue of the dogma of Papal infallibility it is true that the EO are outside of the faith, I will give you that one.

A person is free to reject the Western filioque because it is not a dogma, but is instead just a Western theory that tries, in a linguistically impoverished manner, to speak of the communion of essence that exists between the three persons of the Trinity.

That said, I hold that the Holy Spirit as hypostasis proceeds (ekporeusis) from the Father alone, for He alone (i.e., the Father) is the source, principle, and cause within the Godhead; but that the Holy Spirit as energy progresses (proeinai) from the Father through the Son into the world (see St. Gregory Palamas, Dialogue Between an Orthodox and a Barlaamite, no 49).

[Apotheoun]

You can believe whatever you like, of course. But your beliefs put you outside the Catholic Church if you fail to assent to the dogmatic definition of any council.

Your opinion is not share by the Melkite Catholic Patriarch, nor - evidently - by the Pope who remains in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church in spite of the fact that the Melkite Patriarch and Synod accept only seven ecumenical councils.

[Thomist]

Has the Melkite Patriarch stated unequivocally that he does not accept Papal infallibility as defined by the two Vatican councils? If so, then Benedict XVI is failing in his duties as Pontiff by not excommunicating him, in much the same way that Honorius I failed in his duties as Pontiff by not excommunicating the monothelite eastern patriarchs. Either way, the excommunication is automatic, even if the Pope does not visibly break communion.

As for the east's post hoc application of pagan neo-platonist mysticism to the Nicene Creed, the west preferred to focus on saving souls from Arianism, but unlike the eastern patriarchs the Roman Pontiff never tried to impose his view on the whole Church, despite the east's howling about supposed Roman tyranny. The idea that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son is acceptable.

[Aindriú]

The Melkite Catholic Church is allowed to name the councils however they like. But every dogmatic definition of every council, 1 through 21, is entirely binding upon every Catholic, of any rite. To deny them is to be excommunicated.

It is pretty clear that we will not agree on the second part of you comment. 

I see no need to accept Western theological formulas (e.g., the Tridentine views on the original sin, or created grace, or the idea that divinity is not present within icons and relics) as binding upon me as a Melkite Catholic.  I will stick with the theological tradition of my own self-governing Church when it comes to speaking about the Christian mystery, whether I am referring to the Trinity, the Incarnation, the doctrine of Theosis, or even the doctrine of the Divine Energies.

-Created grace isn't a belief of the Roman Catholics, I'll try to find the threads we discussed this ad nauseum.

-I've never heard of heard of a denial of divinity within relics. Why else place them in the altar.

[Aindriú]

You can believe whatever you like, of course. But your beliefs put you outside the Catholic Church if you fail to assent to the dogmatic definition of any council.

Your opinion is not share by the Melkite Catholic Patriarch, nor - evidently - by the Pope who remains in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church in spite of the fact that the Melkite Patriarch and Synod accept only seven ecumenical councils.

Would you mind producing proof of his denial of R Catholic dogma?

[Alveus Lacuna]

The Eastern Orthodox Churches are not in unity in any but the most theoretical way. As has been pointed out, a Greek Orthodox and a Russian Orthodox might live in the same town, and yet attend different congregations with totally different liturgies and hierarchies, and be categorized in difference diocese. In theory they could each take communion at the other Church, but in reality the Orthodox Churches are parallel institutions, not a single body.

Well, the way you're saying this isn't really true, but even if it were the same criticism could be made of your church. In Eastern Orthodoxy, we actually all share a uniform liturgy with regional/cultural variations (although the church does serve different liturgies at certain times of the year, such as Presanctified Liturgy of St. Pope Gregory the Dialogist during Lent). In your church, you actually have multiple churches with multiple liturgies from Armenian to Syriac to Byzantine in your eastern churches, which here in the USA also have different bishops in the same cities. So your "parallel institutions" rather than a "single body" critique is irrelevant and absurd.

We only have this issue in nontraditional lands, and the goal is eventual merging of these churches in "diaspora" lands. The Latin overlords have no such intention. Besides the situation in lands abroad for the easterners, in the homelands there is better uniformity in ecclesiastical structure. How many Patriarchs does the Roman Catholic and various eastern Catholic churches have in the Near-East? A lot more than we do. There's one patriarch of Jerusalem, as to where you have at least several if not more.

Also, even within the Latin church itself the unity seems far more "theoretical" than in Eastern Orthodoxy, where we have uniform prayers, liturgy and piety. In your church, you can be a Pentecostal-Charismatic or a traditional Latin Mass junkie, or go to groovy hippy mass and it all amounts to the same thing. As another poster once put it, it has a "choose your own adventure" ring to it.

I'm not saying our church is so much WAYYY better than your church, I'm just pointing out the flaws in your critiques.

[Thomist]

You can believe whatever you like, of course. But your beliefs put you outside the Catholic Church if you fail to assent to the dogmatic definition of any council.

Your opinion is not share by the Melkite Catholic Patriarch, nor - evidently - by the Pope who remains in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church in spite of the fact that the Melkite Patriarch and Synod accept only seven ecumenical councils.

Would you mind producing proof of his denial of R Catholic dogma?

He's misrepresenting. Melkite Patriarch Gregory II Youssef initially refused to subscribe to the statement of Papal infallibility at the First Vatican Council, but later assented, along with the rest of the Melkite Bishops, simply adding the addendum "All rights, privileges, and prerogatives of the Eastern Patriarchs be respected".

The fact that Rome has accepted this makes clear that she does not construe it as contradicting her dogmatic definitions.

[Apotheoun]

He's misrepresenting. Melkite Patriarch Gregory II Youssef initially refused to subscribe to the statement of Papal infallibility at the First Vatican Council, but later assented, along with the rest of the Melkite Bishops, simply adding the Council of Florence's addendum "Excepting the rights and privileges of the Eastern Patriarchs".

I am talking about the current Melkite Patriarch, who in a speech in Connecticut rejected the ecumenicity of the later Latin councils.

[Thomist]

They can consider them ecumenical or not as they like, they are still bound to the dogmatic definitions.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!) > Topic: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic