Contemplating Orthodoxy

[mardukm]

What I have learned so far: I am an anti-catholic Pneumatomachos (a nice way of saying that I am a heretic), who does not really believe what I have been taught (so I guess that makes me only appear to be a heretic, since what I really believe is different), and that my parish is likely made up of a bunch of ex-evangelicals who are all the same way, so that together, we form a cult-like atmosphere.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Byz_Guy]

No it’s not an obstacle, because it was not papal authority that caused filioque to be inserted into the Creeds in the first place. It was LOCAL Latin authorities, both secular and ecclesiastical, and the forced perception such pressure imposed on our hierarchs that to be accepted - given our minority status - we needed to be like the Latins.

Brother Marduk,

Papal authority has required, at times, that Eastern Catholics recite the Creed with the Filioque. See:

papalencyclicals.net/Ben14/b14allat.htm

[Section 30]…the third and final question is whether Orientals and Greeks can be allowed to say the Creed in the way they used to before the Schism, that is to say, without the phrase “and from the Son.” On this final point, the practice of the Apostolic See has varied. Sometimes it allowed the Orientals and Greeks to say the Creed without this addition. This allowance was made when it was certain that they accepted the first two points, and it realized that insistence on the addition would block the way to union. At other times this See has insisted on Greeks and Orientals using the addition. It has done this when it had grounds to suspect that they were unwilling to include the addition in the Creed because they shared the false view that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Father and the Son or that the Church had no power to add the phrase “and from the Son.”

The former approach was used by two popes-Blessed Gregory X at the Council of Lyons and Eugenius IV at the Council of Florence-for the reasons already mentioned (Harduin, Collectionis Conciliorum, vol. 7, p. 698D, and vol. 9, p. 305D). The latter position was taken by Pope Nicholas III when he realized that Emperor Michael was not acting in good faith and was not abiding by the promises he had made in establishing union with his predecessor Pope Gregory X. The evidence for this comes from the Vatican Archives and is printed in Raynaldus, 1278, sect. 7. Martin IV and Nicholas IV acted in the same manner. Although the sources are contradictory about the attitude of these popes to this affair, Pachymeres, who was then writing the history of Constantinople, openly declares that they did not imitate the fair judgment of their predecessors. Rather they required that Orientals and Greeks add “and from the Son” to the Creed, in order to remove doubts about their orthodoxy, “to make a definite trial of the faith and opinion of the Greeks; the suitable pledge of this would be for them to say the same Creed as the Latins.”

Pope Eugenius IV at the Council of Florence allowed the Orientals to say the Creed without the addition. But when he later received the Armenians into union he obliged them to include it (Harduin, vol. 9, p. 435B) perhaps because he had learned that the Armenians were less averse to the addition then were the Greeks.

Similarly, Pope Callistus III, when he sent Brother Simon of the Order of Preachers to Crete in the capacity of Inquisitor, commanded him to watch carefully that the Greeks said “and from the Son” in the Creed, since in Crete there were many Greek refugees from Constantinople which had fallen to the Turks two years earlier (Gregory of Trebizond, epistola ad Cretans, in his Graeciae Orthodoxae, quoted by Allatius, p. 537, and confirmed by Echardus, Scriptorum Ordinis Sanai Dominici, vol. 1, p. 762). It may be that the Pope suspected that the Greeks from Constantinople were weak in this dogma of the faith.

There is nothing at variance with the decrees of the Council of Florence in either of the two forms of the Profession of Faith which, as We have mentioned, were required of the Greeks by Gregory XIII and of the Orientals by Urban VIII. Constitution 34, sect. 6, of Clement VIII (veteris Romani Bullarii, vol. 3) and Our constitution Etsi Pastoralis, sect. 1, are both addressed to Latin bishops with Greeks and Albanians who observe the Greek rite living in their dioceses. These people should not be ordered to say the Creed with the addition of the phrase “and from the Son,” provided that they confess that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son and that they recognize the Church’s power of making this addition. They should be obliged to say the additional phrase, however, it its ommission would cause scandal, if this particular custom of reciting the Creed with its addition prevailed in their locality, or it were thought necessary to obtain unambiguous proof of the correctness of their faith. However, both the fathers of the synod of Zamoscia (heading 1, de Fide Catholica and the fathers of the synod of Lebanon (pt. 1, no. 12) were right to prudently decree, in order to remove every doubt, that all priests subject to them should use the Creed with its additional phrase in accordance with the custom of the Roman Church.

 

[Byz_Guy]

Continued…

A myth often repeated by some Eastern Catholics is that popes were never involved in the latinization of Eastern Catholic Churches. While, yes, one can find many statements from popes (more so from popes from the late 19th to 20th centuries) encouraging Eastern Catholics to follow their authentic traditions, there are other examples of popes interfering with Eastern traditions and supporting some latinizations.

A notorious example was the papal support for the changes to the liturgy celebrated in the Ruthenian Church by the Synod of Zamosc. Information on that Synod can be found here:

en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_%281913%29/Ruthenian_Rite

There were several items changed by the Synod, including the requirement to recite the Filioque.

In 1874, Pope Pius IX reminded the Ruthenian Church that these changes were not done without the knowledge and consent of Rome:

ewtn.com/library/encyc/p9omnems.htm

…Some of these rites have been used from time immemorial, others solemnly confirmed by the sanction of the Synod of Zamosi, which had the approbation of the Apostolic See…

1. Liturgical innovations of this nature proposed for the purpose of purifying the Oriental rites and restoring them to their pristine integrity are a pretext and therefore invalid. Indeed the liturgy of the Ruthenians can be no other than that which was either instituted by the holy fathers of the Church or ratified by the canons of synods or introduced by legitimate use, always with the express or tacit approval of the Apostolic See. If variations have occurred in this liturgy in the course of time, they have been instituted after consultation with the Roman Pontiffs and for the express purpose of freeing such rites from any taint of heresy or schism and expressing Catholic teaching more correctly and clearly for the preservation of the faith and the good of souls.

Background on the reason for Pope Pius IX’s encyclical can be read in this journal article by Fr. Serge Keleher, of blessed memory:

theor.jinr.ru/~kuzemsky/MKUZEMSKY95.pdf

 

[Pork_Roll]

Do you know this first hand, or did you just hear it from somewhere?

St. John’s in Eagle River AK. Of course I’m making a generalization. They are not Antiochene from Syria but Antiochene from mostly a WASP/evangelical make-up. I’ve had first hand discussions with them and found them to be holding on to much anti-catholic baggage. The Antiochene Orthodox from the middle east on the other hand are not like this at all and would be considered “orthodox”.

This really has nothing to do with anything other than you can develop in EO circles a anti-catholic rhetoric more than I’ve seen anti-orthodox attitudes in eastern catholic parishes.

 

[Byz_Guy]

All this comes from an era when the papacy felt it was sometimes necessary to correct Eastern liturgies. See:

archive.org/details/PopeAndPatriarchsLettersOfPopePiusIxAndOrthodoxPatriarchs

Apostolic Letter of Pope Pius IX In Suprema Petri Apostoli Sede “On The Supreme Throne of Peter the Apostle,” dated 6 January 1848.

Towards the end, Pius IX concludes:

As a result, no reasons can excuse failing to return to the true Church and to communion with the Holy See. As you know well, in matters touching on the profession of the divine faith there is nothing so hard that one should not bear it for the glory of Christ and the reward of eternal life. For Our part, We offer you the assurance that nothing would be sweeter to us than to see you return to Our communion. Far from seeking to distress you through some prescription that could seem burdensome, We will receive you with a fatherly kindness and with the most gentle love, as per the constant custom of the Holy See. We ask of you only those things that are strictly necessary: return to unity; agree with us in the profession of the true faith that the Catholic Church holds and teaches; and, along with that of the whole Church itself, maintain communion with the supreme see of Peter. With respect to your sacred rites, only those things found in them contrary to catholic faith and unity are subject to correction. Once remedied in this regard, your ancient Eastern liturgies will remain unchanged. We have already declared in the first part of this letter how these liturgies are dear to us, and how much they were so also to Our predecessors, due to their antiquity and the magnificence of their rites, so appropriate for nurturing the faith.

Thankfully, this attitude has largely disappeared though it still manifests itself in the belief that the papacy has the right to regulate the tradition of a married clergy in Eastern Catholic Churches outside of their “canonical territories.”

 

[Nine_Two]

St. John’s in Eagle River AK. Of course I’m making a generalization. They are not Antiochene from Syria but Antiochene from mostly a WASP/evangelical make-up. I’ve had first hand discussions with them and found them to be holding on to much anti-catholic baggage. The Antiochene Orthodox from the middle east on the other hand are not like this at all and would be considered “orthodox”.

This really has nothing to do with anything other than you can develop in EO circles a anti-catholic rhetoric more than I’ve seen anti-orthodox attitudes in eastern catholic parishes.

And by anti-Catholic do you mean that when you brought it up they disagreed with Catholic belief, or do you mean that when you said you were Catholic they scoffed at you and began to tell you why you are wrong and made you feel unwelcome?

I’m sorry I have to ask this, but I’ve heard so many people on this forum claim “anti-Catholicism” when the person was simply disagreeing with the Catholic Church.

Either way, it is, as you say, one parish, and within that parish, I assume only one group who you happened to speak to.

I wouldn’t expect anti-Orthodox rhetoric in modern day Eastern Catholic parishes, given that part of the Eastern Catholic identity is being both Orthodox and Catholic.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Byz Guy,

Brother Marduk,

Papal authority has required, at times, that Eastern Catholics recite the Creed with the Filioque. See:

papalencyclicals.net/Ben14/b14allat.htm

Thank you for that information, but I would point out that:
(1) I actually only had in mind the situation of the Eastern (Byzantine) Church. I am fully aware of the inclusion of the filioque in the Oriental Churches since Florence. On that matter, I would point out that it was the result of a collegial decision between the Orientals and the Catholic Church at the time of union about the inclusion of the filioque in the Oriental Creeds. So it was not at all a matter of a UNILATERAL imposition by the Pope, but rather by a COMMON agreement.

(2) The addition of filioque that the encylical to which you refer is ONLY referring to the recitation of filioque for Greeks under LATIN bishops (i.e., these were Easterns in Latin local Churches. There has never been an imposition of filioque on Easterns under EASTERN bishops, except from the initiative of those Eastern bishops themselves, subsequently approved by papal authority.

But I understand your point, brother.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear Byz Guy,

Continued…

A myth often repeated by some Eastern Catholics is that popes were never involved in the latinization of Eastern Catholic Churches. While, yes, one can find many statements from popes (more so from popes from the late 19th to 20th centuries) encouraging Eastern Catholics to follow their authentic traditions, there are other examples of popes interfering with Eastern traditions and supporting some latinizations.

A notorious example was the papal support for the changes to the liturgy celebrated in the Ruthenian Church by the Synod of Zamosc. Information on that Synod can be found here:

en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_%281913%29/Ruthenian_Rite

There were several items changed by the Synod, including the requirement to recite the Filioque.

In 1874, Pope Pius IX reminded the Ruthenian Church that these changes were not done without the knowledge and consent of Rome:

ewtn.com/library/encyc/p9omnems.htm

Background on the reason for Pope Pius IX’s encyclical can be read in this journal article by Fr. Serge Keleher, of blessed memory:

theor.jinr.ru/~kuzemsky/MKUZEMSKY95.pdf

Your point is well taken. But I would like to point out, for the sake of conciseness, that the Synod of Zamoscia itself made the initiative to introduce the innovations, not the Pope; nor were they innovations introduced in consultation with the Pope, as if the Pope made the suggestions to introduce them. The previous encyclical from Pope Calixtus III you linked to makes that clear - the Synod met, made their innovations, and then submitted the matter to the Pope for confirmation.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Byz_Guy]

Dear brother Byz Guy,

Thank you for that information, but I would point out that:
(1) I actually only had in mind the situation of the Eastern (Byzantine) Church. I am fully aware of the inclusion of the filioque in the Oriental Churches since Florence. On that matter, I would point out that it was the result of a collegial decision between the Orientals and the Catholic Church at the time of union about the inclusion of the filioque in the Oriental Creeds. So it was not at all a matter of a UNILATERAL imposition by the Pope, but rather by a COMMON agreement.

Hardly. Of course these facts disagree with your interpretation that popes only work collegially at all times.

If you re-read the encyclical Allatae Sunt, it’s clear that your interpretation can not be supported:

1. The obvious conclusion from the foregoing remarks is that in this matter the Apostolic See has sometimes agreed in certain circumstances and in consideration of the character of individual people to make specific concessions which it has refused to others in different circumstances among different peoples.

Making concessions and refusing to make concessions is not the language of conciliarity.

(2) The addition of filioque that the encylical to which you refer is ONLY referring to the recitation of filioque for Greeks under LATIN bishops (i.e., these were Easterns in Latin local Churches. There has never been an imposition of filioque on Easterns under EASTERN bishops, except from the initiative of those Eastern bishops themselves, subsequently approved by papal authority.

The Encyclical says:

The former approach was used by two popes-Blessed Gregory X at the Council of Lyons and Eugenius IV at the Council of Florence-for the reasons already mentioned (Harduin, Collectionis Conciliorum, vol. 7, p. 698D, and vol. 9, p. 305D). The latter position was taken by Pope Nicholas III when he realized that Emperor Michael was not acting in good faith and was not abiding by the promises he had made in establishing union with his predecessor Pope Gregory X. The evidence for this comes from the Vatican Archives and is printed in Raynaldus, 1278, sect. 7. Martin IV and Nicholas IV acted in the same manner. Although the sources are contradictory about the attitude of these popes to this affair, Pachymeres, who was then writing the history of Constantinople, openly declares that they did not imitate the fair judgment of their predecessors.** Rather they required that Orientals and Greeks add “and from the Son” to the Creed,** in order to remove doubts about their orthodoxy, “to make a definite trial of the faith and opinion of the Greeks; the suitable pledge of this would be for them to say the same Creed as the Latins.”

Pope Eugenius IV at the Council of Florence allowed the Orientals to say the Creed without the addition. But when he later received the Armenians into union he obliged them to include it (Harduin, vol. 9, p. 435B) perhaps because he had learned that the Armenians were less averse to the addition then were the Greeks.

 

[Byz_Guy]

Dear Byz Guy,

Your point is well taken. But I would like to point out, for the sake of conciseness, that the Synod of Zamoscia itself made the initiative to introduce the innovations, not the Pope; nor were they innovations introduced in consultation with the Pope, as if the Pope made the suggestions to introduce them. The previous encyclical from Pope Calixtus III you linked to makes that clear - the Synod met, made their innovations, and then submitted the matter to the Pope for confirmation.

Pius IX, in the encyclical quoted above put it this way:

If variations have occurred in this liturgy in the course of time, they have been instituted after consultation with the Roman Pontiffs and for the express purpose of freeing such rites from any taint of heresy or schism and expressing Catholic teaching more correctly and clearly for the preservation of the faith and the good of souls.

So, yes, they were “innovations introduced in consultation with the Pope.”

May I suggest, Marduk, that history is never as neat and consistent as we’d like it. The relations between the papacy and the Eastern Catholic Churches has some dark sides to it. It does no good to insist that the papacy did everything right in their relations with the Eastern Catholic Churches. Mistakes, grave mistakes, have been part of this history.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Byz Guy,

Thankfully, this attitude has largely disappeared though it still manifests itself in the belief that the papacy has the right to regulate the tradition of a married clergy in Eastern Catholic Churches outside of their “canonical territories.”

I am wondering how far one can interpret the confirmatory role of the bishop of Rome as a regulatory role. I mean, it seems to me the Pope has only ever exercised a confirmatory role, and was not the one to initiate these matters. For example, the Pope confirmed the de-Latinization in the UGCC and Syro-Malankara Churches despite the protests of Latinizing segments within those Churches. He was simply confirming the decision of the local Synods. I think this is all the Pope is doing in the diaspora regarding priestly celibacy - he is confirming the decisions of the majority of bishops in the area. It is not as if the Pope is unilaterally imposing some discipline on the non-Latins on his own initiative. I think the day that the Pope explicitly tells the local Latin episcopal conferences to leave our non-Latin Churches alone is the only time we can legitimately say that the Pope is exercsing a truly monarchical initiative. The current situation of our non-Latin married clergy in the diaspora is, I believe, actually evidence that the Catholic Church is not a monarchy. The Pope must indeed give heed to the local episcopal conferences. It is profoundly unfortunate that the collegial system is currently to the detriment of our non-Latin Churches in the diaspora lands. I am eagerly hoping that the Pope’s giving up of the title “Patriarch of the West” will actually result in more autonomy for our non-Latin Churches in the future. I think the “Patriarch of the West” implied that all “the West” was/is under the natural jurisdiction of the Latins. I am hoping that the Pope giving up that title will change that perception (it might take another generation).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Byz Guy,

Pius IX, in the encyclical quoted above put it this way:

So, yes, they were “innovations introduced in consultation with the Pope.”

May I suggest, Marduk, that history is never as neat and consistent as we’d like it. The relations between the papacy and the Eastern Catholic Churches has some dark sides to it. It does no good to insist that the papacy did everything right in their relations with the Eastern Catholic Churches. Mistakes, grave mistakes, have been part of this history.

It sounds like Pius IX put a spin on it. The account given by Pope Callixtus III is eminently more trustworthy because Callixtus III was himself involved in the matter of the Synod of Zamoscia. Wouldn’t you agree?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Byz_Guy]

Dear brother Byz Guy,

It sounds like Pius IX put a spin on it. The account given by Pope Callixtus III is eminently more trustworthy because Callixtus III was himself involved in the matter of the Synod of Zamoscia. Wouldn’t you agree?

I’m trying to understand your point here. Pope Callixtus III died centuries before the Synod of Zamosc:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Callixtus_III

There’s no reason not to accept Pope Pius IX’s explanation (other than it might interfere with one’s preconceived ideas of history).

 

[Byz_Guy]

Dear brother Byz Guy,

I am wondering how far one can interpret the confirmatory role of the bishop of Rome as a regulatory role. I mean, it seems to me the Pope has only ever exercised a confirmatory role, and was not the one to initiate these matters.

Spend some time reading Allatae Sunt and it’s quite clear that popes did much more than “confirm” these things. Again, this encyclical does not use the language of collegiality. Rather, it’s the language of “tolerate” or “allow” or “require” or “forbid.”

papalencyclicals.net/Ben14/b14allat.htm

 

[mardukm]

I will address your post #109 later. I have to go.

Thank you for the discussion so far.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Spend some time reading Allatae Sunt and it’s quite clear that popes did much more than “confirm” these things. Again, this encyclical does not use the language of collegiality. Rather, it’s the language of “tolerate” or “allow” or “require” or “forbid.”

papalencyclicals.net/Ben14/b14allat.htm

I think the language of “tolerate” and “allow” are well within the confirmatory role of a head bishop. The language of “require” and “forbid” from the encyclical seems to me only with regards to doctrinal points - on that doctrinal level, I would expect such language to be normative and within the confirmatory role of the head bishop. My point is that these are not decisions made unilaterally nor on the Pope’s own initiative.

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. Really got to go.

 

[mardukm]

I’m trying to understand your point here. Pope Callixtus III died centuries before the Synod of Zamosc:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Callixtus_III

There’s no reason not to accept Pope Pius IX’s explanation (other than it might interfere with one’s preconceived ideas of history).

OOPS! I meant Pope Benedict XIV. My bad. Pope Benedict XIV was the one involved in the Synod of Zamoscia and wrote the encyclical Allatae Sunt. His account of it in that Encyclical contradicts Pius IX’s statement (or perhaps only your interpretation of the latter). The Pope was not involved in the deliberations of the Synod of Zamoscia except as confirmer.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Byz_Guy]

OOPS! I meant Pope Benedict XIV. My bad. Pope Benedict XIV was the one involved in the Synod of Zamoscia and wrote the encyclical Allatae Sunt. His account of it in that Encyclical contradicts Pius IX’s statement (or perhaps only your interpretation of the latter). The Pope was not involved in the deliberations of the Synod of Zamoscia except as confirmer.

Thanks for the correction of who you meant.

Where did you read that in Allatae Sunt, that the Pope was only the confirmer? I’ve checked every reference to that Synod in Allatae Sunt and there is no where where Pope Benedict says:

The Pope was not involved in the deliberations of the Synod of Zamoscia except as confirmer.

If you have such, please share. There is no reason to doubt Pius IX’s explanation of things.

I note your need to go and I have similar needs.

Having said that, I still say Allatae Sunt is from one of the darker moments of the relationship of the papacy with the Eastern Churches.

 

[Peter_J]

I do my best not to.

However the point stands, if someone wants to claim the positions can be reconciled, they need to be willing to explain how.

Haven’t you been paying attention? Internet bloggers have declared that Catholicism and Orthodox are really the same. There’s no need to reconcile anything.

 

[Pork_Roll]

I’m sorry I have to ask this, but I’ve heard so many people on this forum claim “anti-Catholicism” when the person was simply disagreeing with the Catholic Church.

The attitude not of Kallistos Ware or the Ecumenical Patriarch, but one that sees Catholicism as just as erroneous or more so than Protestantism or Arianism for that matter. They lump Catholicism with any other Christian heresy. Catholicism sees the eastern churches as sisters and holding an apostolic Tradition, episcopate, liturgy and sacraments.

I wouldn’t fault EO parishes from refusing communion or disagreeing about certain doctrinal issues. But for them to not respect the Catholic church as being apostolic and valid in its sacraments is stupid.