Balamand

[Peter_J]

The portions of Balamand cited by the OP simply don’t cohere well with the Tradition as understood by either Catholic *or *Orthodox.

FWIW, as someone who has known many “traditionalist” Catholics (both the SSPX type and the milder type) your statement doesn’t surprise me in the least.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

It will not be a matter of salvation where invincible ignorance is applicable because the objective sin is not also subjective sin.

But since it is the Church’s duty, as agent of the spiritual works of mercy, to instruct the ignorant, what sort of pastoral strategy would depend upon leaving that ignorance intact?

FWIW, as someone who has known many “traditionalist” Catholics (both the SSPX type and the milder type) your statement doesn’t surprise me in the least.

You forgot to mention “traditionalist” Orthodox and Eastern Catholics, who have the same beef with the statement. This pigeonhole is large enough for more than just a Latin minority.

 

[Peter_J]

You forgot to mention “traditionalist” Orthodox and Eastern Catholics,

Good point … except that I said “Catholics” not “Latin Catholics”, so I didn’t forget Eastern Catholics at all – or am I to understand that only Latin Catholics are “Catholics”?

 

[Vico]

But since it is the Church’s duty, as agent of the spiritual works of mercy, to instruct the ignorant, what sort of pastoral strategy would depend upon leaving that ignorance intact?

You forgot to mention “traditionalist” Orthodox and Eastern Catholics, who have the same beef with the statement. This pigeonhole is large enough for more than just a Latin minority.

The Catholic Church teaches through witness and sharing. USCCB States:

1. The Holy Spirit, through the ecumenical movement, is calling churches and ecclesial communities into ever-deeper communion through dialogue and cooperation. We look forward with great eagerness to the day when all are members of one family. While recognizing that the life of other Christian communions can truly bring about a life of grace, we nevertheless cannot ignore all that still divides us. Our love for all who confess Christ and our desire for unity compel us to share with them the fullness of revealed truth that God has entrusted to the Catholic Church and to learn from them expressions of the truths of faith that other churches and ecclesial communities share with the Catholic Church.
   usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/how-we-teach/evangelization/go-and-make-disciples/how-evangelization-happens_go_and_make_disciples.cfm

Also from the Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People (2005):

1. Vatican Council II and Inter-Religious Dialogue

With the Second Vatican Council document, Nostra Aetate, the Church showed a more positive attitude toward other religions. It states that “the Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions” (no. 2). The Church has a high regard for the way of life, precepts and doctrines of other religions. Although they might be different from the way of life, precepts and doctrines of the Church, they nonetheless “reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all people” (ibid.).

Even though there are similarities and differences among religious beliefs, the main purpose of each religion is to make every human being more spiritual. So we must view different religions as essential instruments in developing a good heart and love and respect for others. This will not only encourage people to live with greater appreciation for one another, but it will also help eliminate prejudices and false perceptions (cf. EMCC 41, 69, 100).
Listening to the other is essential in dialogue regardless of any differences (cf. EMCC 36). One has to trust in the other’s sincerity and openness. We must try to understand the other starting from within his/her perspective. Therefore, inter-religious dialogue should never be used as a “Trojan horse” to force the other to change his/her belief. Neither should it proselytize. Polemics and confrontation have no place in inter-religious dialogue. Such a dialogue is the way to the future because if we want peace in the world, there must first be peace among religions.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/migrants/pom2005_98/rc_pc_migrants_pom98_shan.html

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Good point … except that I said “Catholics” not “Latin Catholics”, so I didn’t forget Eastern Catholics at all – or am I to understand that only Latin Catholics are “Catholics”?

No, rather that only Latins (e.g., SSPX) tend to use the label “traditionalist;” aren’t the Easterners supposed to have so faithfully preserved their traditions that there is no need for a faction that bemoans their abandonment?

 

[SyroMalankara]

No, rather that only Latins (e.g., SSPX) tend to use the label “traditionalist;” aren’t the Easterners supposed to have so faithfully preserved their traditions that there is no need for a faction that bemoans their abandonment?

Which Easterners are these? I’d like to join their ranks

 

[Peter_J]

No, rather that only Latins (e.g., SSPX) tend to use the label “traditionalist;”

True. In fact, I think you could go a step further: I wish that “traditionalist” LCs wouldn’t get such a free pass for calling themselves “traditionalist”. (But I digress.)

aren’t the Easterners supposed to have so faithfully preserved their traditions that there is no need for a faction that bemoans their abandonment?

Nice loaded question.

 

[Bishop_Gavrilo]

The portions of Balamand cited by the OP simply don’t cohere well with the Tradition as understood by either Catholic *or *Orthodox.

The Catechism describes both heresy and schism as sins against faith:
“Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” I think we should be able to stipulate that Orthodox definitions would be close enough to these and that both East and West regard these sins as serious enough to imperil one’s salvation (provided that one is culpable). The Orthodox can correct me if I’m wrong on their end.

So we have a schism acknowledged by both sides (and, though we’re too nice to say it, the Orthodox rejection of defined Catholic dogmas is, by Catholic definition, heresy). So if we agree on the existence of a material schism that is objectively grave matter it is nonsensical to claim that we shouldn’t be trying to rectify it with an eye to the salvation of those individuals on the other side of the schism. This is why voices on both sides of the schism have been raised against the Balamand declaration.

I am an Eastern Orthodox bishop. Our standpoint is this:
–some EO clergy consider RC and E&O C heretics. Some consider them schismatic.
–we EO are administered according to a different model than RC are accustomed to, many RC do not understand it, are confused, and that often gives rise to misunderstandings. We have territorial, decentralized, synodal-episcopal administration. Each bishop (archbishop, vladyka, despota, eparch, exarch, metropolitan…) is the supreme ruler over his territoy. Synod does not have any special powers over the territory placed in care of an individual bishop. Nor does the synodal Patriarch or Hierarch. That in its effect means a local EO bishop may often choose his own interpretation of a question not ruled upon with definitivity by a council (ecumenical or pan-orthodox)
–I accept the interpretation the RCC is schismatic rather than heretic, and the Holy Spirit may very well flow inside her. Not all EO bishops share this view, but I do.
–now, to the point (the previous was necessary pretext) : if a RC or ByzCath faithful comes to me, and it happens about 2-3 times a week, saying: Dear Vladyka, I need the Holy Confession, right now! , I let the poor tormented soul declare the Creed of Constantinople, I ask him if he declares before me, an EO bishop, adherence to the Seven Ecumenical Councils and their Holy Canons, if he is willing to do that then I have peace of mind as I have a truly Orthodox man before me, and then I tell the man to confess his sins. Same with Eucharist, except it all happens during the Divine Liturgy that I serve. I tend to think this is how our Church Fathers used to do it in Lydia, Thrace, Ethiopia, Dalmatia and other such regions in the first millenium.
–is this valid from RC standpoint? I think so, though I care more about the confessed sins and tge absolution passed through the hands of a valid EO bishop in this case.
–is this valid from EO stabdpoint? I am the eparch here, so there are few who can come here and tell me how to do it. But, i consulted it with my brothers in our episcopal synod and several other bishops do the same thing.

It may not be a total answer regarding the Balamand issue, but I believe it may be very important. I think there is generally a certain …lack of communication between the RCC and the EO. This show of current practise may be an important point.

May the Most Holy Theotokos keep you safe, my beloved Catholic brothers and sisters.
–Vladyka Gavrilo