T
TrueLight
Guest
So much so that the Latins did away with Latinizations as well
:crying:
- Status
:crying:
F
Fone_Bone_2001
Guest
That view sounds fully compatible with either the High Petrine view or the Low Petrine view.As an Eastern Catholic belonging to the Romanian Catholic Church of the Byzantine Rite, I believe it is important to be in communion with the bishop of Rome, that is why I remain part of the Catholic Communion. That being said, I also believe the bishop of Rome should be a sign of unity in the church and a court of last appeal, but he should NOT be the supreme ruler of the church…he should have NO authority outside his own church, unless he is invited go settle a dispute. Call me an Absoute Low Petrinite or whatever.
Note that in my description above, what you describe is basically what I asserted is the relationship between the papacy and the eastern patriarchal Catholic churches. For all practical purposes, that state of affairs involves the pope not getting involved as long as there are competent episcopal authorities in the autonomous church having an issue… yet in theory this state of affairs is quite compatible with everything the Vatican Councils teach about papal authority.
Please note that I’m speaking only of the patriarchal eastern Catholic churches here… I’m well aware that the others have far less autonomy and often experience frustrating intervention (or lack of wanted attention) from Rome.
I agree, and I think the eastern Catholics on this thread do too. The Low Petrine view is incompatible not only with the Vatican Councils but with patristic standards, in which head bishops of various levels definitely have real authority outside their particular churches, which the Low Petrine view denies.
Just because (many?) eastern Catholics don’t have that difference as a part of their theology doesn’t mean they think we Latins are incorrect about it. It’s just generally not how they look at it; that’s all. I’ve never seen an eastern Catholic assert that stealing a paper clip is as bad as raping and murdering a child, and charity and reason demand that I do not assume they believe so unless they give me an active reason to believe otherwise.
That teaching infallibly defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived without original sin.
We do not share the same ideas about original sin. So while I agree in theory that the IC is binding on all Catholics, what would it mean for an eastern Catholic who views original sin as simply inherited mortality? Something very different from what we Latins mean by it, at least… that doesn’t mean they deny it.
A common Eucharistic table.
Exactly.
I disagree with you because I agree with you.
Do you belong to different churches? Yes.
Do you belong to the same church? Yes.
Does TrueLight belong to the Latin Church? Yes. Do you? No.
Do you belong to the Romanian Church? Yes. Does TrueLight? No.
You’re correct, ciero, because you belong to the Romanian Church, and TrueLight belongs to the Latin Church. They’re different churches.
TrueLight is correct, because you both belong to the Catholic Church.
Precision in the recognition of analogous language is our friend…
THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!
Beautifully and precisely put! This post ought to eradicate all confusion from this thread. It’s what I was trying - far less ably - to express above.
I think most eastern Catholics accept papal supremacy even if they think they don’t. “Supreme” simply means “highest,” so even those eastern Catholics who believe that the pope’s authority should be limited to a “court of final appeal” are actually acknowledging an authority that can be validly described as “supreme.”
Even that position - “he should be only a court of final appeal” - is, in my interpretation, fully compatible with the assertion that the pope has “the absolute fullness of supreme authority” (Vatican I). Statements like that don’t mean he gets to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants… it just means that nothing that needs to be done cannot be done by him.
R
ringil
Guest
But is your view permitted “officially” in the Eastern Churches? Are the Eastern Churches 'supposed" to believe in the role of the Pope as the Western Church does but you have a different opinion outside of official doctrine?As an Eastern Catholic belonging to the Romanian Catholic Church of the Byzantine Rite, I believe it is important to be in communion with the bishop of Rome, that is why I remain part of the Catholic Communion. That being said, I also believe the bishop of Rome should be a sign of unity in the church and a court of last appeal, but he should NOT be the supreme ruler of the church…he should have NO authority outside his own church, unless he is invited go settle a dispute. Call me an Absoute Low Petrinite or whatever.
I’m honestly not trying to start anything. i’m really just interested and I am ignorant of these matters. I only argue about politics on CAF.
God Bless!
J
jmj1984
Guest
I must admit I’m a little puzzled by the doctrinal stance of some Eastern Catholics. I refer to those who:
It strikes me that Eastern Catholics who believe these things get away with things that both liberal catholics and ‘Ultra traditionalists’ are condemned for, frankly it is somewhat schizophrenic and I cannot believe that it was the intention of the Popes and councils that reunited the Eastern Churches to the Catholic Church to allow such a divergence of views on De Fide doctrines.
- Do not believe that the Papal Supremacy means not only that the Pope is the highest court of appeal in all cases but has ‘Supreme, Immediate and ordinary’ jurisdiction over all the faithful both the laity and clergy
2)Who believe that original sin is either a result of mortality or that mortality is original sin and exclude the predisposition to sin and weakening of mans will
3)That don’t believe councils are ecumenical and/or infallible unless the Eastern Orthodox attended such councils
It strikes me that Eastern Catholics who believe these things get away with things that both liberal catholics and ‘Ultra traditionalists’ are condemned for, frankly it is somewhat schizophrenic and I cannot believe that it was the intention of the Popes and councils that reunited the Eastern Churches to the Catholic Church to allow such a divergence of views on De Fide doctrines.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
If thats the case, what role do our Patriarch plays in our Church?
Because our own theology on the Fall is different than how the West has come to understand it.
If only the West is represented in a council, how is that ecumenical?
Can you point to where the beliefs of the East has been condemned repeatedly? Or is this Latin Triumphalism at its worst? Because its not like the Popes do not know what we believe in. We’re not trying to be devious here.
This beliefs we possess for one thing has existed way before Western doctrines were defined. So how can the Church really trump age old tradition that has been taught by the Church Fathers themselves? If we want to start pointing fingers here, its the West who really came up with more recent definition of the faith than age old teachings from the early Church. But I’m not going to get into petty finger pointing. I believe the West has the right to define her own teachings based on her own traditions and theology. As long as both sides agree that what is taught is not heretical, why have a problem with it?
I think whats really astonishing here is lay people speaking as if they have authority on the matter. I mean, if the Pope and all the Bishops from both sides have no problem with what we have presented here, why do we the lay people would have a problem with it?
And to answer your other question, liberal and ultra-traditionalist Roman Catholics are subject to the Roman Catholic Church, including all her teachings and disciplines. We being Eastern Catholics are not subject to the laws and disciplines and traditions of the West. As long as we do what is faithful to our own tradition, we have not committed anything wrong.
T
TrueLight
Guest
edited. Never mind.
J
jmj1984
Guest
It isn’t lay people I’m talking about, its Popes and ecumenical councils, the way this is interpreted is quite another matter.
The fact is we believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, we are all united by the bond not only of One Head (The Pope) but also by one faith. The church does not have two different views on matters that are De Fide, it has one view and that view is expressed through the magisterium. Saying that you dont accept the Popes Supremacy and his supreme, ordinary, immediate and universal jurisdiction or that original sin is more than just mortality or other such things which are De Fide is denying that the Church is right on these matters. It is tantamount to saying that you believe that the Church is in fact not One, Holy, Catholic or Apostolic or that our Lord lied when he said it could not fall into error.
As for ‘finger pointing’ I don’t need to point fingers or use apologetics, as a Catholic you should obey the infallible teaching of the church if you do not you are not different from liberal catholics or ‘Fringe traditionalists’. The same problem of illegitmate disobedience and not holding the faith of Rome is present.
The fact is your genuine traditions cannot be in conflict with the infallible teaching of the church, genuine tradition must be true, truth and tradition (as regarding the tradition of the church) cannot contradict. Therefore when a tradition and a De Fide doctrine conflict and the two cannot be reconciled, the tradition must be set aside as not genuine.
As for claiming that this dispute is between lay people this is not true. Some of the statements made by Eastern Catholic bishops and clergy are clearly not reconciliable with the teaching of the church. Statements made by Cardinal Ratzinger and the CDF make this clear by condemning ideas which are espoused by them. As Eastern Catholics are a small group within the church and those that hold these faulty ideas a yet smaller group it is hardly surprising the matter has not come to the attention of The Holy See. Frankly it has far more important things to concern itself with, that does not in any way mean that the laity exercising the sensus fidem cannot discuss these matters and pass on the genuine teaching of the church.
The three ideas I mentioned have been condemned:
The fact is we believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, we are all united by the bond not only of One Head (The Pope) but also by one faith. The church does not have two different views on matters that are De Fide, it has one view and that view is expressed through the magisterium. Saying that you dont accept the Popes Supremacy and his supreme, ordinary, immediate and universal jurisdiction or that original sin is more than just mortality or other such things which are De Fide is denying that the Church is right on these matters. It is tantamount to saying that you believe that the Church is in fact not One, Holy, Catholic or Apostolic or that our Lord lied when he said it could not fall into error.
As for ‘finger pointing’ I don’t need to point fingers or use apologetics, as a Catholic you should obey the infallible teaching of the church if you do not you are not different from liberal catholics or ‘Fringe traditionalists’. The same problem of illegitmate disobedience and not holding the faith of Rome is present.
The fact is your genuine traditions cannot be in conflict with the infallible teaching of the church, genuine tradition must be true, truth and tradition (as regarding the tradition of the church) cannot contradict. Therefore when a tradition and a De Fide doctrine conflict and the two cannot be reconciled, the tradition must be set aside as not genuine.
As for claiming that this dispute is between lay people this is not true. Some of the statements made by Eastern Catholic bishops and clergy are clearly not reconciliable with the teaching of the church. Statements made by Cardinal Ratzinger and the CDF make this clear by condemning ideas which are espoused by them. As Eastern Catholics are a small group within the church and those that hold these faulty ideas a yet smaller group it is hardly surprising the matter has not come to the attention of The Holy See. Frankly it has far more important things to concern itself with, that does not in any way mean that the laity exercising the sensus fidem cannot discuss these matters and pass on the genuine teaching of the church.
The three ideas I mentioned have been condemned:
- At the Council of Florence, the Council of Trent, Vatican I and Vatican II (though only implicitly as Vatican II didnt condemn anything)
- In every catechism of the church that mentions them whether implicitly or explicitly
- By saints, theologians and doctors of the church
S
Swiss_Guy
Guest
First Vatican Council. It’s a good read.
You aren’t semi-pelagian are you?
Eastern Catholics believe in prevenient grace, correct? Even if you don’t call it prevenient, don’t you have to believe in it in order to not be in heresy?
S
Swiss_Guy
Guest
S
Seamus_L
Guest
I’ve seen references to mortal sin in publications of the Maronite Rite Church.
Do we need to receive Confession before each Holy Communion?
stnicholaschurch.ca/content_pages/ourfaith/art_faith001.FAQ.htm
Code:
And of course there is this quote from a reliable source
Code:
No, provided that we are in a state of grace and therefore have no mortal sins on our souls. Holy Communion makes us holy and is the spiritual nourishment for our souls.
B
Bluegoat
Guest
As far as the question of the beliefs of the EC Churches and the authority the Pope has, as well as the different theological traditions:
A big part of the problem is that people do not differentiate between the faith, and our thinking about it. The faith says Mary was without sin. That is all. When we think about how that could be, we can come to a number of different conclusions. The Faith tells us Christ died and rose to save us. When we think about how that works we might say that he defeated death, or ransomed us, or was a perfect sacrifice to appease God’s justice.
Some ideas may be better than others, and some the Church may pick up and use a lot, and some they may decide are confusing and disallow. But all of them are our own mental constructions about things, not the thing itself. Even the doctrine of the Trinity is a human description of something which is indescribable.
Personally i think the catholic Church caused itself a big problem in years gone past by not differentiating these things adequately. She seems inclined to do so now, though I have my doubts about how effective it can be.
A big part of the problem is that people do not differentiate between the faith, and our thinking about it. The faith says Mary was without sin. That is all. When we think about how that could be, we can come to a number of different conclusions. The Faith tells us Christ died and rose to save us. When we think about how that works we might say that he defeated death, or ransomed us, or was a perfect sacrifice to appease God’s justice.
Some ideas may be better than others, and some the Church may pick up and use a lot, and some they may decide are confusing and disallow. But all of them are our own mental constructions about things, not the thing itself. Even the doctrine of the Trinity is a human description of something which is indescribable.
Personally i think the catholic Church caused itself a big problem in years gone past by not differentiating these things adequately. She seems inclined to do so now, though I have my doubts about how effective it can be.
T
TrueLight
Guest
Hi Bluegoat,
Can you give an example of something that was not differentiated adequately in the past but is being differentiated now?
H
Hesychios
Guest
Augustine did not have as much influence on the Christian East as one might hope or wish. The church existed long before he became a Christian, and for good or ill it has little to no influence on Eastern Christian thinking. The Apostolic Eastern Christian Faith is simply not dependent upon Latin constructs.First Vatican Council. It’s a good read.
You aren’t semi-pelagian are you?
Eastern Catholics believe in prevenient grace, correct? Even if you don’t call it prevenient, don’t you have to believe in it in order to not be in heresy?
So which flavor of Prevenient Grace do you prefer, the Calvinist or the Arminian?
I find this problematic for a few reasons.
First off, Holy Communion has the power to forgive sins in and of itself (although avoiding confession for this reason would be an abuse).
Another is, one cannot know if one is actually “in a state of Grace”. People who realize this and follow that line of reasoning are very likely to suffer from scruples, if they care very much about it, and run to the confession box every day.
T
TrueLight
Guest
I was taught communion forgives venial sins.
Another doctrinal difference I suppose.
F
Fone_Bone_2001
Guest
(a) “Jurisdiction” is a legal term, and therefore when used in theology it is being used analogously. That’s why it’s open to more flexible interpretation…
(b) I actually think eastern Catholics do accept what Vatican I teaches on that matter. Note that that passage doesn’t elaborate on when the pope can or should wield that authority; it simply points out that there is nothing that ever would fall outside the pope’s authority if he needed to act on it. Even the whole “court of final appeals” perspective (which is not really my view, either) technically fits the teachings of Vatican I, because the pope could be “appealed” to on anything and the eastern churches would accept his decision.
The pope’s authority is supreme because, like that of an ecumenical council, it is the highest authority in the Church.
The pope’s authority is immediate because it comes to him directly from God; i.e. his supreme authority is not of human or merely ecclesiastical origin.
It is ordinary over matters pertaining to the entire Church just as a patriarch’s authority is ordinary throughout his patriarchate.
Just because their view doesn’t include those latter points doesn’t mean it excludes them. From what I’ve read the eastern tradition is fully compatible with what the Church has defined on original sin. I recall Marduk issuing a challenge on another thread for any poster to find a passage in Trent, Florence, etc. that defines something on original sin that rules out (not is merely different from) the eastern view. You won’t find it.
Many eastern Catholics deny that these latter councils are ecumenical, but that’s because they’re using the term in a different way. They very much agree that the teachings of the latter councils which are clearly general councils of the entire Catholic Communion - like the First and Second Vatican Councils - are in fact binding on the entire Catholic Communion.
As for the councils that most (all?) eastern Catholics consider to be councils of the Latin Church… well, I think they’re mostly justified concerning those particular councils.
I agree.
But think of this:Divine revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle, correct? So any newly defined teachings aren’t actually adding anything new but simply developing our understanding, correct?
So the way I see it - and the individual cases I’ve encountered have borne this out in my mind - nothing that the Catholic Church intends to define and bind the faithful on universally can actually add anything to the deposit of faith. Therefore we must presume that it is there somewhere in every legitimate Christian tradition.
A problem arises only if an eastern Catholic would explicitly reject a developed teaching. I think Rome is perfectly and rightfully satisfied when they say instead, “Well, that’s not how our tradition looks at this.” As long as they acknowledge that teachings intended to be universally binding haven’t added to the deposit of faith, they ought to be free to interpret everything according to their own theological patrimony.
Of course, though we also must not eat and drink condemnation on ourselves, as St. Paul writes.
Very true. And the Latin tradition acknowledges this. Unless one knows one has committed a grave sin, Latin law does not forbid but rather encourages reception of Holy Communion. If there’s any honest ambiguity, then the Latin Church does say you should still be receiving Communion.
Maybe not. I think that’s what Hesychios means. I’m sure his interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:27 is perfectly valid.I was taught communion forgives venial sins.
Another doctrinal difference I suppose.
B
Bluegoat
Guest
Transubstantiation. The Treasury of Merits.
And this thread itself is suggestive. If the view that some of the Eastern Catholics hold about the role of the Papacy is correct, it puts a whole different complexion on the Reformation.
J
jmj1984
Guest
Actually no, ecumenical councils have always produced law, Canon law hence the canons of ecumenical councils. The legal and theological concept of jursidiction when it comes to Canon law on this matter is much the same. Threshold of the Catholic Church by Rev Bagshawe defines Jurisdiction as ‘* The power of “jurisdiction” is that authority or " commission" which was entrusted by our Lord to His apostles when he said, " As the Father hath sent Me, I also send you (S. John xx. 21.) This power is necessary for the validity of some of the sacraments, and for the lawful administration of all. The power of jurisdiction belong to the Church as a body, and is possessed in its
fulness only by the head of the Church, and partially by the bishops and priests, so long only as they are in communion with him, and act by his delegation or with
his sanction.*’ It is clear that when we are talking about the Jurisdiction of the Pope we mean the ‘commision’ given to the Pope by Jesus which he possesses not only over the church as a whole but also over each and every member of the faithful.
There are two things to say here:
- Its misleading to speak of Eastern Catholics as a single group, as they are made up of many different churches and possess many different points of view regarding these issues
2)Defining the Pope solely as a court of final appeals does not fit in with the view of Vatican I and no Code of Canon Law, Catechism or Orthodox theological treatise either at the time or now defines the Pope in such a way
There are two things to note here:
- The Popes power is not like that of an ecumenical council, whereas an ecumenical council requires his consent his decisions are of themselves supreme and do not require the consent of anyone else. And whilst the Pope is the head of the church, a council is essentially summoned to advise him and for no other purpose. 'Sometimes the Sovereign Pontiff convokes councils, in order that they may be more enlightened by the Holy Ghost by means of the discussions carried on in the Council in some doubt in
matter of faith ; for, as Cardinal Du Perron says, the Infallibility of the Pope does not consist in his always receiving at once from the Holy Ghost the necessary light to decide questions of faith, but in his deciding without error in matters in which he feels himself sufficiently enlightened by God, while he sends other questions, on which he does not feel himself sufficiently enlightened, to be decided by the Council, in order that afterwards he may pro- nounce his own judgment’ St Alphonsus Defence of the Power of the Pope against Tebronius. Ch. vii
That challenge isn’t particularly hard to fullfill:Just because their view doesn’t include those latter points doesn’t mean it excludes them. I recall Marduk issuing a challenge on another thread for any poster to find a passage in Trent, Florence, etc. that defines something on original sin that rules out (not is merely different from) the eastern view. You won’t find it.
'If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema:–whereas he contradicts the apostle who says; By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned. ’ Council of Trent, Decree on Original Sin. Original sin is not merely mortality nor is it the result of mortality.
Of course there are Eastern catholics who believe that it is more than mere mortality and these are of course in complete accordance with the mind of the church.
.
J
jmj1984
Guest
The church merely asks them to accept the term in the way that she has used it, even at councils where there was attendance by the Eastern Orthodox, namely the second council of Lyons and the Council of Florence.
There are two problems with this:
1)It is naive to believe that churches in schism for hundred of years have not had their traditions distorted or misinterpreted by those within their own churches in order to justify their schism. History has shown this to be true and as has the opinion of numerous western theologians including my Patron, The Angelic Doctor, St Thomas Aquinas.
2)You cannot hide behind the excuse of theoligical patrimony when you are clearly interpreting doctrines in a way that the church does not allow and in fact condemns
In sum I fully respect genuine eastern traditions but I do not believe traditions that contradict De Fide doctrines to be genuine traditions for reasons I have already outlined
Also I note you are using the term ‘Catholic Communion’ rather than Catholic Church, this is rather troubling. Let us be clear on this matter, there is NO such thing as the ‘Catholic Communion’ there is the Catholic Church which contains within it several self-governing churches, all of which have as their head and are governed by the Pope.
We are not some sort of Roman Version of the Anglican Communion and I note that the term Catholic Communion is not present in ecumenical councils, papal encyclicals or catechisms or declarations from the CDF.
H
Hesychios
Guest
That would be pretty much it.
In the east the distinction between sins is not so hard and fast but the idea is the similar, I suppose.
But my point would be better understood as a question: “How many venial sins can you have and still be in a state of Grace?”
If such a state exists for living people, my guess is most people are not in a state of Grace most of the time, some people (if not most) almost as soon as they step out of the confessional. Many of us can’t make it past the first five minutes of Mass.
If we really had to be in a state of Grace before receiving, the lines would be very short indeed, and most priests would not be able to serve either.
We’re only human, after all.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
I’m not surprised that some traditionalists are calling for shorter communion lines by questioning the state of the soul of other people, something that we have absolutely no right to do.
- Status