Are Eastern Catholics free to reject dogma?

[Vico]

Thank you ByzCathCantor.
I visit the Eastern Catholic thread regularly and have been to that website once before.
I would be interested in reading books which offer a history of individual Eastern Catholic Churches. Perhaps you have a favorite?
May God bless you and all who visit our thread.
jt

Read some history here:
cnewa.org/default.aspx?ID=123&pagetypeID=9&sitecode=HQ&pageno=1

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

I don’t really think the OP has been given a fair shake. While it seems eminently common-sensical that every Catholic would have to profess the Catholic faith whole and entire, the fact of the matter is that there has been at least one very prominent case of an Eastern Catholic “in good standing” rejecting ecumenical councils and even dogma - Mar Elias Zoghby.

Zoghby asserted in his 1996 book Tous Schismatiques? (literally, “Are We All Schismatics?”, usually translated “We Are All Schismatics”) that the Church of Rome and the Orthodox Church share essentially the same faith. He declared that the Councils held by the West alone cannot be considered “ecumenical”, criticized the Code of Canon Law of the Eastern Catholic Church, and said that the union which took place between some Eastern Churches and Rome was a mistake. Zoghby also asserted that the primacy of the Roman Pontiff is one of honor and charity only. Later, he said that papal “infallibility depends on ecumenicity.” (from Wikipedia’s page on the Zoghby Initiative)

If a bishop is left free to lobby his synod for reunion with the Orthodox on such terms, it reasonably sows seeds of doubt about the necessity of affirming all of the ecumenical councils and their decisions, especially those on papal infallibility and jurisdiction which are outright undermined in this particular initiative. Questioning whether this could actually be legitimate is not so much to ask “are those Easterners really Catholic” as it is to ask “how/why could this be allowed?” A similar question might be asked in light of some bishops’ utterances leading into this October’s Synod: “Are German Catholics allowed to believe in morally licit forms of sex outside of marriage?” Obviously not, but with prelates saying things that give this impression, we are right to scratch our heads and ask for clarification.

 

[SyroMalankara]

I don’t really think the OP has been given a fair shake. While it seems eminently common-sensical that every Catholic would have to profess the Catholic faith whole and entire, the fact of the matter is that there has been at least one very prominent case of an Eastern Catholic “in good standing” rejecting ecumenical councils and even dogma - Mar Elias Zoghby.

Zoghby asserted in his 1996 book Tous Schismatiques? (literally, “Are We All Schismatics?”, usually translated “We Are All Schismatics”) that the Church of Rome and the Orthodox Church share essentially the same faith.

That isn’t anti-Catholic or rejecting dogma.

He declared that the Councils held by the West alone cannot be considered “ecumenical”

Again not dogma. He accepted the Councils as General Synods mainly of the West and accepted their decision, just reserving the title ‘Ecumenical Council’ for a reunited future body

, criticized the Code of Canon Law of the Eastern Catholic Church

Almost all Easterners question the Eastern Code, there are many shortcomings, it is a preliminary work intended as a starting point not an end goal

and said that the union which took place between some Eastern Churches and Rome was a mistake.

Uniatism is what was claimed to be a mistake, not reunion. The Balamand Declaration from both Catholic and Orthodox Church, as well as recent Popes have said the same.

Zoghby also asserted that the primacy of the Roman Pontiff is one of honor and charity only

He never added ‘only’, perhaps ‘preeminently, primarily and most importantly’ but not only.

Later, he said that papal “infallibility depends on ecumenicity.” (from Wikipedia’s page on the Zoghby Initiative)

It doesn’t sound too far off. A lone voice may be speaking the truth, but if no one can hear it, then of what use is it? Infallibility is best heard when the Church speaks as one voice.

If a bishop is left free to lobby his synod for reunion with the Orthodox on such terms, it reasonably sows seeds of doubt about the necessity of affirming all of the ecumenical councils and their decisions, especially those on papal infallibility and jurisdiction which are outright undermined in this particular initiative. Questioning whether this could actually be legitimate is not so much to ask “are those Easterners really Catholic” as it is to ask “how/why could this be allowed?” A similar question might be asked in light of some bishops’ utterances leading into this October’s Synod: “Are German Catholics allowed to believe in morally licit forms of sex outside of marriage?” Obviously not, but with prelates saying things that give this impression, we are right to scratch our heads and ask for clarification.

Wow, theological Patrimony from the East is the same as Western heresy? You may want to revise that perspective.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

The dogma involved is papal infallibility; Vatican I declared that “such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.” To make the infallibility of the pronouncement dependent upon some broader mechanism of ecumenicity (i.e., beyond the fact that the pope, in place of the head, is already speaking on behalf of the Church universal), would be heretical. And hence open to comparison to other heresies. Perhaps that’s not what the bishop proposed, but it sure sounds that way.

Papal primacy is also conciliarly defined as being much stronger than what Wikipedia attributes to +Zoghby, I’m glad to hear he did not restrict it so far, but again, if that’s the story circulating, people are hearing a rejection of Catholic doctrine.

Ecumenical councils teach infallibly, as Catholics must hold the “ecumenical” councils from Constantinople IV to Vatican I to have done (VatII, per Paul VI, exercised no extraordinary magisterium). Lesser councils and synods do not teach infallibly. Perhaps +Zoghby is just coming up with a new term for “ecumenical” without rejecting the infallible authority but, AGAIN, what is heard by denying the title ecumenical is a denial of that authority.

So at the end of the day, we might clear the bishop of any actual heterodoxy after we’ve parsed all his positions, but still ought to recognize why the simplest presentation of those positions raises serious questions.

 

[Vico]

The dogma involved is papal infallibility; Vatican I declared that “such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.” To make the infallibility of the pronouncement dependent upon some broader mechanism of ecumenicity (i.e., beyond the fact that the pope, in place of the head, is already speaking on behalf of the Church universal), would be heretical. And hence open to comparison to other heresies. Perhaps that’s not what the bishop proposed, but it sure sounds that way.

Papal primacy is also conciliarly defined as being much stronger than what Wikipedia attributes to +Zoghby, I’m glad to hear he did not restrict it so far, but again, if that’s the story circulating, people are hearing a rejection of Catholic doctrine.

Ecumenical councils teach infallibly, as Catholics must hold the “ecumenical” councils from Constantinople IV to Vatican I to have done (VatII, per Paul VI, exercised no extraordinary magisterium). Lesser councils and synods do not teach infallibly. Perhaps +Zoghby is just coming up with a new term for “ecumenical” without rejecting the infallible authority but, AGAIN, what is heard by denying the title ecumenical is a denial of that authority.

So at the end of the day, we might clear the bishop of any actual heterodoxy after we’ve parsed all his positions, but still ought to recognize why the simplest presentation of those positions raises serious questions.

I can add some documentation from Vatican I to help:

Bishop Gasser noted that Papal authority:

1. is not personal: not as the person, but as the role of Supreme Pontiff, not because of the authority of the Supreme Pontiff, but due to the assistance of the Holy Spirit when acting in that role as supreme judge in matters of faith and morals.
2. is not separate: not apart from, or opposed to, or set over against the entire Church, even though the promise of Christ of the aid of the Holy Spirit to the role of sucessor of Peter in matters of faith and morals is, in a sense, different than that of the indefectability and infallibility in truth promised to the entire Church.
3. is not absolute since absolute authority belongs to God alone and it is restricted by the subject: what must be accepted or rejected of faith or morals.

See The Gift of Infallibility, Gasser, O’Connor, pages 44-50. This is the book on the relatio of Vatican I.

In his relatio, Bishop Gasser answered the very question before the people here, in this way:

“It is true that the consent of the present preaching of the whole Magisterium of the Church, united with its head, is the rule of faith even for pontifical definitions. But from that it can in no way be deduced that there is a strict and absolute necessity of seeking that consent from the rulers of the Churches or from the bishops. I say this because the consent is very frequently able to be deduced from the clear and manifest testimonies of Sacred Scripture, from the opinion of theologians and from other private means, all of which suffice for full informaton about the fact of the Church’s consent. Finally it must never be overlooked that there is present to the Pope the tradition of the Church of Rome, that is of the Church to which faithlessness has no access, and with which, because of its more powerful primacy, every Church must agree.”

Previously he gave Mt 28:20 for evidence of the infallibility of the Magisterium of the Church, and Mt 16:18 and Lk 22:32 as evidence of infallibility of the Pope (definitions of faith and morals).

The Gift of Infallibility, Gasser, O’Connor, pp. 54-55

 

[angelic06]

Not to be paranoid, but when I read threads like this one, a part of me wonders if the real theme of the thread isn’t suspicions of Eastern Catholics. Does anyone else feel that way?

I am actually in agreement with you, and I don’t like to read too much into another person’s words before one has a chance to defend him- or herself. Let me give everyone my own brief, personal story:

I moved to San Antonio in the summer of 2006. When I arrived, there wasn’t a single Byzantine Catholic parish or chapel in the city, though there are a fair amount of Orthodox churches here. The Byzantine Catholic community, take two, was founded in the spring of 2011. If I wanted to convert to Orthodoxy and renounce full communion with St. Peter’s successor, I had almost five years to decide. As a Latin looking to the (Catholic) East, I profess all that the Church claims to be revealed by His Majesty the King-heaven, hell, purgatory (or what we call “final theosis”), the Church’s teaching on the Theotokos (her dormition, her immaculate conception, and most importantly that she is the Mother of God-not just anyone).

I will let the theologians quarrel among themselves about the rest.

 

[Peter_J]

Uniatism is what was claimed to be a mistake, not reunion. The Balamand Declaration from both Catholic and Orthodox Church, as well as recent Popes have said the same.

I haven’t been spending very much time on this thread, but I’d like to at least to provide a link to the document you mentioned, for anyone who’s never read it (sadly, I think many readers never get past the title ): Uniatism, Method of Union of the Past, and the Present Search for Full Communion.