Ancient Faith Radio: 3/31 #168 - Eastern Catholics - Are They “Orthodox”?

[TrueLight]

Rome herself is NOT the Mother Church of the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches. It has been acknowledged on multiple occasions that the various Orthodox Churches (Eastern and Oriental) are the “Mother Churches” of the various Eastern Catholic Churches. Rome has explicitly stated this on a number of occasions. One needs only read the documents on the Eastern Catholic Churches.

Really? So what is the reason of being in communion with Rome anyway?

I have VERY limited knowledge and experience obviously, so please excuse my ignorance, but sometimes I wonder why the Pope seeks communion. It seems to me that he is making concessions just so that more of the body of Christ can be one even if the Eastern Catholic churches are one in name alone. Am I misunderstanding?

edited: Just saw a thread on what it means to be in communion. I will check that out and maybe put my question there.

 

[Vico]

3rd Ecumenical Council, canon #8: “None of the Bishops most beloved by God shall take hold of any other province that was not formerly and from the beginning in his jurisdiction, or was not, that is to say, held by his predecessors. But if anyone has taken possession of any and has forcibly subjected it to his authority, he shall regive it back to its rightful possessor, in order that the Canons of the Father’s been not transgressed, … lest imperceptibly and little by little you lose the freedom which our Lord Jesus Christ, Liberator of all men, has given us as a free gift by His own blood.”

I think we should all consider accepting all the dogma’s of the Church of Alexandria. IMO it has held the faith more consistently faithful since the apostolic times then any other Church. Rome is only one witness. Even Jesus said that if He bears witness of Himself His witness is not true! “Out of the mouth of two or three witnesses shall EVERY word be established”. If all Churches outside of Rome are in bondage to Rome none of them may serve as a second witness. “A servant is not greater then his master”, so if Jesus’s witness is not true by itself, neither is the witness of Rome, by itself!

There is a big difference between bondage and communion. The Catholic Church is seeking for all the particular Churches of Christ and ecclesial communities to become re-united in communion which means faith, Holy Mysteries, and hierarchy.

 

[Hesychios]

Hi Vico,
I always enjoy your posts. I think they are valued contributions here.

Necessity

The Father cannot be conceived of as non-existent, so the Father exists necessarily.

The Son or Holy Spirit would not be equal to and homoousios with the Father if the generation and procession was dependent on the optional will of the Father; the Father’s concomitant will takes perfect delight in the generation and procession.

Also the Holy Spirit and Son would not be equal to and homoousios with each other if the procession was dependent on the optional will of either.

Saint Basil, Sermon 24, paragraph 3:‘there is one God who is the Father; there is also one God who is the Son, but there are not two Gods, because there is an identity between the Father and the Son. Because there is not another deity in the Father, and another in the Son nor another substance (physis) in either of them’

Gregory Nazinanus The Theologian, Orations, 29.2, third theological oration:
The three most ancient opinions concerning God are Anarchia (ἀναρχία), Polyarchia (πολυαρχία), and Monarchia (μοναρχία). The first two are the sport of the children of Hellas, and may they continue to be so. For Anarchy is a thing without order; and the Rule of Many is factious, and thus anarchical, and thus disorderly. For both these tend to the same thing, namely disorder; and this to dissolution, for disorder is the first step to dissolution.

But Monarchy (μοναρχία) is that which we hold in honour. It is, however, a Monarchy (μοναρχία) that is not limited to one Person (πρόσωπον), for it is possible for Unity if at variance with itself to come into a condition of plurality; but one which is made of an equality of Nature and a Union of mind, and an identity of motion, and a convergence of its elements to unity―a thing which is impossible to the created nature―so that though numerically distinct there is no severance of Essence (οủσία). Therefore Unity having from all eternity arrived by motion at Duality, found its rest in Trinity. This is what we mean by Father and Son and Holy Ghost.

None of this addresses my concerns. I agree with these statement, but they do not support the use of the word necessary in the context it was used in above.

You are stating that the Son’s participation is necessary for the Spirit’s eternal procession, but you do not say that the Spirit’s participation is necessary for the Son’s generation. The explanation make the Holy Spirit seem dependent in some way on the Son, which cannot be unless by this one is arguing that all three Person’s of God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit are dependent upon one another.

For my part, I am not arguing for either.

We, human creatures that we are, must not be so presumptuous as to claim to know what is necessary for God. We should not even be discussing God with such language.

It is not necessary to try to explain the inexplicable.

 

[hazcompat]

Really? So what is the reason of being in communion with Rome anyway?

I have VERY limited knowledge and experience obviously, so please excuse my ignorance, but sometimes I wonder why the Pope seeks communion. It seems to me that he is making concessions just so that more of the body of Christ can be one even if the Eastern Catholic churches are one in name alone. Am I misunderstanding?

edited: Just saw a thread on what it means to be in communion. I will check that out and maybe put my question there.

Jesus is the reason.

peace

 

[griego_catolico]

Rome herself is NOT the Mother Church of the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches. It has been acknowledged on multiple occasions that the various Orthodox Churches (Eastern and Oriental) are the “Mother Churches” of the various Eastern Catholic Churches. Rome has explicitly stated this on a number of occasions. One needs only read the documents on the Eastern Catholic Churches.

Phillip Rolfes,

Where has Rome explicitly stated that the EOC and the OOC are “mother churches” to the ECC? Please provide the citation.

Rome has stated that the Catholic Church is the “mother of all the particular Churches”: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html

 

[Hesychios]

Rome has stated that the Catholic Church is the “mother of all the particular Churches”

… Which is another way for Rome to say there is no such thing as Orthodox in communion with Rome.

 

[TrueLight]

… Which is another way for Rome to say there is no such thing as Orthodox in communion with Rome.

Which makes sense to me. An Eastern Catholic church can and should keep its orthodox rites, but why say one is in in communion with Rome, if the mother church is Orthodox?

Just my humble opinion.

 

[JohnVIII]

Which makes sense to me. An Eastern Catholic church can and should keep its orthodox rites, but why say one is in in communion with Rome, if the mother church is Orthodox?

Just my humble opinion.

Two issues here, first the “Mother Church”. Even the Pope has said that the Orthodox Churches are true Churches, he just says they’re “defective”, because they are not in communion with Rome. But since the are Churches (as opposed not being a Church, as protestant are, because they don’t have bishops) then those where once a part of one of the Orthodox Churches, but became one of the Eastern Catholic Churches, why wouldn’t the Orthodox Church from which they came be called their mother church? They didn’t come from the Latin Church.

The other issue is why say one is in communion with Rome. It is very important that all true Churches be in communion with each other, because all bishops should be in communion with each other, because the episcopacy IS one. (Their are reasons that can justify one church braking communion with another, but this is always seen as temporary with a view to restoring communion as soon as possible). The Church teaches that in order to show that the Church and the episcopacy is one our Lord first gave the Keys of the Kingdom to one person, namely St Peter. This “one” is continued today in the man who is 1st hierarch of the whole universal Church. This is of course the Pope, the bishop of Rome. (Just how it fell upon Rome, or if Rome still holds it is a disputed matter today between RC & EO, but both believe that the unity of the whole Church comes from the one who is the 1st ranking hierarch). So, seeing that being in communion with all Churches is important, it becomes even more important that a Church be in communion with the one Church that has the primacy, since Catholic unity comes from the 1st hierarch of this Church - which is the Pope. Most believe that the only thing that can justify not being in communion with the Church that holds the 1st place is if that Church has fallen into heresy. The Eastern Orthodox officially say that Rome has fallen into heresy, so the 1st hierarch for the EO falls upon the one who was in the 2nd place before, and is now considered the new 1st hierarch, and that would be the bishop of Constantinople. - And, if I may add my opinion, I do not personally believe that Rome is in heresy, so I am struggling with this matter; but I (for now anyway) have concluded that there are more reasons that can justify not being in communion with Rome other than heresy only.

Peace!

 

[Vico]

Hi Vico,
I always enjoy your posts. I think they are valued contributions here.

None of this addresses my concerns. I agree with these statement, but they do not support the use of the word necessary in the context it was used in above.

You are stating that the Son’s participation is necessary for the Spirit’s eternal procession, but you do not say that the Spirit’s participation is necessary for the Son’s generation. The explanation make the Holy Spirit seem dependent in some way on the Son, which cannot be unless by this one is arguing that all three Person’s of God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit are dependent upon one another.

For my part, I am not arguing for either.

We, human creatures that we are, must not be so presumptuous as to claim to know what is necessary for God. We should not even be discussing God with such language.

It is not necessary to try to explain the inexplicable.

I wrote that it is mutual: “Also the Holy Spirit and Son would not be equal to and homoousios with each other if the procession was dependent on the optional will of either.”

In the Symbol of Faith, they (west) choose not to elaborate on the concomittance of the Holy Spirit. I believe it was not necessary to combat Arianism. Yet we know that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are consubstantial.

 

[TrueLight]

Two issues here, first the “Mother Church”. Even the Pope has said that the Orthodox Churches are true Churches, he just says they’re “defective”, because they are not in communion with Rome. But since the are Churches (as opposed not being a Church, as protestant are, because they don’t have bishops) then those where once a part of one of the Orthodox Churches, but became one of the Eastern Catholic Churches, why wouldn’t the Orthodox Church from which they came be called their mother church? They didn’t come from the Latin Church.

The other issue is why say one is in communion with Rome. It is very important that all true Churches be in communion with each other, because all bishops should be in communion with each other, because the episcopacy IS one. (Their are reasons that can justify one church braking communion with another, but this is always seen as temporary with a view to restoring communion as soon as possible). The Church teaches that in order to show that the Church and the episcopacy is one our Lord first gave the Keys of the Kingdom to one person, namely St Peter. This “one” is continued today in the man who is 1st hierarch of the whole universal Church. This is of course the Pope, the bishop of Rome. (Just how it fell upon Rome, or if Rome still holds it is a disputed matter today between RC & EO, but both believe that the unity of the whole Church comes from the one who is the 1st ranking hierarch). So, seeing that being in communion with all Churches is important, it becomes even more important that a Church be in communion with the one Church that has the primacy, since Catholic unity comes from the 1st hierarch of this Church - which is the Pope. Most believe that the only thing that can justify not being in communion with the Church that holds the 1st place is if that Church has fallen into heresy. The Eastern Orthodox officially say that Rome has fallen into heresy, so the 1st hierarch for the EO falls upon the one who was in the 2nd place before, and is now considered the new 1st hierarch, and that would be the bishop of Constantinople. - And, if I may add my opinion, I do not personally believe that Rome is in heresy, so I am struggling with this matter; but I (for now anyway) have concluded that there are more reasons that can justify not being in communion with Rome other than heresy only.

Peace!

Very comprehensive answer. Thanks!

 

[RyanBlack]

No I dont just call the Church at rome mother Church. I know it is Mother Church. Why are you asking this? presumably you are going to tell me something you think I need to know? lol

Then perhaps you could inform Rome of her own error, since she refers not to herself as Mother Church, but rather a sister church to other particular Churches, while referring to the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Universal Church as mother Church to all particular Churches in this document linked below.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html

 

[TrueLight]

Then perhaps you could inform Rome of her own error, since she refers not to herself as Mother Church, but rather a sister church to other particular Churches, while referring to the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Universal Church as mother Church to all particular Churches in this document linked below.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html

1. In fact, in the proper sense, sister Churches are exclusively particular Churches (or groupings of particular Churches; for example, the Patriarchates or Metropolitan provinces) among themselves.[7] It must always be clear, when the expression sister Churches is used in this proper sense, that the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Universal Church is not sister but mother of all the particular Churches.[8]

So then the question is, what is the Universal Church and what does it mean to come into the fullness of the Church. Is this not referring to the Catholic Church, of which Rome is the head?

I find this document to be verbose and ambiguous. Why not just say once and for all, “Rome is the mother of all churches in Communion with her” or “Rome is not the Mother of Churches in Communion with her? Some churches have their own mother churches”.

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister Truelight,

So then the question is, what is the Universal Church and what does it mean to come into the fullness of the Church. Is this not referring to the Catholic Church, of which Rome is the head?

I find this document to be verbose and ambiguous. Why not just say once and for all, “Rome is the mother of all churches in Communion with her” or “Rome is not the Mother of Churches in Communion with her? Some churches have their own mother churches”.

The document may be verbose, but it is not ambiguous. The ambiguity comes from the misconceptions many impose on its statements.

The one, true Mother Church of ALL the Churches is NOT the Church of Rome, but - rather - the Catholic Church herself (exactly as the document states)which just happens to have the bishop of Rome as its head bishop.

Don’t confuse the Catholic Church with the Latin Catholic Church (which is just one of the many Churches that comprise the one Catholic Church).

The head bishop of the Church universal (as Pope) also happens to be the head bishop of the Latin Catholic Church (as Patriarch), the head bishop of Italy (as Primate), and bishop of the Church of Rome. But it would be a mistake to think that Church of Rome is the Mother Church of all the Churches.

I hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Perhaps the term “Mother Church” could be understood on more than one level . . .

The Mother Churches of the various Eastern Catholic Particular Churches are undoubtedly the Orthodox Churches from whence they originated.

The fact is that Rome has been apologising for some time for the existence of the various Eastern Catholic unions and Churches. Some time ago, Pope Benedict himself told representatives of the ROC words to the effect that we have “inherited the EC Churches” meaning that we have “inherited a problem we are not responsible for.”

There can be little doubt that if Rome had the opportunity to do it all over again, there would be no “Orthodox in communion with Rome” and no Eastern Catholics today to cause no end of grief to Rome’s relationship to Orthodoxy.

Some assessments of the Union of Brest understand that union as an attempt to see if that model of unity would “work” and would entice the Russian Orthodox Church to enter union with Rome. But it failed miserably and the Latin Church was left with a group of EC’s who were most adamant about papal supremacy from within a perpsective that did nothing but damage RC-Orthodox relations.

As for Rome being the Mother of all the Churches, in the sense of the Petrine Primacy it was once recognized universally as being such. On the other hand, other Churches appropriated to themselves certain titles that were contested e.g. the “Ecumenical Patriarch” which began under St John the Merciful and the Coptic Pope of Alexandria’s titles which have already been referred to.

In the sense that it is most commonly used with respect to the EC Churches, “Mother Church” does refer to the Orthodox Church.

Alex

 

[Vico]

Perhaps the term “Mother Church” could be understood on more than one level . . .

The Mother Churches of the various Eastern Catholic Particular Churches are undoubtedly the Orthodox Churches from whence they originated.

The fact is that Rome has been apologising for some time for the existence of the various Eastern Catholic unions and Churches. Some time ago, Pope Benedict himself told representatives of the ROC words to the effect that we have “inherited the EC Churches” meaning that we have “inherited a problem we are not responsible for.”

There can be little doubt that if Rome had the opportunity to do it all over again, there would be no “Orthodox in communion with Rome” and no Eastern Catholics today to cause no end of grief to Rome’s relationship to Orthodoxy.

Some assessments of the Union of Brest understand that union as an attempt to see if that model of unity would “work” and would entice the Russian Orthodox Church to enter union with Rome. But it failed miserably and the Latin Church was left with a group of EC’s who were most adamant about papal supremacy from within a perpsective that did nothing but damage RC-Orthodox relations.

As for Rome being the Mother of all the Churches, in the sense of the Petrine Primacy it was once recognized universally as being such. On the other hand, other Churches appropriated to themselves certain titles that were contested e.g. the “Ecumenical Patriarch” which began under St John the Merciful and the Coptic Pope of Alexandria’s titles which have already been referred to.

In the sense that it is most commonly used with respect to the EC Churches, “Mother Church” does refer to the Orthodox Church.

Alex

Consider the words of Pope Bennedict XVI, Oct 2010, regarding the CCEO (at the 20th anniversary of the Eastern Canon Law):

As has been many times repeated, the full union of the Eastern Catholic Churches with the Church of Rome that is already realized must not lead to a diminution of the consciousness of the unique authenticity and originality of those Churches. For this reason it is the task of all the Eastern Catholic Churches to conserve the common disciplinary patrimony and nourish their own traditions, which is a treasure for the whole Church.
zenit.org/article-30600?l=english

Also:

catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-encourages-eastern-catholics-to-maintain-traditions/