A
AlNg
Guest
IMHO, ZP has it exactly right. I doubt that the Orthodox would ever accept the idea that the Pope can make changes to their liturgy.
Does the Pope have supreme universal jurisdiction over the Eastern Churches?
- Status
X
XXI_4
Guest
Yes, theology. And not just East vs West. The sui iuris churches have differences in theology amongst themselves. Byzantine theology is different than Syriac theology.
X
XXI_4
Guest
You’re confusing theology and doctrine.
See CCC paragraph 835.
"… The rich variety of ecclesiastical disciplines, liturgical rites, and theological and spiritual heritages proper to the local churches “unified in a common effort, shows all the more resplendently the catholicity of the undivided Church.”
The sui iuris churches have differences in theology.
See CCC paragraph 835.
"… The rich variety of ecclesiastical disciplines, liturgical rites, and theological and spiritual heritages proper to the local churches “unified in a common effort, shows all the more resplendently the catholicity of the undivided Church.”
The sui iuris churches have differences in theology.
X
XXI_4
Guest
Z
ziapueblo
Guest
Let’s look at purgatory for example. The Eastern Churches both Orthodox and Catholic believe in purification but what we reject is the need to make expiation for sin after death(purgatory). It can be summed up like this. There are two levels of theology: theologia prima (which the Greeks call theologia); and theologia secunda (which the Greeks call theoria). The former is the foundational belief of the Church, as embedded in its rule of prayer, which is to say, its liturgical texts, in keeping with the maxim “lex orandi, Lex credendi”.
Father Taft writes of theologia prima:
“Theologia prima, or first-level theology, is the faith expressed in the liturgical life of the Church antecedent to speculative questioning of its theoretical implications, prior to its systematization in the dogmatic propositions of theologia secunda or systematic reflection on the lived mystery of the Church. Liturgical language, the language of theologia prima, is typological, metaphorical, more redolent of Bible and prayer than of school and thesis, more patristic than scholastic, more impressionistic than systematic, more suggestive than probative. In a word, it is symbolic and evocative, not philosophical and ontological.”
And with regard to the emergence of theologia secunda:
“Now although it is perfectly obvious, indeed necessary, that doctrine will acquire theological refinements, especially in the heat of dogmatic controversy, it should be equally obvious that such refinements cannot be read back into texts composed long before the problems arose which led to those precisions. To pounce upon ancient anaphoral texts and exploit them tendentiously in today’s theological controversies is an anachronistic procedure devoid of any legitimacy."
With regard to the matter of the necessity purification of the soul, and the efficacy of prayer for the dead, the Eastern Churches have chosen NOT to speak dogmatically at the level of theologia secunda, but are content to accept the theologia prima found in our liturgical texts for the funeral and memorial rites. Hence, we believe that (a) the souls of the departed require purification before entering into the Kingdom of God; and (b) that prayers for the dead are efficacious to that effect. Nothing more is, or should be required, because this is the universal Tradition of the undivided Church.
Purgatory represents the theologia secunda of the Western Church, and it is their prerogative to develop doctrine as they see fit. What they cannot do is declare unilaterally that their doctrine, and especially their mode of theological expression, is incumbent upon and normative for all. As Eastern Catholics, we respect the doctrines of the Latin Church as long as they are compatible with ours on the level of the theologia prima, but we also insist on the right to our own modes of theological expression, and to develop our own theologia secunda within our own Tradition.
ZP
Father Taft writes of theologia prima:
“Theologia prima, or first-level theology, is the faith expressed in the liturgical life of the Church antecedent to speculative questioning of its theoretical implications, prior to its systematization in the dogmatic propositions of theologia secunda or systematic reflection on the lived mystery of the Church. Liturgical language, the language of theologia prima, is typological, metaphorical, more redolent of Bible and prayer than of school and thesis, more patristic than scholastic, more impressionistic than systematic, more suggestive than probative. In a word, it is symbolic and evocative, not philosophical and ontological.”
And with regard to the emergence of theologia secunda:
“Now although it is perfectly obvious, indeed necessary, that doctrine will acquire theological refinements, especially in the heat of dogmatic controversy, it should be equally obvious that such refinements cannot be read back into texts composed long before the problems arose which led to those precisions. To pounce upon ancient anaphoral texts and exploit them tendentiously in today’s theological controversies is an anachronistic procedure devoid of any legitimacy."
With regard to the matter of the necessity purification of the soul, and the efficacy of prayer for the dead, the Eastern Churches have chosen NOT to speak dogmatically at the level of theologia secunda, but are content to accept the theologia prima found in our liturgical texts for the funeral and memorial rites. Hence, we believe that (a) the souls of the departed require purification before entering into the Kingdom of God; and (b) that prayers for the dead are efficacious to that effect. Nothing more is, or should be required, because this is the universal Tradition of the undivided Church.
Purgatory represents the theologia secunda of the Western Church, and it is their prerogative to develop doctrine as they see fit. What they cannot do is declare unilaterally that their doctrine, and especially their mode of theological expression, is incumbent upon and normative for all. As Eastern Catholics, we respect the doctrines of the Latin Church as long as they are compatible with ours on the level of the theologia prima, but we also insist on the right to our own modes of theological expression, and to develop our own theologia secunda within our own Tradition.
ZP
X
XXI_4
Guest
Ok… I’ll just be here for the popcorn from here on out. 
R
RyanBlack
Guest
If the Pope were to order the Eastern Catholic Churches to change their liturgies, that would violate official agreements that brought some of those Churches into communion with Rome, e.g., the Union of Brest.
S
semper_catholicus
Guest
I’m not saying that the Pope would. I’m saying that the Pope could.
Z
ziapueblo
Guest
I see it like this: let’s say Truth is 5. The Latin Church teaches that 3+2=5 and the East teaches that 4+1=5. Both have the same answer 5 only expressed differently. There is more to it than that but in general this scenario works.
ZP
ZP
R
RyanBlack
Guest
And I’m saying such use of papal power would be essentially a betrayal, since churches entered into union with the understanding, made in writing, that such action would not be taken. To do so would be a gravely sinful abuse of papal power.
Last edited:
S
semper_catholicus
Guest
Okay?
10 caricatures.
10 caricatures.
R
RyanBlack
Guest
Do you not see that, were the Pope to do such a thing, it would be a serious abuse of power, since it would violate written, official agreements?
R
RyanBlack
Guest
In the case of the Union of Brest, the agreement is termed as a “guarantee.” Were the Pope to violate this agreement, or weasel around violating it by simply unilaterally abrogating the agreement, this would completely undermine the moral authority of the papacy. Furthermore, it would likely result in schism, and would certainly crush any hope of restoring communion with Eastern Churches currently not in communion with Rome.
R
RyanBlack
Guest
And I’m saying that were any Pope to do such a thing, it would be nothing but a naked use of power, simply because he has the power to do so. It would violate the integrity of other sui iuris Churches to such a degree as to render it meaningless to call them sui iuris. It would make a mockery of church teaching about the esteem in which the Church holds the Eastern Churches and their traditions. It would needlessly scandalize many of the faithful. It would make the guarantees made by the Holy See meaningless, thereby undermining respect for and trust in the papacy. So while I agree that the Pope could do such a thing, I have a problem with associating such an action with the term “authority,” because such an action would be gravely sinful, and God authorizes no one to sin.
Last edited:
Z
ziapueblo
Guest
Living a fully Byzantine spiritual life does not contradict my identity as a Catholic. ORIENTALIUM ECCLESIARUM call us to hold on to our ecclesiastical heritage. It’s the beauty of the universality of the Church.
ZP
ZP
X
XXI_4
Guest
We adhere to our own traditions, not Rome’s. I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the East/West communion works.
Hopefully someone can recommend a good book for you on this topic. I can’t think of one off the top of my head.
Hopefully someone can recommend a good book for you on this topic. I can’t think of one off the top of my head.
B
babochka
Guest
No, you are confusing “theological heritage” with “theology”. In addition, you fail to cite a single example of a true theological difference.
[/quote]
I usually begin with this very straightforward example: In the Western theological understanding of marriage, the couple confers the Sacrament on each other. In the Byzantine understanding, the priest confers the sacrament on the couple.
[/quote]
I usually begin with this very straightforward example: In the Western theological understanding of marriage, the couple confers the Sacrament on each other. In the Byzantine understanding, the priest confers the sacrament on the couple.
Z
ziapueblo
Guest
Any book by the late Father Robert Taft SJ of blessed memory. He was one of the leading and most respected theologians, in particular on the Byzantine Liturgy, by both Catholic and Orthodox.
ZP
ZP
A
AlNg
Guest
If Catholics maintain that the Pope does have the authority to change the Eastern liturgy, then I suspect that there will never be a union between Rome and Constantinople. The two can work together on various causes, such as pro-life causes, etc., but they will never be in full union as long as the Roman Catholic Church requires Orthodox to hold to the Pope having supreme universal jurisdiction over the whole Church, East and West. My understanding is that many Orthodox believe that to be a serious error.
Metropolitan Seraphim has written of a "<<<historical case where Pope Zosimus of Rome (reigned from March 18, 417 to Dec. 26, 418), referring to Canons 3, 4, and 5 of the Council of Sardica, tried to justify his right to be the supreme judge for the Church of North Africa and restore the priest Apiarius of Sicca who had been excommunicated by Bishop Urban. The African bishops strongly rejected Pope Zosimus’ claims, with their rejection then being confirmed in the resolutions of the Council of Carthage.
“The undivided Church recognized that the Canons 3, 4, and 5 of the Council of Sardica, which Pope Zosimus relied on, gave the Pope of Rome the right to judge only over those bishops subordinated to him. Thus, the Church rejected the claims of the Pope’s right of supreme Church-wide arbitration,” Met. Seraphim argues.>>>"
See:
https://russophile.org/greek-orthod...stantinople-has-no-right-meddling-in-ukraine/
Last edited:
T
twf
Guest
Yes, on non-dogmatic issues. This is nothing new. If you read the Union of Brest, which restored communion between what we now call the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church and Rome, there were many liberties.
- Status