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

[Alexander_Roman]

Eastern Catholic’s are more palatable an option for Orthodox because (if you can find one that hasn‘t Latinized) you will have a parish of like-minded people. The Melkite are really a part of the Antiochian Church that have remained (at all cost) in communion with Rome. It’s too bad that the double-communion that was once considered between the Melkite & Antioch and the Melkite & Rome never happened, I think it’s would have been the closest we had ever came to re-union in the last 900 years.

You know, what one of the early Fathers of the Church said was not that we should be in communion with Rome (although that would be implied), but that we should be in agreement with Rome. Orthodox & Roman Catholics think completely different. Conservative Orthodox say that we need to be in agreement before we are in communion.

While attending the Roman Church I ran into a lot of those ultra-montanism types, as well as those who were the exact opposite. These opposite types would actually judge me for believing too strongly in the papacy! Odd indeed! Those of the ultra-montanism would judge me to be a heretic for not accepting all the doctrines and/or dogmas expounded infallible by the Magisterium! The rest were in the majority, but they weren’t really of the same mind per say, rather there were of those you have seen who where “focused on their feelings and social issues than on theosis”. I can not grow there, I cannot be at peace with many there. In contrast, any Orthodox Church, whether it be Russian, Greek, Serbian, Arabic, new or old calendar, I feel right at home. There are liberals, but they don’t judge others nor are they judged by others. There are not different parties holding differing views on “dogmatic” issues going about claiming those who are not like them are not “good Catholics”. There a few altra-conservative who would condemn New Calendarists and ecumenists as hereitics, and some, not so altra-conservative that may condemn these altra-conservative as being “extremists”, but it is not the same. The altra-conservative believe all the same things as the rest of the Orthodox, it is just that they will say “how can you really believe the Orthodox faith if you are ok with (for example) giving communion to non-Orthodox”. So we don’t really have differing beliefs within the same church at odds with each other, it really is just a matter of disagreements over how conservative our practices should be.

We Orthodox tend to find ways to resolve our conflicts in time anyway. Just 10 or 20 years ago no one would have ever guessed that the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia and the Moscow Patriarchate would come together, but it happened! I do think Rome and the Orthodox will likewise come together, but it will happen mainly because of what the Russian Church will soon do, not a whole lot of what Rome does, although I’m sure Rome will try to make it look like it happened because of them. Rome has lost it’s ability it once had to unite the Church. Russia, on the other hand, does inspire Church unity. As the saying goes, “New Rome has gone the way of Old Rome. Behold a 3rd Rome stands, and a 4th there shall not be”. And, “The first shall be last, and the last shall be first”. Look to Russia for the unity of the Universal Church rather than Rome. But Rome still is in the first place, because “The callings of God or without repentance”, hence it is the first place of honor, of course Rome was more than that a long time ago, but first in honor is all that is left today. The land where there has been more martyrs in this last century than in the entire history of Christianity will be from were the seed of the Church will be. For “The Martyrs are the Seed of the Church”.

Well, I do enjoy reading your very enlightening and personable writing and obtain much spiritual benefit from doing so.

Thank you, Orthodox Brother in Christ!

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

I think we’re in a remarkably similar situation. I was raised Lutheran (LC-MS) and attended college in the pre-seminary program, majoring in theology. I became increasingly interested in church history, and took a class on Orthodoxy offered by a new professor who was a patristics expert. I began to seriously examine the early fathers and compare them to Lutheran teachings, and became aware of the significant divergence between them on many issues. I began to attend an Orthodox parish shortly before graduation, and was deeply drawn to the reverence and antiquity of the liturgy. About six months after I graduated I made the decision to become Orthodox and abandon my plans to attend seminary, and have been Orthodox for about six years now.

I’m now engaged to a Catholic girl (Latin) and we attend each other’s services on alternating weeks, which prompted to me to study Catholicism more than I had before, and led me to this web site. In retrospect I admit that when I rejected Catholicism for Orthodoxy I was still influenced by bias from my Lutheran training, and held many misconceptions about it that I’m only now beginning to clear up. I’ve come to realize now that many of the dogmas that I believed separated us are actually misunderstandings or differences in emphasis and expression. There are also many statements from the fathers, including eastern ones, that speak favorably of a Roman primacy. This primacy was not just honorary but included a responsibility to hear appeals, address doctrinal conflicts, and serve as a point of unity for the Church. I would still say however that this is not ultra-montanism that sees the Pope as possessing absolute supremecy in the Church, something which many Catholics such as brother Mardukm frequently point out.

I have come to see communion with the Roman See as something desirable, but there are some issues that stop me from considering that further. One, my girlfriend has no interest in becoming a member of an EF or Eastern Catholic parish, so my options are limited to an OF one. I struggle with the OF liturgy and how it’s celebrated, especially compared to what I’m accustomed to in Orthodoxy (I’ll stop there to avoid offending anyone). Two, there are many Catholics who do hold an ultra-montanist view of the Papacy, and it’s not clear to me what the official position of the Church is. This is a view I couldn’t in good conscience hold, and I believe that it’s important to be in theological agreement with the Church you’re a member of. Three, the Orthodox spiritual life is very deep and fulfilling, and I see a strong emphasis on that in most parishes that I haven’t seen in many Catholic ones. Those Catholics with a stronger spirituality seem more focused on their feelings and social issues than on theosis. I admit that I could be wrong on these observations, and my experience with Catholicism is as an outsider which can be very distorted.

Are these concerns you share, and if so how are you handling them?

I really see the Hand of God in your life, sir. You’ve nothing to fear about anything.

Alex

 

[Stephentlig]

The dogma of Infallibility is romanized/phrased but it must be accepted and can not be rejected by the east. The east accept that the Most Holy Theotokos is spotless and assumed but as Metropolitan Kallistos said, they can accept or reject that idea. But Eastern Catholics cannot because it is dogmatic. Does not matter if it is romanized, one can not disagree with a ‘‘Dogma’’ of the Church and still said to be in union with her.

Eastern Catholics are a sui Church in union with Rome with their own Liturgical rites and expressions of Theology, but their expressions of theology must not contradict the universal dogma that must be accepted by them if they are to be in union with Rome.

 

[Hesychios]

The dogma of Infallibility is romanized/phrased but it must be accepted and can not be rejected by the east. The east accept that the Most Holy Theotokos is spotless and assumed but as Metropolitan Kallistos said, they can accept or reject that idea. But Eastern Catholics cannot because it is dogmatic. Does not matter if it is romanized, one can not disagree with a ‘‘Dogma’’ of the Church and still said to be in union with her.

Eastern Catholics are a sui Church in union with Rome with their own Liturgical rites and expressions of Theology, but their expressions of theology must not contradict the universal dogma that must be accepted by them if they are to be in union with Rome.

I suppose then, if you are correct, by this we must accept that the dogmatic pronouncements of the church are defined and/or interpreted for the entire church in Latin by the Latin bishop of Rome, and all other rites, traditions and languages must conform to this understanding. Not the other way around,

Would that be correct?

 

[Stephentlig]

I suppose then, if you are correct, by this we must accept that the dogmatic pronouncements of the church are defined and/or interpreted for the entire church in Latin by the Latin bishop of Rome, and all other rites, traditions and languages must conform to this understanding.

Would that be correct?

The dogmatic pronouncment can be made in whatever language it is made in albeit Greek or Latin but it must be accepted by the Church universal. For example: the dogmatic pronouncment that the Blessed Virgin Mary has indeed assumed into heaven, was declared in the language of latin or it could be in english or Greek or japanese. But it must be accepted as the dogma of the Church universal in whatever rite sui juiris. Whether that rite is roman, byzantine or Coptic.

Eastern Catholics are free to hold on to their expression of theology, but again as I’ve said before it must not contradict the very dogma of the Church. They EC’s are Catholics not just canonically tied to Rome, but are her very sons and daughters and part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church that accepts every dogma of that Church. Not doing so would be to resemble the Orthodox who have their own canons and do their own thing without the Pope of Rome.

 

[Hesychios]

Eastern Catholics are free to hold on to their expression of theology, but again as I’ve said before it must not contradict the very dogma of the Church. They EC’s are Catholics not just canonically tied to Rome, but are her very sons and daughters and part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church that accepts every dogma of that Church.

So then, would you call the church at Rome the Mother Church?

 

[Stephentlig]

So then, would you call the church at Rome the Mother Church?

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

 

[Hesychios]

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

You are telling me what I need to know.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

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

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.

 

[Vico]

Given that there’s a nuanced view of the fillioque in the Wester Catholic Church, i.e. “and the Son” actual means “throughthe Son”, why doesn’t the West change the Creed to say what it means or take it out all together and end this confusion?
I find the whole metaphor that the Spirit is the love between teh Father & the Son to be completely confusing… especially in the context of thsoe words meaning (at least in America).

They do not change it because it is valid and approved by Pope Leo I as dogma.

1. St. Leo the Great, “Quam Laudabiliter,” to Turibius, Bishop of Astorga (21 July 447):
   [The Holy Spirit] “who proceeds from the two.”

CCC 247
The affirmation of the *filioque *does not appear in the Creed confessed in 381 at Constantinople. But Pope St. Leo I, following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, had already confessed it dogmatically in 447,76 even before Rome, in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, came to recognize and receive the Symbol of 381. The use of this formula in the Creed was gradually admitted into the Latin liturgy (between the eighth and eleventh centuries). The introduction of the filioque into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed by the Latin liturgy constitutes moreover, even today, a point of disagreement with the Orthodox Churches.

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p2.htm

The Catholic Churches teaches this:

1. The Holy Spirit “proceeds” (ekporevsis, εκπορεύεσθαι) from the Father. The Father is the Cause, aitia, (αίτία) of the Spirit.
2. The Son’s participation is necessary for the Spirit’s eternal procession, so the Spirit “proceeds” (“procedit” in the filioque) from the Father and the Son.

 

[JohnVIII]

…They EC’s are Catholics not just canonically tied to Rome, but are her very sons and daughters and part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church that accepts every dogma of that Church. Not doing so would be to resemble the Orthodox who have their own canons and do their own thing without the Pope of Rome.

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!

 

[dzheremi]

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!

Hear, hear! I am in 1000% agreement with this (and that’s not a typo).

 

[5Loaves]

…What does the Immaculate Conception ultimately say? That the Theotokos never had the stain of sin on her soul.

And the Eastern Church has always agreed with that, so the dogma and the way it is phrased points to a Latin framework of Original Sin that is foreign to the East.

So one can reject that framework as contained in the way that dogma is expressed and yet believe that the Virgin Mary as All-Immaculate, as the Eastern liturgical services proclaim.

The same is true for the Assumption which the East fetes very highly - and therefore without defining it! Lex orandi-lex credendi.

So Latinization can be both in terms of ritual/liturgical matters and ALSO in terms of theology.

The theology of the dogmas you cite are truly “Latin” but that doesn’t mean the East doesn’t affirm in the “pith and substance” of what they represent.

Alex

I don’t know about the “pith and substance” part but this seems basically what I also have understood… that we cannot call such dogmas heretical, dogmas which as you mention here, are outside our theology, or dogmas which were instituted to deal with problems which occurred in the Latin Church but were not issues in the East so thus they are irrelevant for us. The explanation which Father Abbot Nicholas of Holy Resurrection Romanian Catholic Monastery gives in the “Word from the Wise” interview series in the section “Eastern Catholic Theology” is what I have understood as the Eastern Catholic position. Click on “(more info)” to see exactly which questions are asked:

Part 1

1. Do Eastern and Oriental Catholics have to affirm dogmas proclaimed by Rome?

1. Do Eastern and Oriental Catholics have to accept all Roman Catholic teachings and theology?

1. May Eastern and Oriental Catholics reject dogmas proclaimed by Rome as being outside their theological patrimony?

Part 2

1. May they reject doctrine and dogmas proclaimed by Rome as incorrect or heretical, like papal supremacy?

1. What about doctrines or dogmas proclaimed after the treaties of union, like the immaculate conception?

1. May Roman Catholics reject Eastern or Oriental Catholic theology as outside their theological patrimony, incorrect or heretical?

1. What is the bottom line on what it means to the everyday Catholic that each of the rites includes its own theological patrimony?

Lex orandi, lex credendi,* lex vivendi*

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.

Amen, thank you.

 

[Hesychios]

1. The Son’s participation is necessary for the Spirit’s eternal procession, so the Spirit “proceeds” (“procedit” in the filioque) from the Father and the Son.

I don’t see how.

Can you elaborate?

Where does that theory come from?

 

[Alexander_Roman]

I don’t know about the “pith and substance” part but this seems basically what I also have understood… that we cannot call such dogmas heretical, dogmas which as you mention here, are outside our theology, or dogmas which were instituted to deal with problems which occurred in the Latin Church but were not issues in the East so thus they are irrelevant for us. The explanation which Father Abbot Nicholas of Holy Resurrection Romanian Catholic Monastery gives in the “Word from the Wise” interview series in the section “Eastern Catholic Theology” is what I have understood as the Eastern Catholic position. Click on “(more info)” to see exactly which questions are asked:

Part 1

Part 2

Lex orandi, lex credendi,* lex vivendi*

Amen, thank you.

You are not far from the Kingdom of Heaven . . .

Alex

 

[Vico]

I don’t see how.

Can you elaborate?

Where does that theory come from?

Re:
*2. The Son’s participation is necessary for the Spirit’s eternal procession, so the Spirit “proceeds” (“procedit” in the filioque) from the Father and the Son. *

I do not want to derail the thread as there are other treads on this topic. The Son is not the ultimate first cause, but it can not be ruled out that the Son is a cause.

You can read of the early history here:

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19901107en.html

Greek and Latin Traditions:
phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?app=links&gotolink=340

As stated in the article above regarding the filioque is that " its purpose was to stress the fact that the Holy Spirit is of the same divine nature as the Son, without calling in question the one monarchy of the Father. "

 

[hazcompat]

A flamed divided but undimmed.

peace

 

[Hesychios]

Re:
2. The Son’s participation is necessary for the Spirit’s eternal procession, so the Spirit “proceeds” (“procedit” in the filioque) from the Father and the Son.

I do not want to derail the thread as there are other treads on this topic. The Son is not the ultimate first cause, but it can not be ruled out that the Son is a cause.

You can read of the early history here:

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19901107en.html

Greek and Latin Traditions:
phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?app=links&gotolink=340

As stated in the article above regarding the filioque is that " its purpose was to stress the fact that the Holy Spirit is of the same divine nature as the Son, without calling in question the one monarchy of the Father. "

My only concern is the term necessary. I don’t want to derail the thread either.

I don’t see the warrant for it, and I personally think that that the word ‘necessary’ does indeed call into question the monarchy of the father. There is a contradiction here.

 

[Vico]

My only concern is the term necessary. I don’t want to derail the thread either.

I don’t see the warrant for it, and I personally think that that the word ‘necessary’ does indeed call into question the monarchy of the father. There is a contradiction 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.

 

[JohnVIII]

Hear, hear! I am in 1000% agreement with this (and that’s not a typo).

It is mathematically impossible to be in 1000% agreement. If a glass holds one pint of water and it is 1000% full then that one pint glass would be holding two and a half gallons of water.