20 Answers: Eastern Catholicism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Margaret_Ann
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
dochawk said:
Note that it is actually an Eastern Christian forum, and will not tolerate putting down, “correcting”, or dismissing Orthodox.
Click to expand...
Does the reverse apply too? I.e. does byzcath forbid Orthodox from putting down, correcting or dismissing Eastern Catholics and Catholicism in general?
 
Last edited:
I don’t personally think the Orthodox need “ correcting “. From what I read of Eastern theology and spirituality; it’s beautiful and not incompatible with Latin faith.

@Margaret_Ann: I’m curious about something:

Why did the EC churches accept papal supremacy?
 
Last edited:
I didn’t explain myself correctly so I’ll edit my post.
OK, I fixed it. Re your question, I don’t know. What I do know is that Pope Clement VIII welcomed our bishops and issued Magnum Dominus.

I wish I could find the actual texts of Magnum Dominus and the Articles of the Union of Brest-Litovsk. Maybe @dochawk can help.
 
Last edited:
Margaret_Ann said:
Does the reverse apply too? I.e. does byzcath forbid Orthodox from putting down, correcting or dismissing Eastern Catholics and Catholicism in general?
Click to expand...
Absolutely.

The schism is at low tide over there . . .
Michael16 said:
Why did the EC churches accept papal supremacy?
Click to expand...
what makes you think the they did? 🤣 😱 🤣

Primacy, not supremacy.
Margaret_Ann said:
I wish I could find the actual texts of Magnum Dominus and the Articles of the Union of Brest-Litovsk. Maybe @dochawk can help.
Click to expand...
The text of Brest (of which I so often quote the first sentence!) is at: https://stjosaphatugcc.org/full-text-of-the-union-of-brest.php

I’ll punt to @ziapuelo for the other. 😜 😱
 
Okay, @dochawk.

If I’m not mistaken, the basic Eastern Catholic point on the Pope is that he’s an Ecumenical Patriarch of the whole Church and the Hierarch of the Latin Church.

So, the basic point is that the EC churches are in communion with the Pope.

However: The author of the booklet, a Fr Deacon in an EC Church; has said that ECs are in communion with and are under the Pope.

So, I’m confused. Please help me understand you.

As for my other points of interest in Eastern theology:

1: One of the things that greatly intrigue me is that Eastern theology is descriptive and apophatic in comparison with Latin theology. That a theologian is only a theologian based on his/her experience of God. Experiential theology over speculative.

2: The idea of sin as sickness.

3: The concept of synergeia. That the heart ( nous ) cooperates with God’s Energeia in the process of theosis.

4: Regarding the Sacraments as Holy Mysteries.

So far, I hope I’m understanding these four points correctly.
 
Michael16 said:
However: The author of the booklet, a Fr Deacon in an EC Church; has said that ECs are in communion with and are under the Pope.
Click to expand...
Did he use the phrase “under” the Pope? I’m friends with him on Facebook and that is not how I have ever heard him speak. Communion with, yes, under, no.

I must admit, I have not yet read the book but I do listen to him help out with the Institute of Catholic Culture Byzantine Sunday Gospel Reflection. This is from last Sunday:


ZP
 
I tell you guys what:

At Mass today, I was trying to participate in the Mass, listen to Father’s homily and pray with my heart and from the heart. Quieting my mind and letting everything touch my heart.

It was a cool experience.
 
Last edited:
Michael16 said:
However: The author of the booklet, a Fr Deacon in an EC Church; has said that ECs are in communion with and are under the Pope.
Click to expand...
You will find many statements both asserting and denying “under”. They come out to what “primacy” means, and there is no universal agreement on that in the RCC (but it’s close), let alone among EC and EO.

If you read Brest, “under” is inappropriate. If you look at the behavior of Rome, they seem to see Brest similarly to the Pirate Code . . . :roll_eyes:
Michael16 said:
1: One of the things that greatly intrigue me is that Eastern theology is descriptive and apophatic in comparison with Latin theology. That a theologian is only a theologian based on his/her experience of God. Experiential theology over speculative.
Click to expand...
I’m not a good person to ask on that (but there is a discussion as deep as you could hope for on the possible reunion thread!), but the acceptance rather than endless explication is certainly a major draw for me.
Michael16 said:
3: The concept of synergeia. That the heart ( nous ) cooperates with God’s Energeia in the process of theosis.
Click to expand...
Errm, see tha tother thread 🙂
Michael16 said:
4: Regarding the Sacraments as Holy Mysteries.
Click to expand...
The only difference in understanding that I could name offhand is that the west says “seven Sacraments”, while the East says “at Least Seven”. I know of no possible candidates, though, other than that the coronation of the Byzantine Emperor was considered at least akin to a Sacrament, if not actually one.
 
Michael16 said:
If I’m not mistaken, the basic Eastern Catholic point on the Pope is that he’s an Ecumenical Patriarch of the whole Church and the Hierarch of the Latin Church.
Click to expand...
It depends. Some Eastern Catholic Churches are way more into Papacy, to the point they regard Pope as absolute arbiter and do not deny his universal jurisdiction, as it is in accordance with their canons, and benefit from Petrine Ministry of the Pope fully. Some are different though…
dochawk said:
You will find many statements both asserting and denying “under”. They come out to what “primacy” means, and there is no universal agreement on that in the RCC (but it’s close), let alone among EC and EO.
Click to expand...
I have actually seen Orthodox use it. Somewhere in history, someone said that “Church of Constantinople is subject to Church of Rome”. Orthodox person tried to refute Papal jurisdiction in this statement by saying something along the lines that this phrase just means same what “Serbia is subject to Constantinople” in current situation- Constantinople has primacy over Serbia, but it would not mean subservience… so being subject of someone is about primacy, not subservience nor jurisdiction.

I am not sure if I agree with this statement (actually I might outright disagree with it), but if such language is used in accordance with Orthodox ecclesiology, I do not see why using “under Pope” would be wrong at all, given it can be explained like above… if it indeed can.
 
OrbisNonSufficit said:
Somewhere in history, someone said that “Church of Constantinople is subject to Church of Rome”.
Click to expand...
it all comes down to what “subject” comes down to. Nearly all Orthodox (save the fringe ROC who want to displace the EP themselves) acknowledge a level of authority in Rome, but not universal immediate jurisdiction and top-down.

Most “discussions” I’ve seen consist of each side cherrypicking individual quotations, and then extending that context to “under”, “subject to”, or “primacy” in all contexts (and almost always doing damaged to at least one language they don’t speak!)
 
dochawk said:
Most “discussions” I’ve seen consist of each side cherrypicking individual quotations, and then extending that context to “under”, “subject to”, or “primacy” in all contexts (and almost always doing damaged to at least one language they don’t speak!)
Click to expand...
Right, that was my point. Judging historical stuff by language of current age won’t do much, and bickering over those terms won’t either. I just wanted to point out that “under” in itself does not exactly mean complete reliance on Rome with no rights to govern themselves whatsoever.
 
Yes, that.

Unfortunately, the “discussions” tend to leap from someone acknowledging what you said to the other person leaping almost directly to that meaning absolute papal supremacy in all matters.
 
dochawk said:
Unfortunately, the “discussions” tend to leap from someone acknowledging what you said to the other person leaping almost directly to that meaning absolute papal supremacy in all matters.
Click to expand...
Or absolute decentralization and primus inter pares theory, both extremes happen.
 
Oh, yes, with neither willing to let facts and history get in the way . .
 
@dochawk and @OrbisNonSufficit,

What if we could somehow find a compromise formula?

Like maybe how the ECs function in communion with Rome.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top