Closet orthodoxy in eastern catholicism

  • Thread starter Thread starter GIR
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mickey said:
I have had many Latin and Eastern Catholics tell me that it is not a “place” at all. :confused:
Click to expand...
It is a latin understanding that it is a place, and that the torture is described (consistantly) as fire there for probably whatever torment there is, it’s probably fire. This is not a dogmatic teaching of the Church on purgatory though, which speaks to my earlier points regarding the need for all Catholics to understand the dogmas and to assent to what the dogma’s actually teach. This same point was rather nicely buttressed by markdum in his thread regarding the Oriental understanding of several Catholic points of dogma.
 
Mickey said:
I’ll let him answer that.

A place of torture/torment?!? :eek:
Click to expand...
Why the suprise? That’s what the Roman Catholic Church used to teach… now they teach that they never taught that at all. 😉
 
GIR said:
… I hear so much bashing of Western “innovations” etc. complaints of Latinization while saying the west needs to become more eastern.

My question is, why be eastern CATHOLIC at all? If you have a problem with the papacy or the ecclesiology that goes with it, why not just leave?..
Click to expand...
We should not leave the Catholic Church but strive to understand better, for our spiritual welfare and that of the whole Church, with “mutual goodwill and the unity of Christians” at heart.

We have the right and obligation to bring any existing infidelity to our ritual Church traditions to the attention of the hierarchy and our presbyters. So complaining about latinizations is valid, but I agree that the Latin Church should not be easternized.

We can see that the Catholic Church has recorded the canons (CCEO 1990) of how we the lay people, the hierarchy, and the clerics and consecrated, should strive to preserve, understand, appreciate, and observe our own ritual churches: both rights and obligations. (There are some similar canons in the Latin Church.)

CCEO Canon 12
  1. The Christian faithful are bound by an obligation in their own patterns of activity always to maintain communion with the Church.
  2. They are to fulfill with great diligence the duties which they owe to the universal Church and to their own Church sui iuris.
    CCEO Canon 40
  3. Hierarchs who preside over Churches sui iuris and all other hierarchs are to see most carefully to the faithful protection and accurate observance of their own rite, and not admit changes in it except by reason of its organic progress, keeping in mind, however, mutual goodwill and the unity of Christians.
  4. Other clerics and members of institutes of consecrated life are bound to observe their own rite faithfully and daily to acquire a greater understanding and a more perfect practice of it.
  5. Other Christian faithful are also to foster an understanding and appreciation of their own rite, and are held to observe it everywhere unless something is excused by the law.
    CCEO Canon 403
  6. With due regard for the right and obligation to preserve everywhere their own rite, lay persons have the right to participate actively in the liturgical celebrations of any Church sui iuris whatsoever, according to the norms of the liturgical books.
  7. If the necessity of the Church and genuine advantage so recommend, and when sacred ministers are lacking, certain functions of the sacred ministers may be committed to lay persons, according to the norms of law.
    CCEO Canon 903
    The Eastern Catholic Churches have a special duty of fostering unity among all Eastern Churches, first of all through prayers, by the example of life, by the religious fidelity to the ancient traditions of the Eastern Churches, by mutual and better knowledge of each other, and by collaboration and brotherly respect in practice and spirit.
 
Kook said:
**Could you elaborate on this point a bit? **

In terms of the other posts in this thread, I think it’s notable that Catholicism embraces the work of guys like St. John Damascene, St. Basil, St. Gregory Nazienzen, etc. as Doctors of the Church. Would/Could there ever be any such reciprocation from the East for the great Latin saint/theologians?

My experience among the Orthodox indicates no. Emphatically. This thought:

.

strikes me as foreign in all my dealings with Orthodox brethren. While much attention is given to the fear of Latinizations against the East (and rightfully so, I might add, despite actions by holy men like Leo XIII to avoid such), I am constantly bombarded by Eastern thought that much of Western Catholicism be abandoned.

Sometimes it’s the filioque. Sometimes it’s bearded clergy and azymes. After all, if you think Photius had it right, some of these things will be issues.
Click to expand...
Hi Kook. 👋
I remember reading in an encyclical or something the particular teaching the the Orthodox Churches, like the Catholic Church, have the full means of salvation. Sadly I can’t remember where I read this. I tried looking in the CCC and in the documents of Vatican II, but it wasn’t explicitly stated in either of those. Perhaps it was in John Paul II’s “Orientale Lumen.” 🤷 I know that I read it in some Church document, however.

One thing that I did noticed, in reviewing the documents of Vatican II, is the statement, “It must not be forgotten that from the beginning the Churches of the East have had a treasury from which the Western Church has drawn extensively - in liturgical practice, spiritual tradition, and law. Nor must we undervalue the fact that it was the ecumenical councils held in the East that defined the basic dogmas of the Christian faith, on the Trinity, on the Word of God Who took flesh of the Virgin Mary. To preserve this faith these Churches have suffered and still suffer much.” So it would seem that there has always been an “Easternizing” tendency in the tradition of the West.

That being said, I do not believe that, in the event of reunion, the West should have to give up its thoroughly Western identity. The Christian East needs to respect the heritage of the Christian West every bit as much as the Christian West needs to respect the heritage of the Christian East. This takes humility, which, thanks to “old dusty Adam” and his propensity for forbidden fruit, is severely lacking in the human aspect of the Church.
 
Hello all,

I’m relatively new to these pages and am one of your (Eastern) Orthodox (Catholic) colleagues. (Yes, we consider our church to be Catholic too…)

It is interesting to read some points of view and thoughts/observations.

A lot of these topics discussed here are timely because I’m dating someone who is Catholic and (of course) the Orthodox-Catholic issue comes up a lot, mostly in terms of family and raising children, etc. We consider it crucial to be able to worship together as a family if we ever got married, yet I could not receive in the Catholic church (yes, I know, technically they would allow me but my Orthodox Church would not bless that option, thus I would not do it), and she could not receive in the Orthodox church. The Orthodox view intercommunion as the last step of unity of faith – i.e., you only intercommune after you agree that your faith is the same. We do not see intercommunion as a means to unity, but as a visible manifestation of unity itself.

Then the whole issue of where to baptize children, etc etc. It is quite clear that we are suffering due to issues that happened many, many years ago to separate our churches.

That being said, from the Orthodox standpoint, the primary issue dividing Orthodox and Catholics is the issue of papal supremacy and infallibility. They are 3 separate issues – papal primacy (primacy of honor to the See of Rome, i.e., the “first among equals”), papal supremacy (the Pope of Rome is given jurisdictional influence above his brother bishops of the other churches), & papal infallibility (ex cathedra… you have to live under a rock to not have heard of this one).

Orthodox have no problem with papal primacy – really, we see it as operating much in the same way that we view our current Patriarch of Constantinople (who took that role of “first among equals” after the schism). In reality, it’s a title of honor, and in the case of an ecumenical council, the “first among equals” bishop would preside. The Orthodox approach tends to be much more conciliar than the Latin Catholic approach, from my viewpoint. Indeed, I often wonder, given papal supremacy, why are church councils even necessary? Why can’t the pope just dictate to other bishops what to do, etc.?

In day to day life, the “first among equals” Patriarch of Constantinople has jurisdiction over very few Orthodox Christians – a few thousand in Istanbul, and many more in scattered areas throughout the world (though his largest/most influential diocese is the Greek Archdiocese in America, which in the Patr of Constantinople’s jurisdiction, not the Church of Greece’s). I am in the Antiochian Archdiocese, and the Patr of Const has no (name removed by moderator)ut into how our church runs at all. The faith is the same, and obviously we can intercommune, but he is not my bishop at all, no matter how far you go up the ladder. Well more than half of all the world’s Orthodox Christians are in the Patr of Moscow’s jurisdiction (i.e., the Church of Russia).

A couple issues on the papacy that I’ve noticed illustrates how Orthodox and Catholics approach things:

–To Orthodox, the concept of universal papal supremacy (not primacy!) and papal infallibility are really the only major barriers to serious talks about reunification. I personally don’t see how any Orthodox/Catholic reunion can ever happen until these are addressed and qualified more clearly or rescinded by the Church of Rome. Universal papal supremacy and papal infallibility were not present in the early church and should not be there now. I know that some Catholics argue that these two issues were present in the early church and simply were not articulated until hundreds of years later, but that is one area where Orthodox and Catholics clearly disagree… I personally think that this is a huge stretch to make, but one that Catholics must make in order to say that their faith is the same as it was in 33 AD. I truly believe that until this issue is resolved, reunification will not be possible.

–The problem is, many (most?) generations of Catholics for the past many years grew up with universal papal supremacy and infallibility and (in my opinion) seem to think that their church would not be christian or the “true church” without it. It is so ingrained in Latin catholic culture, possibly irreversibly? Yet another stumbling block to reunification.

As an Orthodox Christian, I could not in good conscience teach my children that universal papal supremacy and papal infallibility are true Christian teachings. Plus, I would want to commune at the same church as my wife and we would want agreement on where/how our children are to be baptized. I am fearful that this may be an irreversible stumbling block in our relationship? I pray that it is not and that the Holy Spirit provides a way, but it is clear that Orthodox/Catholic division is probably the most scandalous issue to ever affect Christianity and most likely scandalizes God even to this day.

Praying for unity. However, the more I think about it, realistically, I think that unity can only happen now if Orthodox become Catholic or if Catholics become Orthodox. Any other possibilities? Thoughts?
 
jimmy said:
It saddens me that the west thinks they can dominate the east. They make new dogmas without the consultation of eastern tradition and then try to force them on the east. The east is considered to be simply proud and insubordinate people who need to be put in their proper place. If the west wants to make new dogmas for no reason that is their own problem, we will not participate in it.
Click to expand...
Its the Holy Spirit “making new dogmas”.
 
Among Catholics, particularly Eastern ones, it’s quite common now to hear that East and West simply have different understandings regarding theological positions. At least alot of Orthodox tend to be more forthright on the subject, and state clearly that we hold to theological errors.
 
Among Catholics, particularly Eastern ones, it’s quite common now to hear that East and West simply have different understandings regarding theological positions.
Click to expand...
That’s actually the position of the Magisterium as well (c.f. Unitatis Redintegratio, Paragraph 17):
What has just been said about the lawful variety that can exist in the Church must also be taken to apply to the differences in theological expression of doctrine. In the study of revelation East and West have followed different methods, and have developed differently their understanding and confession of God’s truth. It is hardly surprising, then, if from time to time one tradition has come nearer to a full appreciation of some aspects of a mystery of revelation than the other, or has expressed it to better advantage. **In such cases, these various theological expressions are to be considered often as mutually complementary rather than conflicting. **
Click to expand...
It has been said many times, in general agreement between Orthodox and Catholics (and such luminaries as Kallistos Ware and the late Holy Father), that the primary separation is not theological, but ecclesiological as EastOrthCath has well noted - namely the nature and meaning of primacy.
 
I am totally pro eastern, But here is how The Eastern Catholics have to View the Pope, according to the COde of Canon Law for Eastern Catholic Churches given in 1990:

Canon 43

"The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office

(munus) given in special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the

Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the

college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire

Church on earth; therefore, in virtue of his office (munus) he

enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in

the Church which he can always freely exercise."
 
Leo_The_Great said:
I am totally pro eastern, But here is how The Eastern Catholics have to View the Pope, according to the COde of Canon Law for Eastern Catholic Churches given in 1990:

Canon 43

“The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore, in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.”
Click to expand...
Also refer to CIC 1983 can. 331:
“The office uniquely committed by the Lord to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, abides in the Bishop of the Church of Rome. He is the head of the College of Bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the Pastor of the universal Church here on earth. Consequently, by virtue of his office, he has supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church, and he can always freely exercise this power.”

Note that the bishops also have this power, but they cannot exercise it freely as does the Bishop of the Church of Rome.

CIC 1983 can. 336 “The college of bishops, whose head is the Supreme Pontiff and whose members are bishops by virtue of sacramental consecration and hierarchical communion with the head and members of the college and in which the apostolic body continues, together with its head and never without this head, is also the subject of supreme and full power offer the universal Church.”
 
Dear brother Vico,
Vico said:
Also refer to CIC 1983 can. 331:
“The office uniquely committed by the Lord to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, abides in the Bishop of the Church of Rome. He is the head of the College of Bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the Pastor of the universal Church here on earth. Consequently, by virtue of his office, he has supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church, and he can always freely exercise this power.”

Note that the bishops also have this power, but they cannot exercise it freely as does the Bishop of the Church of Rome.

CIC 1983 can. 336 “The college of bishops, whose head is the Supreme Pontiff and whose members are bishops by virtue of sacramental consecration and hierarchical communion with the head and members of the college and in which the apostolic body continues, together with its head and never without this head, is also the subject of supreme and full power offer the universal Church.”
Click to expand...
I am so busy, but after I read this, I felt compelled to make a clarification before naysayers of the papacy pounce upon your statement (highlighted above) to support their misconceptions.

The word “freely” in Canon 331 does not mean “unbounded” or “unlimited.” It simply means “uncoerced.” In that correct sense, bishops also exercise the supreme authority just as freely as the Pope.

Canon 336 is simply a restatement of the ancient and venerable Apostolic Canon 34/35:
“The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent…neither let him who is first do anything without the consent of all, for so there will be unanimity.”

In an exercise of the supreme authority of the Church, it is without doubt that the bishops cannot exercise it without their head, as Canon 336 and Apostolic Canon 34/35 explicitly states, though supporters of the Low Petrine view want to demolish the force of this ancient Canon.

Supporters of the Absolutist and Low Petrine views both misinterpret “freely” in Canon 331 to mean “unbounded” or “unlimited,” The Low Petrine party misinterprets it in a misguided support of the Apostolic Canon, while the Absolutist Petrine enthusiasts misinterpret it to the detriment of the Apostolic Canon.

In truth, the Supreme authority of the papacy is not “unbounded” or “unlimited.” As the Old Catholic Encyclopedia points out:
“Though the power of the pope, as we have described it, is very great, it does not follow that it is arbitrary and unrestricted. “The pope”, as Cardinal Hergenröther well says, is circumscribed by the consciousness of the necessity of making a righteous and beneficent use of the duties attached to his privileges…He is also circumscribed by the spirit and practice of the Church, by the respect due to General Councils and to ancient statutes and customs, by the rights of bishops, by his relation with civil powers, by the traditional mild tone of government indicated by the aim of the institution of the papacy — to “feed” — and finally by the respect indispensable in a spiritual power towards the spirit and mind of nations (“Cath. Church and Christian State”, tr., I, 197).”

Further, after Vatican 1, the Swiss Bishops put forth a Pastoral, teaching that:
"It in no way depends upon the caprice of the Pope or upon his good pleaser, to make such and such a doctrine the object of a dogmatic definition: he is tied up and limited to the divine revelation, and to the truths which that revelation contains; he is tied up and limited by the Creeds already in existence, and by the preceding definitions of the Church; he is tied up and limited by the divine law and by the [ecclesiastical] constitution of the Church; lastly, he is tied up and limited by that doctrine, divinely revealed, which affirms that alongside religious societies there is a civil society; that alongside the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy there is the power of the Temporal Magistrates, invested in their own domain with a full sovereignty, and to whom we owe in conscience obedience and respect in all things morally permitted, and which belong to the domain of civil society.”

If papalism was the intention of V1, then we should expect that these Swiss bishops would have been given the anathema maranatha! by Pio Nono! However, here is POPE PIUS IX’s REPLY: “…nothing could be more opportune or more worthy of praise, or cause the truth to stand out more clearly, than [this] Pastoral.”

I hope that clears it up for anyone who thinks V1 gave the Pope laissez-faire authority to do what he wants, when he wants, wherever he wants.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
mardukm said:
Dear brother Vico,
…

The word “freely” in Canon 331 does not mean “unbounded” or “unlimited.” It simply means “uncoerced.” In that correct sense, bishops also exercise the supreme authority just as freely as the Pope.

…

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
Excellent comments, especially the old canons.

I did not mean freely as in unlimited, yet I point out a difference between the pope and the college of bishops. You can see this better from another CIC canon 333, that the power of the supreme Pastor of the Church can be exercised either personally or collegially at his determination. (I was thinking that the previous comment ignored the power of the college of bishops.)

CIC Canon 333—1° By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only has power over the universal Church, but also has pre-eminent ordinary power over all particular Churches and their groupings. This reinforces and defends the proper, ordinary and immediate power which the Bishops have in the particular Churches entrusted to their care.

2° The Roman Pontiff, in fulfilling his office as supreme Pastor of the Church, is always joined in full communion with the other Bishops, and indeed with the universal Church. He has the right, however, to determine, according to the needs of the Church, whether this office is to be exercised in a personal or in a collegial manner.
 
Diak said:
It has been said many times, in general agreement between Orthodox and Catholics (and such luminaries as Kallistos Ware and the late Holy Father), that the primary separation is not theological, but ecclesiological as EastOrthCath has well noted - namely the nature and meaning of primacy.
Click to expand...
That was mostly true until the ecclesiological definition became dogmatic. For 140 years now the issue has to be treated as a theological one, although we don’t necessarily want to.
 
Dear brother Vico,
Vico said:
Excellent comments, especially the old canons.

I did not mean freely as in unlimited,
Click to expand...
Forgive me if my statements implied that this was your intent.:o I know, judging from our discussions, that you support the High Petrine view, not the Absolutist Petrine vew.
yet I point out a difference between the pope and the college of bishops. You can see this better from another CIC canon 333, that the power of the supreme Pastor of the Church can be exercised either personally or collegially at his determination. (I was thinking that the previous comment ignored the power of the college of bishops.)

CIC Canon 333—1° By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only has power over the universal Church, but also has pre-eminent ordinary power over all particular Churches and their groupings. This reinforces and defends the proper, ordinary and immediate power which the Bishops have in the particular Churches entrusted to their care.

2° The Roman Pontiff, in fulfilling his office as supreme Pastor of the Church, is always joined in full communion with the other Bishops, and indeed with the universal Church. He has the right, however, to determine, according to the needs of the Church, whether this office is to be exercised in a personal or in a collegial manner.
Click to expand...
I agree, but this also requires some explanation. As you have perhaps experienced in debates with Absolutist and Low Petrine advocates, this canon is misinterpreted by them to mean that the Pope can make this determination at his whim. In other words, they argue that if the Pope chose to do so, there would be no more need for an Ecumenical Council. But that is not the case. The Canon specifically enjoins that this determination occurs by virtue of necessity, not whim. The Pope can no more exclude his brother bishops in an exercise of the supreme authority if it affects the entire Church than he can dispose of the divinely instituted office of the Bishop.

There are two things that needs to be pointed out that is often lost on the advocates of the Absolutist and Low Petrine positions:
  1. The Supreme Authority is not always exercised in relation to the entire Church, but rather to a local Church - more specifically, when a local Church or bishop appeals to the Pope. In such cases, the Pope does not need to involve the rest of his brother bishops. The judgment of the bishop of Rome in such cases is nothing more nor less than an exercise of the supreme authority, which is his alone to exercise. This is a lesson for the Low Petrine advocates.
  2. Even in such cases when the Supreme authority is exercised personally by the Pope, Tradition shows us that it is never purely solitary. An excellent example of a non-solitary exercise of personal authority is found in Scripture. In the Jerusalem Council as recorded in Acts 15, it is St. James who makes the final judgment, but the whole Council was involved in the deliberation. Similarly, even the personal exercise of the Pope’s supreme authority in cases of appeals is not devoid of a collegial context - it comes to him with a prior history of rulings by his brother bishops on which he basis his final decision. This is a lesson for the Absolutist Petrine advocates.
Of course, matters that affect the entire Church are a different kettle of fish. In such cases, the normative exercise of Supreme Authority must necessarily be collegial, though some extreme circumstances may necessitate a personal exercise.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
That was mostly true until the ecclesiological definition became dogmatic. For 140 years now the issue has to be treated as a theological one, although we don’t necessarily want to.
Click to expand...
So what local or general Orthodox Council has declared this to be true? None. All we know right now is that the anathemas of 1054 were removed by the Pope and the EP (and later this withdrawal was renewed).

On another note, I will once again counsel against using mutable canons and canon law in place of dogma.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top