Accepted doctrines and dogma (papal infallibility, et al)

[itsjustdave1988]

Maximus was only a monk, not a bishop, not even a priest. That makes his opinion not much better than even mine!

I disagree. He was one of the greatest theologians of the 7th century according to both Eastern Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church. Theologians have been studying his works for over 1000 years. Those familiar with his life and writings know exactly why the corrupt Byzantine clerics he opposed had his tongue cut out: what he was teaching was authentic Catholic faith. It is sad that not enough Catholics are familar with his teachings.

Eastern Catholics who are in communion with Rome can rest assured that their belief is congruent with the beliefs of ancient Eastern Christianity. Those knowledgeable of their faith know they are to give their assent of faith to the dogma of papal infallibility, and in doing so, can be assured that they stand together with ancient Eastern Christianity as expressed by St. Maximus of Contantinople, who up until he was martyred for the Catholic faith, unceasingly expressed his steadfast belief that the doctrines of the Roman see were unwaivering, and therefore communion with the Roman see is communion with the Church of God. He affirmed that “the blessed pope of the most holy Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic see” received this sacerdotal authority, as St. Maximus made clear, “from the incarnate Son of God Himself.” This is the most ancient ecclesiology of the Catholic faith, expressed by both East and West.

 

[josephdaniel29]

That’s not correct. Canon law for the Eastern Catholics is the same as canon law for the Roman Catholics, according to CCEO canon 599 which states:

This pertains to the universal ordinary magisterium of the Roman Pontiff.

Not according to the Roman Pontiff who promulgated it, nor according to the current Roman Pontiff who led the effort in developing it, working with Eastern bishops in doing so.

So Eastern Catholics really are just Roman Catholics with funny outfits and quirky liturgies.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

That’s not correct. Canon law for the Eastern Catholics is the same as canon law for the Roman Catholics, according to CCEO canon 599 which states:

This pertains to the universal ordinary magisterium of the Roman Pontiff.

Not according to the Roman Pontiff who promulgated it, nor according to the current Roman Pontiff who led the effort in developing it, working with Eastern bishops in doing so.

Quoting canon law, even the Eastern Code, is not necessarily the best way to go about convincing an Eastern Catholic, particularly since the Eastern Code is essentially a Roman document, written by Romans, then imposed on the Eastern Churches. Our Patriarchs have more authority than the Code. And you must respect the Eastern mindset towards the Code: “It’s more like guidelines than actual rules.”

The statement from the Code, however, also pertains to the Magisterium of our bishops, who have full authority over their particular Churches. Our bishops, time and again, have professed their adherence to the teachings of Orthodoxy as being the authentic teachings of our particular Churches. Again, we turn to them to interpret Scripture and Tradition, and not to the Roman Pontiff.

With regards to the CCC, it’s nice that a Roman Pontiff considers it universal, but that’s his opinion. The Tridentine form of the Mass was also considered at one time to be universal, as has the Latin language. What has become of those things? And what relevence do they have for Eastern and Oriental Catholics. As much as I love and respect the CCC as a beautiful expression of the Faith, I recognize it for what it is, ultimately a Roman expression.

With regards to Ecumenical Councils, the Roman Pontiffs since Paul VI have referred to them as General Synods of the West. So even by the Popes they have not necessarily been considered ecumenical. It has been recognized also that each of the post-Schism Councils have been called in response to problems that had arisen in the West and had no bearing on the East. In dealing with these issues the Councils formed expressions of the Faith that, while they do not contradict the essential deposit of the Faith, are essentially Roman, dealing with Roman theological and disciplinary issues. They simply have no place in Eastern Christianity.

Finally, where do we turn for a definitive list of Ecumenical Councils? Eastern Catholics and Orthodox, following the rule of lex orandi lex credendi, honor the Seven Ecumenical Councils and recognize that at these Councils the essence of our Faith was recognized, formulated, and proclaimed. Even the catechetical materials for Eastern Catholics in the United States, published by our Eastern Catholic bishops, only recognize the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

All this being said, I have found no real contradiction between the Roman expression of the Faith and any of the Eastern or Oriental expressions of that same Faith. In essentials we believe the same things, as professed in the Creed (unfortunate as is the addition of the filioque). Our expressions, however, are very different and often seem contradictory on the surface. To paraphrase St. Augustine: in that which is necessary, unity; in that which is not necessary, diversity; in all things, charity.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

I can see that this conversation is merely going in circles. For my own good I withdraw. Have fun, everyone. I will enjoy observing the banter.

 

[crazzeto]

As an Eastern Catholic those “dogmas” have no place in our spirituality or tradition.

This is false, and your rejection of Dogma if you believe you are in communion with Rome is very problematic.

You may have your own theology, that is your own expression of Dogma. You can not, have your own seperate dogma and still claim to be in communion with Rome. I can’t say if that makes you a “heretic”, I don’t think up to this point it would have because it seems as if up to this point you really had no idea how problematic your views are.

I would suggest getting intouch with some good, orthodox sources for eastern catholic (in communion with Rome) views on dogma and theology.

God bless,

 

[josephdaniel29]

That’s not correct. Canon law for the Eastern Catholics is the same as canon law for the Roman Catholics, according to CCEO canon 599 which states:

This pertains to the universal ordinary magisterium of the Roman Pontiff.

Not according to the Roman Pontiff who promulgated it, nor according to the current Roman Pontiff who led the effort in developing it, working with Eastern bishops in doing so.

So Eastern Catholics really are nothing but Roman Catholics with funny outfits and quirky liturgies.

I read that the Eastern Catholic Churches are supposed to be a bridge and a model for unity with the Orthodox. All we see in the Eastern Churches are huge warning signs on what would happen to us. Second class citizens, tolerated only as long as we obey our Latin masters and the Roman Curia. Perhaps in one sense we should thank God for the unia, because it has shown us the truth and maybe prevented others from going down the same path.

mel reyes is the geek behind the tech curtain

Mel Reyes is the MR behind mrtech.com, the site was founded in 1995 and has morphed several times. Please enjoy the news, blog, and reading all about Mel’s body of work.

mrtech.com

It’s especially sad because so many Eastern Catholics on this forum present a very balanced view of ecclesiology and Tradition - one that could almost be accepted by many Orthodox. The problem is, if the views of many Latin Catholics on this forum are any indication, the Roman Church has divorced itself from Apostolic Tradition to an extent as to make it completely unrecognizable. The ultramontanist views of many here cannot even be plausibly defended from the fathers, Scripture or history.

Either way I hope that Eastern Catholics can continue to fight to maintain any vestiges of the ancient, Apostolic ecclesiology and Tradition that may remain in the Roman communion. In the end they may turn out to be a bridge after all.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

… the Eastern Code is essentially a Roman document, written by Romans, then imposed on the Eastern Churches.

I’m glad this point of view is not held by all Eastern Catholics.

To paraphrase St. Augustine: in that which is necessary, unity; in that which is not necessary, diversity; in all things, charity.

*“In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas” *-- John XXIII, Ad Petri Cathedram

Canon law is binding upon all Catholics, it is not a “doubtful matter” (dubiis), assertions to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

With respect to St Maximus, he held the exact same view of the Papacy as contemporary Orthodoxy.

St Maximus opposed the Rome of his day for agreeing with the Monthelite “One Will in Christ” heresy (he opposed the Eastern Patriarchs who agreed with Rome on this as well). For this, Maximus suffered a great deal - he opposed the world for falling into heresy.

And while he defended the Latin view on the Filioque - in no way did he ever defend anyone’s right (including Rome’s) to insert it unilaterally into the Creed.

In this, St Maximus was in agreement even with St Mark of Ephesus at Florence . . .

So we need to look at St Maximus, as all else, in a comprehensive, rather than a selective, fashion.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

So Eastern Catholics really are nothing but Roman Catholics with funny outfits and quirky liturgies.

I read that the Eastern Catholic Churches are supposed to be a bridge and a model for unity with the Orthodox. All we see in the Eastern Churches are huge warning signs on what would happen to us. Second class citizens, tolerated only as long as we obey our Latin masters and the Roman Curia. Perhaps in one sense we should thank God for the unia, because it has shown us the truth and maybe prevented others from going down the same path.

mel reyes is the geek behind the tech curtain

It’s especially sad because so many Eastern Catholics on this forum present a very balanced view of ecclesiology and Tradition - one that could almost be accepted by many Orthodox. The problem is, if the views of many Latin Catholics on this forum are any indication, the Roman Church has divorced itself from Apostolic Tradition to an extent as to make it completely unrecognizable. The ultramontanist views of many here cannot even be plausibly defended from the fathers, Scripture or history.

Either way I hope that Eastern Catholics can continue to fight to maintain any vestiges of the ancient, Apostolic ecclesiology and Tradition that may remain in the Roman communion. In the end they may turn out to be a bridge after all.

We’re giving it our best shot!

There will always be Eastern Catholics who are really Latin Catholics with “funny services.” But they are ignoring the encouragement and directives of Rome itself to leave the Latinizational context in which they are in for the East.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

This is false, and your rejection of Dogma if you believe you are in communion with Rome is very problematic.

You may have your own theology, that is your own expression of Dogma. You can not, have your own seperate dogma and still claim to be in communion with Rome. I can’t say if that makes you a “heretic”, I don’t think up to this point it would have because it seems as if up to this point you really had no idea how problematic your views are.

I would suggest getting intouch with some good, orthodox sources for eastern catholic (in communion with Rome) views on dogma and theology.

God bless,

Ciero is actually referring to “dogmas” as Latin theological expressions and intends to do so.

And he is more than correct. Eastern Catholics (who see themselves as Eastern and not as Latin Catholics with differenced services) have their own approach to what is ultimately the same faith.

We reject the Latin formulations as foreign to the Fathers of the East themselves, and not just to contemporary Orthodox theological usage.

And we feel the need to do so because we have had Latin Catholic traditions iimposed on us by either RC’s in the past or our own Latinized clergy/bishops.

Rome is now on our side in this matter.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

I disagree. He was one of the greatest theologians of the 7th century according to both Eastern Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church. Theologians have been studying his works for over 1000 years. Those familiar with his life and writings know exactly why the corrupt Byzantine clerics he opposed had his tongue cut out: what he was teaching was authentic Catholic faith. It is sad that not enough Catholics are familar with his teachings.

Eastern Catholics who are in communion with Rome can rest assured that their belief is congruent with the beliefs of ancient Eastern Christianity. Those knowledgeable of their faith know they are to give their assent of faith to the dogma of papal infallibility, and in doing so, can be assured that they stand together with ancient Eastern Christianity as expressed by St. Maximus of Contantinople, who up until he was martyred for the Catholic faith, unceasingly expressed his steadfast belief that the doctrines of the Roman see were unwaivering, and therefore communion with the Roman see is communion with the Church of God. He affirmed that “the blessed pope of the most holy Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic see” received this sacerdotal authority, as St. Maximus made clear, “from the incarnate Son of God Himself.” This is the most ancient ecclesiology of the Catholic faith, expressed by both East and West.

And he opposed that same blessed pope of the Church of the Romans when he was seen to fall in with the Monothelites.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

As for Eastern Orthodoxy not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, this is what they have said regarding the doctrine of purgatory:

Eastern Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem, AD 1672:

Although the term “purgatory” is avoided, the above teaching, promulgated by an Eastern Patriarch and 68 Eastern Bishops, seems to be congruent with Catholic doctrine.

It is absolutely congruent which is why I’ve always wondered why Rome made such a big deal of insisting Eastern Catholics receive the term “purgatory” which is another scholastic construct of the West.

It would have been a good part of this discussion to review in what ways Roman Catholic theology in history has mistaken its own theological tradition in expressing the Catholic faith FOR the Catholic faith itself.

The fact that Eastern Catholics will resist Latin formulations does not mean they are heretical etc.

Roman Catholics, especially of the triumphalist variety, can be most silly about this.

Alex

 

[crazzeto]

Ciero is actually referring to “dogmas” as Latin theological expressions and intends to do so.

And he is more than correct. Eastern Catholics (who see themselves as Eastern and not as Latin Catholics with differenced services) have their own approach to what is ultimately the same faith.

We reject the Latin formulations as foreign to the Fathers of the East themselves, and not just to contemporary Orthodox theological usage.

And we feel the need to do so because we have had Latin Catholic traditions iimposed on us by either RC’s in the past or our own Latinized clergy/bishops.

Rome is now on our side in this matter.

Alex

He is incorrect if he believes he can reject Papal infallibility, or the IC, or purgatory. These are articles of faith, or in other words dogma not theology. Theology expresses the dogmatic teaching of the Church in a manner consistant with the particular ancient tradition of the Church. Dogma is an essential truth about God.

Catholics can not be in communion if we do not accept the same dogmas, it is this issue that seperates us from the Orthodox not in communion with Rome. If Eastern Catholics held the same position, we would not be in full visible communion with them, it’s really that simple.

I think it more likely what has happened hear is that we are confusing, very greatly, the terms dogma and theology. A dogma is a truth expressed primarly at Church council, in communion with the Bishop of Rome, or in rare case by the Seat of Rome alone via infallible proclimation.

The IC, Purgatory, Papal Infallibility, these are all defined as such (By Proclimation, Trent and Vatican I respectivly). No Catholic can deny the essential truth, to do so obstinently makes one a heretic or forces them to be schismatic or both.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

St Maximus opposed the Rome of his day for agreeing with the Monthelite “One Will in Christ” heresy (he opposed the Eastern Patriarchs who agreed with Rome on this as well).

If by the “Rome of his day”, you mean Pope Honorius, then you are incorrect in stating that the pope agreed with the Monothelite heresy. If you’ve read the works of St. Maximus, then you know that he defended Honorius in his letter to Marinus in the same manner that Pope John IV defended Honorius, contending that his words conveyed only that there were not two contrary wills in Christ, which was also the testimony of the author of Honorius’ letter, Abbot John Symponus. The monothelites ignored St. Maximus and Pope John IV and continued to falsely attribute to Honorius’ letter a meaning that it did not have.

And while he defended the Latin view on the Filioque - in no way did he ever defend anyone’s right (including Rome’s) to insert it unilaterally into the Creed.

The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed remains as it was. The Catholic Church does not contend that the creed of these Ecumenical Councils should change. The Church did profess that in the Latin, in order to combat Arianism from spreading in the West, the profession in Latin could rightly includes filioque and not contradict the ancient Catholic faith, which is precisely what St. Maximus asserted.

So we need to look at St Maximus, as all else, in a comprehensive, rather than a selective, fashion.

I’ve read virtually everything he has written that has been translated to English. I agree that we ought not to be selective. I disagree that I have.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

He is incorrect if he believes he can reject Papal infallibility, or the IC, or purgatory. These are articles of faith, or in other words dogma not theology. Theology expresses the dogmatic teaching of the Church in a manner consistant with the particular ancient tradition of the Church. Dogma is an essential truth about God.

Catholics can not be in communion if we do not accept the same dogmas, it is this issue that seperates us from the Orthodox not in communion with Rome. If Eastern Catholics held the same position, we would not be in full visible communion with them, it’s really that simple.

I think it more likely what has happened hear is that we are confusing, very greatly, the terms dogma and theology. A dogma is a truth expressed primarly at Church council, in communion with the Bishop of Rome, or in rare case by the Seat of Rome alone via infallible proclimation.

The IC, Purgatory, Papal Infallibility, these are all defined as such (By Proclimation, Trent and Vatican I respectivly). No Catholic can deny the essential truth, to do so obstinently makes one a heretic or forces them to be schismatic or both.

I agree!

But the IC, Purgatory and the like do two things simultaneously: express a Catholic truth AND Latin Catholic theology. Eastern Christians have always believed in the All-Holiness of the Mother of God. And they have never had issues with the Augustinian or whatever views on Original Sin. They further have always believed the Mother of God was sanctified to the nth degree at her Conception which is why it has a feast of the Conception of St Anne. The IC dogma therefore tells Eastern Christians nothing new. And its expression is exclusively Latin and scholastic. The same with Purgatory which tends also to be an expression of the “accountancy” view of salvation that Eastern Christians have sometimes seen in Latin eschatology and soteriology. Suffice it to say that the East prays most assiduously for the dead that they may be loosed from their sins and the penances they must still make.

We have our own way of looking at things and when we reject Latin Theological expressions, this does not mean reject Catholic truth.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

If by the “Rome of his day”, you mean Pope Honorius, then you are incorrect in stating that the pope agreed with the Monothelite heresy. If you’ve read the works of St. Maximus, then you know that he defended Honorius in his letter to Marinus in the same manner that Pope John IV defended Honorius, contending that his words conveyed only that there were not two contrary wills in Christ, which was also the testimony of the author of Honorius’ letter, Abbot John Symponus. The monothelites ignored St. Maximus and Pope John IV and continued to falsely attribute to Honorius’ letter a meaning that it did not have.

The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed remains as it was. The Catholic Church does not contend that the creed of these Ecumenical Councils should change. The Church did profess that in the Latin, in order to combat Arianism from spreading in the West, the profession in Latin could rightly includes filioque and not contradict the ancient Catholic faith, which is precisely what St. Maximus asserted.

I’ve read virtually everything he has written that has been translated to English. I agree that we ought not to be selective. I disagree that I have.

OK, now you are talking sir!

Let’s say that St Maximos opposed the Monothelite heresy at a time when the churches seemed to unite around it. He truly went against the world and stood alone against this heresy. As for whether Honorius was implicated in the heresy itself - that is a matter of discussion still. It is true that the later popes, up until the 12th century, did condemn Honorius from the sixth council onward - am I incorrect on that?

His views on the profession with the Filioque was temporary at best. He simply asserted that the East should understand what the West’s intentions were here in terms of a Local Church using an expression to respond to an issue within a given context. At no time did he suggest that the East follow suit. At no time, did he assert that the Filioque should be made a permanent fixture in the universal Creed. If there is a belief that he did, I would most definitely like to see where he did that.

In addition, there were later popes, as in the time of Charlemagne, who formally refused to include the Filioque in the Creed (Pope St Leo IV, I believe). At no time did Rome, representing the universal Church, appear as a promoter of the Filioque either.

Did St Maximus believe that the “Through the Son” was equal to what the Latins meant by “And the Son?” I don’t know the answer to that.

But I will say that I do believe the two reflect the same reality.

Alex

 

[JohnVIII]

I disagree. He was one of the greatest theologians of the 7th century according to both Eastern Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church. Theologians have been studying his works for over 1000 years. Those familiar with his life and writings know exactly why the corrupt Byzantine clerics he opposed had his tongue cut out: what he was teaching was authentic Catholic faith. It is sad that not enough Catholics are familar with his teachings.

Eastern Catholics who are in communion with Rome can rest assured that their belief is congruent with the beliefs of ancient Eastern Christianity. Those knowledgeable of their faith know they are to give their assent of faith to the dogma of papal infallibility, and in doing so, can be assured that they stand together with ancient Eastern Christianity as expressed by St. Maximus of Contantinople, who up until he was martyred for the Catholic faith, unceasingly expressed his steadfast belief that the doctrines of the Roman see were unwaivering, and therefore communion with the Roman see is communion with the Church of God. He affirmed that “the blessed pope of the most holy Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic see” received this sacerdotal authority, as St. Maximus made clear, “from the incarnate Son of God Himself.” This is the most ancient ecclesiology of the Catholic faith, expressed by both East and West.

He was a big deal IN HIS DAY, so was Origen - even more so! Some of Origen’s disciples became saints, and yet in spite of how important he was in his day, some of his teachings are considered to be heresies today! But I guess that a pope (St. Gregory) does not speak infallibly if he says anything to lessen the authority of the papacy, but a Greek monk (Maximus) does speak infallibly if he says anything to increase the authority of the papacy.

In my opinion one of the other of the three bishops that occupy the Chair of St Peter (I refer to the bishop of Alexandria, and I allude to the words of St Pope Gregory, who said “The See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside”) has had a better track record of infallibility then Rome has. And even today, there is an agreement for at least limited communion between Rome and Alexandria is spite of the fact that Alexandria teaches today, and has always taught, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father ALONE, and that our Lord Jesus has but one nature. Two issues of faith that are not considered dogmatic by Alexandria, but it is said that they are considered such by Rome. The fact that there is disagreement here does not seem to be a problem with Alexandria and it seems that Rome, in reality, also doesn’t really want to make it an issue either. - So what then are the real dogmatic matters of faith???

Declaring matters dogmatic was a means to an end. The end was to secure greater authority to Rome. As I see it, it didn’t work. Just as it takes two or three bishops to make enough authority to ordain another bishop, it also takes two or three bishops of the See of St Peter to make universal authority. This is as I see it. One Father of the Church said that all Churches should be in agreement with Rome. Well, if it is true that the bishop of Rome is just a bishop (not an apostle), and if it is also true that the only thing that grants him a greater authority is the fact that he is of the See of St Peter, then it must also be true that all Churches must be in agreement with Alexandria and with Antioch as well. It MUST take agreement of two or three of the three bishops of St Peter to make something Ecumenical! It is written, “Out of the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established”, and also, “Where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.”

 

[sidbrown]

We have our own way of looking at things and when we reject Latin Theological expressions, this does not mean reject Catholic truth.

Alex

I think this statement more or less sums it up nicely.

 

[JohnVIII]

If by the “Rome of his day”, you mean Pope Honorius, then you are incorrect in stating that the pope agreed with the Monothelite heresy. If you’ve read the works of St. Maximus, then you know that he defended Honorius in his letter to Marinus in the same manner that Pope John IV defended Honorius, contending that his words conveyed only that there were not two contrary wills in Christ, which was also the testimony of the author of Honorius’ letter, Abbot John Symponus. The monothelites ignored St. Maximus and Pope John IV and continued to falsely attribute to Honorius’ letter a meaning that it did not have.

So if it is true then that Honorius’ letter was orthodox why was there any need to have it destroyed without a trace? I actually think that the popes letter may in fact be orthodox, but why then have it destroyed?

 

[crazzeto]

I agree!

But the IC, Purgatory and the like do two things simultaneously: express a Catholic truth AND Latin Catholic theology. Eastern Christians have always believed in the All-Holiness of the Mother of God. And they have never had issues with the Augustinian or whatever views on Original Sin. They further have always believed the Mother of God was sanctified to the nth degree at her Conception which is why it has a feast of the Conception of St Anne. The IC dogma therefore tells Eastern Christians nothing new. And its expression is exclusively Latin and scholastic. The same with Purgatory which tends also to be an expression of the “accountancy” view of salvation that Eastern Christians have sometimes seen in Latin eschatology and soteriology. Suffice it to say that the East prays most assiduously for the dead that they may be loosed from their sins and the penances they must still make.

We have our own way of looking at things and when we reject Latin Theological expressions, this does not mean reject Catholic truth.

Alex

This is why we have dogma, as opposed to theology. The theology expresses a dogmatic truth, but the truth it’s self that we all most hold is a dogma. This is why, at least certainly if your talking to Latins, it’s important to have these two contexts clear in mind. When you say you reject a dogma of faith to us, you tell us you reject a fundamental article of the Catholic faith, and there for your belief structure is questionable, at least if your running around claiming to be in full visible communion with Rome.