Does a convert to Eastern Catholicism need to affirm post schism doctrines and dogma?

[mardukm]

Dear brother Alexander,

During the Council of Florence, even before the symbol of union was signed by most (but not all) the Orthodox bishops in attendance, the Pope began to act as if he, and not the Patriarch of Constantinople, was also the Particular head and administrator of the Orthodox Church (this is brought up at times during the Catholic-Orthodox ecumenical commissions’ reports).

This is an interesting viewpoint. I have personally found no indication from my readings that the Pope ever intended to be the Particular head and administrator of the Easterns. What I have perceived is that Rome was simply concerned about unity in Faith, which is, after all his primary responsibility.

I recall that during (what is normally thought of as) the time of the Great Schism, when Patriarch Cerularius was closing the Latin Churches and expelling the Latins from Constantinople, Pope St. Leo IX responded by sending his legates to negotiate with the Patriarch. What strikes me as significant is that in his letter to Cerularius, he does not argue from a viewpoint that the Patriarch had no right to do such things. Rather, he appealed to the fact that Rome had never ever done the same thing to the Greek churches in Latin lands. Pope St. Leo did appeal to his primacy later in the letter, but that was in specific response to Cerularius’ acquisition of the title “Ecumenical Patriarch.”

To repeat, I haven’t found any indication that Rome ever intended to be the micromanager of the Eastern Churches. Every issue where Rome wanted to “impose” itself was only on doctrinal matters. It should be noted that though this was the case about Rome’s relation to the Eastern Churches, I have to say that the Oriental Churches did not have the same respect. Though the situation was unacceptable, I have to concede that it was understandable since the Orientals were non-Chalcedonian, and I guess Rome felt the Orientals needed more supervision than the Easterns.

I think the real problem was that the Latins were not really aware of Eastern theology, and though they were trying to find common ground, they could only express themselves from the perspective of the Latin Tradition.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ConstantineTG]

One question, why is it in Divine Liturgy when we mention the Pope we call him the “Pope of Rome”. As Catholics, shouldn’t we refer to him as just “The Pope”?

 

[Alexander_Roman]

One question, why is it in Divine Liturgy when we mention the Pope we call him the “Pope of Rome”. As Catholics, shouldn’t we refer to him as just “The Pope”?

It is because Eastern Catholics recognize the Pope of Rome in his “universal” capacity and not as their Particular head that they refer to him as “Pope of Rome.”

There was a debate in the UGCC about how we refer to him i.e. " our Most Holy Ecumenical Pontiff, (name), Pope of Rome,"

In fact, Rome itself does not use that appellation of “Ecumenical Pontiff” - it is an adaptation to the way the Orthodox Church referred to the Patriarch of Constantinople (Rome would prefer it if we simply called him, “Holy Father, Pope of Rome.”)

And the word “our” was also officially removed (although there are parishes that still use it) to indicate our status of Particularity with our own Patriarch etc.

Thus, while acknowledging the Pope, by adding “of Rome” we indicate that he is not our immediate jurisdictional overseer, that we have our Particular hierarchy.

Alex

 

[Seamus_L]

The UGCC refer to the Pope as “Our most Holy Universal Pontiff Pope of Rome” Hope no one want’s to change that.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Dear brother Alexander,

This is an interesting viewpoint. I have personally found no indication from my readings that the Pope ever intended to be the Particular head and administrator of the Easterns. What I have perceived is that Rome was simply concerned about unity in Faith, which is, after all his primary responsibility.

I recall that during (what is normally thought of as) the time of the Great Schism, when Patriarch Cerularius was closing the Latin Churches and expelling the Latins from Constantinople, Pope St. Leo IX responded by sending his legates to negotiate with the Patriarch. What strikes me as significant is that in his letter to Cerularius, he does not argue from a viewpoint that the Patriarch had no right to do such things. Rather, he appealed to the fact that Rome had never ever done the same thing to the Greek churches in Latin lands. Pope St. Leo did appeal to his primacy later in the letter, but that was in specific response to Cerularius’ acquisition of the title “Ecumenical Patriarch.”

To repeat, I haven’t found any indication that Rome ever intended to be the micromanager of the Eastern Churches. Every issue where Rome wanted to “impose” itself was only on doctrinal matters. It should be noted that though this was the case about Rome’s relation to the Eastern Churches, I have to say that the Oriental Churches did not have the same respect. Though the situation was unacceptable, I have to concede that it was understandable since the Orientals were non-Chalcedonian, and I guess Rome felt the Orientals needed more supervision than the Easterns.

I think the real problem was that the Latins were not really aware of Eastern theology, and though they were trying to find common ground, they could only express themselves from the perspective of the Latin Tradition.

Blessings,
Marduk

Salve Fratre!

The Latins not only expressed themselves in Latin terms, their then ecclesiology was quite “Latin” in the sense that they could only conceive of full church union by way of getting the Eastern Churches to be fully under Roman jurisdiction, just as the Latin Church was (but then again, the Pope is its Primate).

As for the Eastern Catholic Churches as a whole, they were placed not under Rome, but under the Roman Congregation that missionized pagan lands etc. That was quite offensive to begin with (and while I DO respect the views of the administrators/moderators here on this subject, something similar happens on this forum when Orthodox questions get moved to the “Non-Catholic” section . . . .

From the RC point of view, the Miaphysite (and Assyrian) Churches were a step away from the Eastern Orthodox because of the Christological issue. Non-Chalcedonian Churches were considered “heretical” because of that and for union to occur with Rome, an actual repudiation of heresy had to happen. This is a far cry from the Christological agreements of today where not only do the Churches resolve their Christological issues, the Miaphysites are seen as having ALWAYS confessed the true Orthodox Catholic faith in OLGS Jesus Christ - it was a misunderstanding of terminology which caused the problems, as you know better than I.

The old “unions” with Rome were based on this idea, that those in the Eastern Churches were coming “back” under Roman jurisdiction (and they never were under such jurisdiction before - only in communion with Rome) and were “repenting” of the sins they were, in then Roman eyes, guilty of in terms of schism and heresy.

Traditional RC’s and others would agree with this assessment even today (as we can see from that ill-informed poll about how the East is to be reconciled with Rome on another thread).

There can be no doubt but that Rome understood any union agreement with any Eastern Church as not only an agreement on faith, but also as a “coming under” Roman jurisdiction. This fact was only made more explicit in the years following the unions where Eastern Catholic Churches were not only heavily Latinized in liturgical and spiritual terms, but also with respect to their ecclesiology.

Sad but true.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

The UGCC refer to the Pope as “Our most Holy Universal Pontiff Pope of Rome” Hope no one want’s to change that.

Oh yes - even Rome would prefer that we not use the title of the Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch when naming the Pope of Rome.

My parish does not use “our” but keeps the rest.

Research work has been done by the UGCC and the conclusions are that long-needed changes are to be made (and Rome has always agreed).

Also, there is absolutely no need to commemorate the pope four times during the Divine Liturgy of the UGCC. That is simply “commemorative overkill.” Originally, only the Greek-Catholic Metropolitan of Kyiv would comemmorate the Pope in his Divine Liturgy. Rome’s recommendation (and Roman Catholic scholars of the Eastern tradition know more about the EC churches than we do - a fact), is that the commemoration of the pope should come once only, following the Great Entrance.

Alex

 

[ConstantineTG]

It is because Eastern Catholics recognize the Pope of Rome in his “universal” capacity and not as their Particular head that they refer to him as “Pope of Rome.”

There was a debate in the UGCC about how we refer to him i.e. " our Most Holy Ecumenical Pontiff, (name), Pope of Rome,"

In fact, Rome itself does not use that appellation of “Ecumenical Pontiff” - it is an adaptation to the way the Orthodox Church referred to the Patriarch of Constantinople (Rome would prefer it if we simply called him, “Holy Father, Pope of Rome.”)

And the word “our” was also officially removed (although there are parishes that still use it) to indicate our status of Particularity with our own Patriarch etc.

Thus, while acknowledging the Pope, by adding “of Rome” we indicate that he is not our immediate jurisdictional overseer, that we have our Particular hierarchy.

Alex

Thanks Alex. It does make sense now although I still think that its odd that we have to make a distinction. There is one Pope throughout the Catholic Church and he is the Pope of all. To me its like us British Columbians refering to Harper as the Prime Minister of Ottawa.

The UGCC refer to the Pope as “Our most Holy Universal Pontiff Pope of Rome” Hope no one want’s to change that.

I do attend a UGCC parish. I’d have to go back to the book again and see if we do say “Our most Holy Universal Pontiff…”.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Oh yes - even Rome would prefer that we not use the title of the Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch when naming the Pope of Rome.

My parish does not use “our” but keeps the rest.

Research work has been done by the UGCC and the conclusions are that long-needed changes are to be made (and Rome has always agreed).

Also, there is absolutely no need to commemorate the pope four times during the Divine Liturgy of the UGCC. That is simply “commemorative overkill.” Originally, only the Greek-Catholic Metropolitan of Kyiv would comemmorate the Pope in his Divine Liturgy. Rome’s recommendation (and Roman Catholic scholars of the Eastern tradition know more about the EC churches than we do - a fact), is that the commemoration of the pope should come once only, following the Great Entrance.

Alex

Do you use the same book we use? (Divine Liturgy, an Anthology of Worship)

I think the Pope is commemorated twice as per the text of the book we use.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Thanks Alex. It does make sense now although I still think that its odd that we have to make a distinction. There is one Pope throughout the Catholic Church and he is the Pope of all. To me its like us British Columbians refering to Harper as the Prime Minister of Ottawa.

I do attend a UGCC parish. I’d have to go back to the book again and see if we do say “Our most Holy Universal Pontiff…”.

He is the Pope of all, but he is the “administrative head” of the Latin Catholic Particular Church. Eastern Catholics are not in communion with the Pope in the same way that Roman Catholics are. We have our own Patriarchs/bishops who legislate administrative matters for us on an immediate basis.

British Columbia is directly under the Prime Minister.

However, by way of another example, in Spain, Catalunya has her own president, while being in union with the rest of Spain through its loyalty to the King of Spain. When the Pope was there to declare Sagrada Familia a Minor Basilica, I believe he respected the traditions of Catalunya, prayers were said in Catalan and the saints of Catalunya, beginning with St Eulalia, were invoked (not the saints of all of Spain).

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Do you use the same book we use? (Divine Liturgy, an Anthology of Worship)

I think the Pope is commemorated twice as per the text of the book we use.

I believe the Pope is commemorated twice during the ektenias, once during the Great entrance and once afterwards.

He is also commemorated a fifth time during the “Ad Multos Annos” singing at the end of a Pontifical Divine Liturgy.

If you know any Roman Catholics who need extra training in Papalism, send them over to one of our parishes!

Alex

 

[ConstantineTG]

He is the Pope of all, but he is the “administrative head” of the Latin Catholic Particular Church. Eastern Catholics are not in communion with the Pope in the same way that Roman Catholics are. We have our own Patriarchs/bishops who legislate administrative matters for us on an immediate basis.

My understanding is that the relationship of Roman Catholics to the Pope similar, only that the Pope functions as both Pope and Patriarch to the Roman Church (albeit dropping the title). For Eastern Catholics Pope and Patriarch is clearly divided.

British Columbia is directly under the Prime Minister.

But we do have our “patriarch” in Gordo, who by the way resigned a couple of weeks ago. So we are sedevacantists now

However, by way of another example, in Spain, Catalunya has her own president, while being in union with the rest of Spain through its loyalty to the King of Spain. When the Pope was there to declare Sagrada Familia a Minor Basilica, I believe he respected the traditions of Catalunya, prayers were said in Catalan and the saints of Catalunya, beginning with St Eulalia, were invoked (not the saints of all of Spain).

Alex

Nice analogy

 

[Alexander_Roman]

My understanding is that the relationship of Roman Catholics to the Pope similar, only that the Pope functions as both Pope and Patriarch to the Roman Church (albeit dropping the title). For Eastern Catholics Pope and Patriarch is clearly divided.

But we do have our “patriarch” in Gordo, who by the way resigned a couple of weeks ago. So we are sedevacantists now

Nice analogy

I love Catalunya and Montserrat!! I’ve also had a Byzantine icon of Antoni Gaudi done (halo and all) for private veneration. I’m a member of the association to beatify him - perhaps I could raise money for the purpose by having a website with that icon and people can make a contribution to the Cause as they download it? What do you think?

Alex

 

[ConstantineTG]

I love Catalunya and Montserrat!! I’ve also had a Byzantine icon of Antoni Gaudi done (halo and all) for private veneration. I’m a member of the association to beatify him - perhaps I could raise money for the purpose by having a website with that icon and people can make a contribution to the Cause as they download it? What do you think?

Alex

I’ve never been anywhere near Europe. Hopefully someday. I’m also unfamiliar on who Antoni Gaudi is. Time to fire up Google.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Alexander,

Salve Fratre!

The Latins not only expressed themselves in Latin terms, their then ecclesiology was quite “Latin” in the sense that they could only conceive of full church union by way of getting the Eastern Churches to be fully under Roman jurisdiction, just as the Latin Church was (but then again, the Pope is its Primate).

As for the Eastern Catholic Churches as a whole, they were placed not under Rome, but under the Roman Congregation that missionized pagan lands etc. That was quite offensive to begin with (and while I DO respect the views of the administrators/moderators here on this subject, something similar happens on this forum when Orthodox questions get moved to the “Non-Catholic” section . . . .

From the RC point of view, the Miaphysite (and Assyrian) Churches were a step away from the Eastern Orthodox because of the Christological issue. Non-Chalcedonian Churches were considered “heretical” because of that and for union to occur with Rome, an actual repudiation of heresy had to happen. This is a far cry from the Christological agreements of today where not only do the Churches resolve their Christological issues, the Miaphysites are seen as having ALWAYS confessed the true Orthodox Catholic faith in OLGS Jesus Christ - it was a misunderstanding of terminology which caused the problems, as you know better than I.

The old “unions” with Rome were based on this idea, that those in the Eastern Churches were coming “back” under Roman jurisdiction (and they never were under such jurisdiction before - only in communion with Rome) and were “repenting” of the sins they were, in then Roman eyes, guilty of in terms of schism and heresy.

Traditional RC’s and others would agree with this assessment even today (as we can see from that ill-informed poll about how the East is to be reconciled with Rome on another thread).

There can be no doubt but that Rome understood any union agreement with any Eastern Church as not only an agreement on faith, but also as a “coming under” Roman jurisdiction. This fact was only made more explicit in the years following the unions where Eastern Catholic Churches were not only heavily Latinized in liturgical and spiritual terms, but also with respect to their ecclesiology.

Sad but true.

Oh, I certainly agree with you that during this period in Church history, the attitude of Rome towards the other Churches was being “under Rome” instead of being “in communion with Rome.” I’ve always perceived that during this period of history, Rome’s seige mentality with respect to the secular powers (i.e., in preserving the rights of the Church against the State) unfortunately transferred over to Rome’s relationship with his brother bishops. Nevertheless, I still don’t think that Rome ever intended to be “head” in the sense of micromanager of the Eastern Churches in administration. Nothing would have changed in terms of self-administration if reunion had been maintained.

I believe the Roman mentality became even more centralized at the time of the Reformation. It is only at this time that your assessment of “any union agreement with any Eastern Church as not only an agreement on faith, but also as a “coming under” Roman jurisdiction” became a reality. Indeed, there were major developments on the principle of “delegated jurisdiction” from the Pope during the Reformation period because of the exigencies of the time.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Nine_Two]

Dear brother Nine_Two,

The Catholic Church does not have a “single bishop hierarchy.”

Unity will only come about through understanding.

Blessings,
Marduk

I’m sorry, but don’t all bishops acknowledge the Pope as being above them? Isn’t that the High Petrine view?

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

I’m sorry, but don’t all bishops acknowledge the Pope as being above them? Isn’t that the High Petrine view?

I will defer to Marduk to explain in greater detail, as he is more knowledgeable than I, but to my knowledge the bishops of the Catholic Church, whether Roman, Melkite, Ukrainian, Ruthenian, Coptic, Assyrian, Maronite, etc. do not acknowledge the Pope as “being above” any of them. He is considered the “first among equals”, the “head of the college of bishops”, the “servant of the servants of God”, and the like. Even the Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms that there is no higher order in the Catholic Church than that of bishop, episcopal ordination being the “fullness of the sacrament of Holy Orders” (cf. CCC #1555 - 1561).

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Dear brother Alexander,

Oh, I certainly agree with you that during this period in Church history, the attitude of Rome towards the other Churches was being “under Rome” instead of being “in communion with Rome.” I’ve always perceived that during this period of history, Rome’s seige mentality with respect to the secular powers (i.e., in preserving the rights of the Church against the State) unfortunately transferred over to Rome’s relationship with his brother bishops. Nevertheless, I still don’t think that Rome ever intended to be “head” in the sense of micromanager of the Eastern Churches in administration. Nothing would have changed in terms of self-administration if reunion had been maintained.

I believe the Roman mentality became even more centralized at the time of the Reformation. It is only at this time that your assessment of “any union agreement with any Eastern Church as not only an agreement on faith, but also as a “coming under” Roman jurisdiction” became a reality. Indeed, there were major developments on the principle of “delegated jurisdiction” from the Pope during the Reformation period because of the exigencies of the time.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear Fratre,

Certainly, at the Council of Lyons in the 13th century, this was the Roman view as well, as it was at Florence. Roman jurisdiction over the Eastern Churches was also a problem for the East even before and led to the eventual breakup.

I wish it wasn’t so.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

I will defer to Marduk to explain in greater detail, as he is more knowledgeable than I, but to my knowledge the bishops of the Catholic Church, whether Roman, Melkite, Ukrainian, Ruthenian, Coptic, Assyrian, Maronite, etc. do not acknowledge the Pope as “being above” any of them. He is considered the “first among equals”, the “head of the college of bishops”, the “servant of the servants of God”, and the like. Even the Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms that there is no higher order in the Catholic Church than that of bishop, episcopal ordination being the “fullness of the sacrament of Holy Orders” (cf. CCC #1555 - 1561).

Dear Sir,

In theory, YES. In practice, ABSOLUTELY NOT.

Given the fact that our bishops tend to be “Rome’s men” for the most part, I can assure you that they do indeed see the Pope as being well above them.

And so do Russian bishops view the Patriarch of Moscow. It depends on the Church and large Churches tend to be “top down.”

Alex

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Dear Sir,

In theory, YES. In practice, ABSOLUTELY NOT.

Given the fact that our bishops tend to be “Rome’s men” for the most part, I can assure you that they do indeed see the Pope as being well above them.

And so do Russian bishops view the Patriarch of Moscow. It depends on the Church and large Churches tend to be “top down.”

Alex

Thank you Alex. I guess I should have made the distinction between official policy/theology and how things actually work in the real world. My main point was that at least theologically the Bishop of Rome is not seen as being some sort of “super-bishop”, as an Orthodox friend of mine once referred to him. How the Bishop of Rome actually functions within the Catholic Church is obviously a different matter. That functioning, however, is not a dogmatic matter but one of discipline, and is subject to change. In fact, Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have both called for that desired change. As you pointed out, however, the exact same problem exists within at least some of the various Orthodox jurisdictions. Fr. John Behr, dean of St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary, made the same point in his address to the Orientale Lumen XIV Conference.

On a side note I will make a shameless plug for Orientale Lumen XV. These very topics will be being covered by some of the worlds leading experts at Orientale Lumen XV this coming June in Washington D.C. Such greats as Fr. Robert Taft and Metropolitan Kallistos of Diokleia are already on the schedule to address the issues of the reform of the Papacy. Other great names have been invited, but I feel I ought not to divulge the names until we’ve received a response.

ICXC + NIKA,
Phillip

 

[Nine_Two]

: My main point was that at least theologically the Bishop of Rome is not seen as being some sort of “super-bishop”, as an Orthodox friend of mine once referred to him. How the Bishop of Rome actually functions within the Catholic Church is obviously a different matter.

Theory doesn’t cut it when discussing a resumption of Communion between the Churches. The fact is autonomous churches (which is what Sui Juris means) are only nominally of a distinct hierarcy than the Mother Church. East or West, even if the theory (East and West) says otherwise)

As you pointed out, however, the exact same problem exists within at least some of the various Orthodox jurisdictions. Fr. John Behr, dean of St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary, made the same point in his address to the Orientale Lumen XIV Conference.

That Russia has one Hierarchy, or Greece has one hierarchy, or Rome has one hierarchy was not the argument, that all are Churches must be under the Roman hierarchy is the issue. That is not going to happen, that is not what we’re discussing when we talk about Union.