Does this article (obviously from an Eastern Orthodox perspective) accurately represent Catholicism?

[Shiranui117]

Dear brother Shiranui,

Btw, I want to add that when I said “Orientals,” I meant Oriental Orthodox, not Oriental Catholics. I made my statements just to let you know that, having translated to Catholicism from Oriental Orthodoxy, where our head bishops are normatively and explicitly designated as “supreme,” I really did not understand what the big deal was between the Westerns and Easterns when the term “supreme” was applied to the bishop of Rome.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

The term “co” often seems to mean “equal to” in the minds of many people. Problem is, it doesn’t mean that. It really means, "along with.

“Equal to” is undeniably the prominent connotation of the prefix “co-” in the English-speaking world today. Yes, its etymology comes from the Latin “cum” which simply means “with.” But the prefix “co-” has taken on a connotation of equality today in almost every context: co-counselor, co-consul, co-ed, etc. In the minds of most casual hearers, that is exactly what it means. That alone is reason enough not to make it official, unless there were some even more pressing reason for the title’s necessity. But there is not.

I actually don’t think that the EO are pretending as you say (though I defer to any of them to answer your post, should they show up here). From my conversations with EO, it is not the fact that change has occurred in the RC communion that gives them pause, but the fact that the change is very much inorganic and imposed from the top on the entire church. The Tridentine Mass did not naturally evolve into the Novus Ordo.

Okay, I see. That critique’s specificity makes sense, but with everything I continue to learn about the history of Vatican II in light of modernity/modernism and the last four hundred years in general, I definitely see in very specific ways the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the timing, content, and decisions of the Second Vatican Council. The post-Vatican II transformation of the Roman Rite may be unusual, but I understand and agree with the reasons for it.

It is an inorganic and unwelcome wholesale replacement of a venerable tradition.

How so? The Tridentine Mass wasn’t always the norm in the Latin Church. Besides, I honestly don’t see them as that different. I’m definitely not a liturgical expert of any kind, but I have attended both the Ordinary Form and the Extraordinary Form in my life, and the basic structure is the same, isn’t it? Even when I couldn’t follow the individual parts (I first attended the EF following 2007’s Summorum Pontificum), I still recognized in it the basic Mass structure I was taught in early childhood (Liturgy of the Word, Liturgy of the Eucharist, and many of their individual components, etc.).

The same could be said about the Latinization that has occurred to varying degrees in the EC churches.

Yes, that’s a damn shame. I think it’s quite telling, though, that it was the Second Vatican Council that finally put a stop to such Latinization.

You have some like the Melkites who have been able to retain or regain a lot of their tradition, but others like the Maronites who are in shambles and unlikely to ever fully reclaim their traditional, authentic spirituality.

That’s deeply unfortunate. I didn’t know that. There’s a Melkite parish in my home city that does quite well - I’ve attended their Liturgy before - but I didn’t know that the Maronites are far less fortunate.

In such an environment, can you blame outsiders for looking at the Roman communion and deciding that they want no part in it?

Well, yes. I remain intellectually convinced of the Biblical and Traditional validity of papal claims, and my experience growing up has been one of both a vibrant, spiritually prosperous Latin community and eastern Catholic community (due to my exposure to the Melkites).

But you make a good point, dzheremi. I can easily see that my experience is not everyone’s, and I very much understand why someone less fortunate than I would have an entirely different experience of the Catholic faith.

And this is without getting into any of the extremely difficult theological issues that Rome often plays off as though they are nothing more than equally valid expressions of the same thing, rather than definite signs that we are ontologically different churches

Don’t you think “ontologically different churches” just goes rhetorically overboard? I really haven’t done my research, so I can’t argue, but in my limited experience so far, I have felt that the Orthodox make mountains out of molehills in regard to purgatory (the Orthodox pray for the dead, after all), the filioque (Rome basically agrees that it’s heretical in Greek and neither expects nor desires the eastern Catholic churches to use it), and even to some degree the papacy (which does not interfere in the day-to-day workings, synods, tribunals, ordinations, or liturgies of the eastern Catholic churches).

Having attended Eastern liturgies as well as others, I can say that I much prefer the style of participation afforded in the more conservative Eastern churches. But this is a personal opinion, so I won’t pretend that it’s “clearly” better.

Fair enough. I must admit that I would definitely feel differently if I didn’t have as many great Catholic options due to my geographical location. I fully acknowledge that as things stand right now, you can know what you’re going to get when you attend any eastern Liturgy far more than when you walk into a random Roman Catholic church for Mass.

This is wonderful. I am glad you are able to grow and be happy where you are. God bless you.

God bless you too, dzheremi! Thank you for taking part in this discussion with me; I really am always learning more - from everyone, the Roman Catholics on this thread, the eastern Catholics on it, the Orthodox, and the undecided like you.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

No. I don’t recall anyone writing that anywhere in this thread. It sounds like a caricature of anothers’ view.

It probably is, then, and I hereby retract the implication that it is an Orthodox view. As I said, I’m always learning, and I hope if I ever inadvertently degenerate into caricature that others will not hesitate to call me out on it.

I do not find this applicable to the RC changes of the liturgy at all … I don’t know why RC apologists (you’re not the only one I’ve conversed with who does this) seem to take the apostle’s words as though he is saying he actually becomes these things. Very clearly he writes that he becomes “LIKE” this or that, in order to effectively evangelized those who are ____ (whatever the thing is).

This is a very good point, but it is indeed my view that this understanding - we become like something else - applies to the last century’s change to the Roman Rite. After all, it’s not like the Mass itself has been fundamentally altered. Transubstantiation still occurs, the priest still offers the Body and Blood of Christ to the Father, Christ’s sacrifice is truly made present, etc. Changing the position of the priest, permitting the vernacular, and similar changes really do constitute only becoming like things in the modern world.

Is this what the Roman church has done in changing her liturgy and watering down her theology? I do not think so. Let me try an admittedly weak analogy here: I would think that it is right to use the vocabulary that is common to a community in which you are evangelizing in order to explain the faith in terms they can understand. However, it would be wrong to actually BECOME whatever they are and abandon what you believe as inviolable in order to appeal to them.

Agreed, but I stand by what I said above with regard to applying this principle to the post-Vatican II changes to the Roman liturgy.

This is what I believe the RC church has done in (for instance) equating the Christian God with the various gods of others (I use this example specifically because it is with reference to this that others have trotted out the very same passage from St. Paul’s letter). That is wrong. It doesn’t bear witness to our God, but degrades Him by placing Him alongside the false Gods of others.

I don’t really disagree - or agree - with you here, because I’m not sure in what ways my own church has done this. Forgive my ignorance. The only example I can think of is the Catechism’s declaration that Christians, Jews, and Muslims share the same God. Has the Catholic Church ever authoritatively implied that the One True God is the same entity as in other faiths? Has there even been a Roman Catholic theologian - let alone an authoritative document - that implied that the Father, Son, and Spirit are, for instance, Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva? That would be insane and deeply problematic, but I’m aware of no such thing. But maybe you weren’t thinking of anything like that. To what were you referring, dzheremi?

Similarly with the liturgy. It does not glorify God to abandon the reverence found in traditional liturgies in favor of something that may in the short term attract people who would be put off or bored by such reverence, and so demand irreverence. You are right that this is not always how it actually happens in the Mass, but to the extent that it does happen (and it does), and is supported in the context of the debased Mass, it is wrong.

Agreed, but the very fact that it is not generally my experience - even across a broad spectrum of contemporary liturgical styles - persuades me to reject the notion that the Latin Church has “abandoned the reverence found in traditional liturgies.” That said, I admit that I have encountered abuses and irreverence at some Masses I’ve attended.

But I do believe it actually is as simple as that, to the extent that things are only as complicated as you make them. I cannot tell you how amazingly transformational it has been for me to discover the sayings of the Desert Fathers and the history and practice of the monastic life in the Egyptian desert. Contrasted with the Roman Catholic approach to the faith, it really is that simple. There is such a thing as having too much dogma. If the things that have been raised to that level in the Latin church were “demoted” to private theological opinion, I think you might find it easier to approach the Orthodox.

I understand, I think. I’m glad you found the Desert Fathers and Egyptian monasticism so spiritually beneficial, dzheremi! Obviously we both know the Catholic Church cannot with any credibility “demote” certain beliefs - like the Assumption of Mary, for instance - that are now regarded as dogmas.

What I do hope will help - and we can certainly do this - is emphasize the degree to which most of these dogmas (the papacy is obviously an exception here) require absolutely no adjustment or change from the Orthodox Church. Take purgatory, for instance. No way the Catholic Church would want to force Latin terminology and practices like indulgences on the East; that the Orthodox too pray for the dead in some contexts really is enough for the Catholic Church to consider the two churches’ positions to be compatible.

I will try to moderate my writing a bit more in the future. Again, I am sorry if I have offended you or any Catholic.

Don’t worry, dzheremi. I know this wasn’t directed at me, but for the record, I find your participation in this thread to be extremely patient, charitable, and intellectually precise and honest. I’ve very much appreciated your part in this discussion.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Why does something need to be officially proclaimed to be recognized as true, Joe?

Also for the record, my understanding as a Catholic is that something does not need to be officially proclaimed to be recognized as true or even as binding on the faithful.

For instance, when John Paul II addressed the question of women’s sacerdotal ordination, he did not invoke papal infallibility. He simply pointed out that the impossibility of such an ordination is infallible by virtue of the ordinary and universal Magisterium: no individual document or proclamation makes it so.

I don’t understand what you mean by “monarchial.” It’s obvious (to me anyway) that the bishop of Rome has always acted collegially. Even the much vaunted Unam Sanctam was promulgated in a Synod of 80 bishops. I think the monarchial scheme is a bit of a stretch. Semi-monarchial maybe, presidential more likely, but monarchial seems to be an extreme interpretation to me. I guess what I’m saying is that the primatial model in Rome, even if established only in the second century (highly unlikely, given St. Ignatius’ standard hierarchical model, which is understood to be apostolic in origin) should not cause anyone to bat an eye, as if it was something novel.

mardukm, I really love your posts, and I especially want to highlight this paragraph of yours. Thank you for your explanations. As a Roman Catholic I certainly agree that in most cases “the bishop of Rome has always acted collegially.” I can’t think of a single era of Church history when the pope sought to micro-manage everything even in the Latin Church, let alone the whole Catholic Church.

 

[dzheremi]

“Equal to” is undeniably the prominent connotation of the prefix “co-” in the English-speaking world today. Yes, its etymology comes from the Latin “cum” which simply means “with.” But the prefix “co-” has taken on a connotation of equality today in almost every context: co-counselor, co-consul, co-ed, etc. In the minds of most casual hearers, that is exactly what it means. That alone is reason enough not to make it official, unless there were some even more pressing reason for the title’s necessity. But there is not.

Thank you for explaining this in the manner that you have. I am afraid that my ill-advised brash manner in bringing up this particular topic has led to my view (which is essentially no different than what you have expressed above) being dismissed out of hand. In this, I can only blame myself and apologize once more, but nevertheless I hope that the view itself will be seriously considered, coming from a non-antagonistic source.

Okay, I see. That critique’s specificity makes sense, but with everything I continue to learn about the history of Vatican II in light of modernity/modernism and the last four hundred years in general, I definitely see in very specific ways the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the timing, content, and decisions of the Second Vatican Council. The post-Vatican II transformation of the Roman Rite may be unusual, but I understand and agree with the reasons for it.

Okay.

How so? The Tridentine Mass wasn’t always the norm in the Latin Church.

I did not mean to imply it was. I only called it that because this is the term that I have seen the “Traditional Latin Mass” crowd use.

Besides, I honestly don’t see them as that different. I’m definitely not a liturgical expert of any kind, but I have attended both the Ordinary Form and the Extraordinary Form in my life, and the basic structure is the same, isn’t it? Even when I couldn’t follow the individual parts (I first attended the EF following 2007’s Summorum Pontificum), I still recognized in it the basic Mass structure I was taught in early childhood (Liturgy of the Word, Liturgy of the Eucharist, and many of their individual components, etc.).

Okay. I’m not disagreeing, but I will say that if it were only a matter of structure then I doubt very much that so many people would have problems with the Novus Ordo.

That’s deeply unfortunate. I didn’t know that. There’s a Melkite parish in my home city that does quite well - I’ve attended their Liturgy before - but I didn’t know that the Maronites are far less fortunate.

Of the Eastern and Oriental churches, my only personal experience has been with the Ruthenians (Byzantines). The church that I attended seemed rather Latinized to me, a fact which the priest agreed to with much sadness in private conversation. I cannot say whether or not this is the case throughout their church. For the Maronites, I shouldn’t speak for them. The poster “Malphono” (who is most active on the Eastern Catholic subforum) can share with you his experiences as a cradle Maronite, if you wish to learn more. It has long been recognized that the Maronites are the most Latinized of the non-Roman Catholic churches (I have books dating back to the 1940s that talk about that), and I have seen nothing in my own study of that Church that indicates that the tide is turning in favor of proper re-Syriacization, if I may coin a term. Yes, it is very unfortunate.

Well, yes. I remain intellectually convinced of the Biblical and Traditional validity of papal claims, and my experience growing up has been one of both a vibrant, spiritually prosperous Latin community and eastern Catholic community (due to my exposure to the Melkites).

I am glad that you have had such a positive experience.

But you make a good point, dzheremi. I can easily see that my experience is not everyone’s, and I very much understand why someone less fortunate than I would have an entirely different experience of the Catholic faith.

Yes, and of course my experience is not everyone’s. As I was once told by an Eastern Orthodox member of this forum, it is best to bloom where you are planted. If you are good soil, you will. If you are not…well, it may take a bit of searching to find some place where you can be nurtured.

Don’t you think “ontologically different churches” just goes rhetorically overboard?

Honestly, no, I don’t.

I really haven’t done my research, so I can’t argue, but in my limited experience so far, I have felt that the Orthodox make mountains out of molehills in regard to purgatory (the Orthodox pray for the dead, after all), the filioque (Rome basically agrees that it’s heretical in Greek and neither expects nor desires the eastern Catholic churches to use it), and even to some degree the papacy (which does not interfere in the day-to-day workings, synods, tribunals, ordinations, or liturgies of the eastern Catholic churches).

Such specific claims are probably best answered by an actual Easterner or Oriental, or several if you can also find some Orthodox of both communions to give their opinions (it never hurts to hear from all sides, I think). It is sufficient for me to say that if I thought as Rome does that so many of these issues are mere misunderstandings of one and the same doctrines, I would still be happily under Rome in one form or another.

 

[dzheremi]

Changing the position of the priest, permitting the vernacular, and similar changes really do constitute only becoming like things in the modern world.

The problem with anything we do that makes us become like things in the modern world is that the modern world itself is largely secular and has forgotten, dismissed, or even become actively hostile towards God, and even towards the idea of sacredness itself. We cannot become so enamored with the idea of winning converts that we too give up that idea, and our practice of that reality in the manner befitting the true God.

I don’t really disagree - or agree - with you here, because I’m not sure in what ways my own church has done this. Forgive my ignorance. The only example I can think of is the Catechism’s declaration that Christians, Jews, and Muslims share the same God.

And indeed that is a perfect illustration of this concept, and the extra one I had in mind. I can hear Gurney and others groaning at the mention of this, so I will not rehash my arguments against this idea, but yes, I am very much so against this idea! Even if it occurs nowhere else in the history of Catholic thought, it is bad enough that it exists in such a fundamental instructional document. It is false. Entirely false.

What I do hope will help - and we can certainly do this - is emphasize the degree to which most of these dogmas (the papacy is obviously an exception here) require absolutely no adjustment or change from the Orthodox Church. Take purgatory, for instance. No way the Catholic Church would want to force Latin terminology and practices like indulgences on the East; that the Orthodox too pray for the dead in some contexts really is enough for the Catholic Church to consider the two churches’ positions to be compatible.

I appreciate your friendly manner in discussing this, but I am afraid that this is a perfect example of why union is not forthcoming: It does not matter at all what Rome would or would not require of the Orthodox; it matters what Rome would intend to hold as true even as others disagree. For instance, my old FOC once informed me that Rome exonerated the despised heretic Nestorius in 1994, and in this new understanding of the man and his doctrine an agreement on intercommunion was reached between the RC and the Assyrian Church of the East. In the name of all that is holy, WHY?! The Nestorians did not renounce their erroneous doctrine, and certainly Rome did not adopt Nestorianism (or did they? I don’t think they did), so on what basis can you have communion between the two? I’m sorry, but communion cannot work this way. This is why it seems so weird and wrong to me that, for instance, the ECs do not have to recite the filioque, but nonetheless cannot teach against it (this is my understanding; if it is wrong, please correct me). Why is that? Why shouldn’t they, if it is against the traditional theology of the mother churches that they are told to return to? It doesn’t make sense to me. I do not want that kind of communion, with Rome or anyone. I do not think it is healthy. It seems quite schizophrenic.

 

[josephdaniel29]

Don’t you think “ontologically different churches” just goes rhetorically overboard?

Not at all.

Assuredly our problem is neither geographical nor one of personal alienation. Neither is it a problem of organizational structures, nor jurisdictional arrangements. Neither is it a problem of external submission, nor absorption of individuals and groups. It is something deeper and more substantive. The manner in which we exist has become ontologically different. Unless our ontological transfiguration and transformation toward one common model of life is achieved, not only in form but also in substance, unity and its accompanying realization become impossible. - Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew

 

[Shiranui117]

Dear brother Shiranui,

Thanks for the clarification. However, can you please explain what it was about the 863 Council that made it a “robber synod?”

Thanks.

Blessings,
Marduk

As far as I can recall, it was held in Rome, and conducted/voted on pretty much entirely by Roman bishops. If my understanding is incorrect with this, then I am open for learning and correction.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Personally I don’t believe it needs to become official either but if it does, that’s fine with me. The Church can’t dictate dogmas based on what the public might perceive or misperceive. They have to stick to inspired truth, whatever the consequence…

“Equal to” is undeniably the prominent connotation of the prefix “co-” in the English-speaking world today. Yes, its etymology comes from the Latin “cum” which simply means “with.” But the prefix “co-” has taken on a connotation of equality today in almost every context: co-counselor, co-consul, co-ed, etc. In the minds of most casual hearers, that is exactly what it means. That alone is reason enough not to make it official, unless there were some even more pressing reason for the title’s necessity. But there is not.

Okay, I see. That critique’s specificity makes sense, but with everything I continue to learn about the history of Vatican II in light of modernity/modernism and the last four hundred years in general, I definitely see in very specific ways the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the timing, content, and decisions of the Second Vatican Council. The post-Vatican II transformation of the Roman Rite may be unusual, but I understand and agree with the reasons for it.

How so? The Tridentine Mass wasn’t always the norm in the Latin Church. Besides, I honestly don’t see them as that different. I’m definitely not a liturgical expert of any kind, but I have attended both the Ordinary Form and the Extraordinary Form in my life, and the basic structure is the same, isn’t it? Even when I couldn’t follow the individual parts (I first attended the EF following 2007’s Summorum Pontificum), I still recognized in it the basic Mass structure I was taught in early childhood (Liturgy of the Word, Liturgy of the Eucharist, and many of their individual components, etc.).

Yes, that’s a damn shame. I think it’s quite telling, though, that it was the Second Vatican Council that finally put a stop to such Latinization.

That’s deeply unfortunate. I didn’t know that. There’s a Melkite parish in my home city that does quite well - I’ve attended their Liturgy before - but I didn’t know that the Maronites are far less fortunate.

Well, yes. I remain intellectually convinced of the Biblical and Traditional validity of papal claims, and my experience growing up has been one of both a vibrant, spiritually prosperous Latin community and eastern Catholic community (due to my exposure to the Melkites).

But you make a good point, dzheremi. I can easily see that my experience is not everyone’s, and I very much understand why someone less fortunate than I would have an entirely different experience of the Catholic faith.

Don’t you think “ontologically different churches” just goes rhetorically overboard? I really haven’t done my research, so I can’t argue, but in my limited experience so far, I have felt that the Orthodox make mountains out of molehills in regard to purgatory (the Orthodox pray for the dead, after all), the filioque (Rome basically agrees that it’s heretical in Greek and neither expects nor desires the eastern Catholic churches to use it), and even to some degree the papacy (which does not interfere in the day-to-day workings, synods, tribunals, ordinations, or liturgies of the eastern Catholic churches).

Fair enough. I must admit that I would definitely feel differently if I didn’t have as many great Catholic options due to my geographical location. I fully acknowledge that as things stand right now, you can know what you’re going to get when you attend any eastern Liturgy far more than when you walk into a random Roman Catholic church for Mass.

God bless you too, dzheremi! Thank you for taking part in this discussion with me; I really am always learning more - from everyone, the Roman Catholics on this thread, the eastern Catholics on it, the Orthodox, and the undecided like you.

 

[Louie1983]

Personally I don’t believe it needs to become official either but if it does, that’s fine with me. The Church can’t dictate dogmas based on what the public might perceive or misperceive. They have to stick to inspired truth, whatever the consequence…

amen!

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Shiranui,

As far as I can recall, it was held in Rome, and conducted/voted on pretty much entirely by Roman bishops. If my understanding is incorrect with this, then I am open for learning and correction.

AFAIK, the only purpose of the synod in Rome in 863 was to try the Roman legates who were (apparently) bribed by powers in Constantinople. It also affirmed a decision against St. Photius that the bishop of Rome - BY RIGHT - had given PRIOR to the Synod of 863.

Here’s the course of the events:

1. The Pope sent legates to Contantinople on the matter of Patriarch Ignatius - at the request of the emperor and St. Photius - in May, 861. The legates came back to Rome with a decision in favor of Photius. This is in accord with the Sardican canons.
2. A legate from Patriarch Ignatius came to Rome, but not until early 862 presenting fresh matter for the case in favor of Ignatius. According to Canon 4 of Sardica, Photius, given the new evidence, was still not the rightful occupant of the patriarchal throne. Pope St. Nicholas insisted on this, and required Photius to abdicate. THIS WAS WELL WITHIN THE RIGHTS OF POPE ST. NICHOLAS BECAUSE IT WAS WITHIN HIS POWER ACCORDING TO THE CANONS TO DETERMINE IF THE NEW EVIDENCE WARRANTED A NEW TRIAL.
3. Given the new evidence, Pope Nicholas convened a Synod in 863, not to try Photius, but to try the legates for (apparently) falsely supporting Photius who did not have a canonical claim to the patriarchal throne yet. At this Synod, Pope St. Nicholas’ PRIOR decision that Photius abdicate the throne was repeated.

Here are the two relevant issues:
(a) Historians often state that Pope Nicholas “deposed” Photius. The actual fact is that Photius was not the rightful holder of the See yet according to Canon 4 of Sardica, and it was well within the rights of Pope Nicholas to insist that Canon 4 of Sardica be upheld.

(b) The only uncanonical action that took place during the whole event was St. Photius’ attempted excommunication of Pope St. Nicholas in 867!!!

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Shiranui,

I just wanted to say that I am aware that in some sites, capitalization of letters is considered as “shouting.” That is not the case here in CAF, so I hope you don’t take the capitalizations I utilized in my previous post as “shouting.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Madaglan

Monarchial not in the sense of a secular monarch, but in the sense of one bishop/one Church.

Immediately after writing about the numerous synods that met, Eusebius concludes with the statement that the above was their unanimous decision. The next sentence begins, “But…”, and then goes on to say how the bishops of Asia Minor [nonetheless] decided to hold on to the custom handed down to them. Polycrates’ letter with expressions such as “terrifying words” and “We ought to obey God rather than man” suggests significant pressure already was on them to change their old custom, which would be expected after multiple synods came to a unanimous decision that Passover should only be held on the Lord’s Day.

I would disagree. First of all, the “But…” is at most only an indication that the writer was introducing a contrary position. More importantly, your explanation does not take into consideration that Eusebius’ account indicates that BEFORE the numerous synods met, there was ALREADY a debate that was fermenting between the Church in Asia and the rest of the Churches. The debate became particularly heated during the time of Pope St. Victor, and was the immediate cause for the calling of the local Synods by the Pope (you have to remember that the Easter controversy between the Church in Asia and the rest of the Church was nothing new, but existed since the time of St. Polycarp and Pope St. Anicetus, and, in fact, continued even after the settlement of the controversy between Pope St. Victor and St. Polycrates). The “terrifying words” mentioned by St.Polycrates came from these debates. Because of the agitation on the issue of Easter during that time, Pope St. Victor gave instruction to all the Churches (including the Church in Asia) to hold local Synods on the matter. The excerpt from St. Polycrates affirms this, and both excerpts given by Eusebius from the Asian and Palestinian Synods (respectively) both indicate that they were reporting the decisions of their Synods to Pope St. Victor alone, consistent with the idea that the Synods were convened at his direction in the first place.

Thanks for the letter. Last night, I read a few more of St. Cyprian’s letters, and what struck me was the degree to which St. Cyprian and the bishop of Rome worked together, along with other bishops, to eliminate Donatism. They were colleagues in the fight against error.

Amen! I think this collegial reality is often lost on supporters of the Absolutist Petrine view (and not just in this example, but in many other situations in the early Church), and that is a big mistake. However, I also believe that it is just as big of a mistake for non-Catholics to presume that the Absolutist Petrine excesses fully represent the Catholic teaching, leading to the erroneous position that anything less than the Absolutist Petrine view is not Catholic, or that if one does not hold the Absolutist Petrine view, one cannot be Catholic.

Regarding St. Cyprian’s statement on the chief church from whence priestly unity takes its source: the interpretation ought to come in relation to his other works on unity in the Church.

Can you explain? I see from this statement that St. Cyprian recognized and affirmed that doctrinal unity with Rome was the standard (and still is for Catholics). He disagreed with Rome on the issue of rebaptism, but he did so only on the understanding that that issue was not a matter of doctrine, but a matter of discipline dependent on the local bishop.

On the parts you underlined, I do not see this as a claiming infallibility for the Pope of Rome. The Roman Church (the Romans) was renowned, from the time of St. Paul, to be faithful to Christ, and St. Cyprian is drawing a link of faithfulness between the Romans of St. Paul’s time to his present time.

Stating the Romans “to be faithful” is very different from asserting that the Church in Rome was the one to whom “faithlessness could not have access.” Your statement is an affirmation of the Roman Church’s extant condition. St. Cyprian’s statement is an affirmation that there is no possibility for faithlessness to occur, which refers not only to Rome’s extant condition, but also to its past and future condition.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Shiranui,

I understand the necessity of a head bishop or primus inter pares, but as I see it, if the Vatican suddenly blows up (cue alien invasion?) and we lose every single Roman hierarch; Pope, cardinal and bishop alike, then the Catholic Church still exists without that Church. The primacy merely moves to the next See down. That was my point. Otherwise, it seems to me that without Rome, there is no Catholic Church at all. That is not something I can agree with.

Well, that’s a pretty extreme case. I’ll respond in two ways:
(1) I don’t believe it can happen that the Vatican will disappear, or at least that the authority representing the Vatican will disappear. Our Lord Himself explicitly prophesied in Matthew 24 that he will set ONE servant over his household to feed it, and that upon His return, this servant will still exist. No less an authority than St. John Chrysostom specifically applied this passage to St. Peter and his successors in Rome!
(2) Let’s assume the impossible that the Vatican will disappear. This would not cancel the validity of Apostolic Canon 34, and a head bishop for the Church militant will be elected. It is not the case that the primacy will transfer to the next See down. What will happen is that the new head bishop will be the rightful successor to the Petrine See of Rome, even though the physical seat of that successsorship may be moved. You see this reality in the Church today - there are several head bishops who don’t have the physical seat of their See in their Traditional location, yet they are still considered the bishop of the ORIGINAL, Traditional location.

I believe I’ve seen some of those threads. One of them was in the Eastern Catholicism forum, and I believe the title ran something like “Papal Primacy and Infallibility,” right? I’ll look for it; I should be able to find it there. That being said, this explanation I find quite satisfactory. Now, if only it was the norm among us Romans…

Judging from my studies of the history of the Latin Church, I personally think that is the way it is in your Church. Three examples immediately come to mind:
(1) The First Vatican Council. It is not well known, but Pio Nono did NOT get everything he wanted out of that Council. One needs to study V1 in depth, and not just the cursory accounts you might read from Absolutist Petrine exaggerators or Low Petrine detractors.

(2) The issue surrounding married non-Latin clergy in the U.S. and other traditionally Latin territories. The fact of the matter is, the Pope has more often than not been on the side of the non-Latin Churches. The local authority of the local Latin bishops was the actual deciding factor in the restriction of married non-Latin clergy, not the “meddling” of the Pope in Eastern affairs. The Pope did everything in his power to support the Eastern Churches. This included:
(a) The insertion of a clause in Ea semper that made the restriction dependent on the condition of the times instead of establishing an absolute bar on married clergy. Not many Eastern Catholics appreciate or even realize that Ea semper was not well-received by the Latin bishops.
(b) Granting the Easterns their own bishop in the territory of the Latin bishops.
(c) Granting several indults from Ea semper to permit married Eastern clergy to serve in the U.S.

The Pope could mitigate matters for the Easterns, but the fact of the matter is that he really had no authority to simply override the authority of the local Latin bishops (which is by divine right) who did not want married clergy in their territory.

1. The issue of the Latin Liturgy. The fact of the matter is, the Second Vatican Council granted the local bishops (with the overseeing consideration of the local episcopal conference) the final say on the matter of the local Liturgy. A lot of Latins think that the bishop of Rome is the be-all and end-all of the Church and he has the authority to just override the authority of the local bishop at any time he deems fit. They expect so much from him, and when he does not deliver, they end up blaming him for every little thing. A lot of Latin Catholics expected HH Pope Benedict to just get rid of the novus ordo through some kind of motu proprio. The fact is, he can’t do that as a general rule, because V2 granted the final say on the matter to the local bishop. The fact is, the Pope is NOT above an Ecumenical Council (though indeed, neither is an Ecumencial council above the Pope). The fact is, Vatican 1 explicitly stated that the Pope does NOT have the kind of authority that can impede the local authority of an orthodox Catholic bishop.

A few questions I have with this list of criteria:
1: Is this regarding defining doctrine/dogma?

Yes. But one needs to distinguish that the definitive teaching of the ordinary Magisterium (which is just as infallible as the definitive teaching of the extraordinary Magisterium) is hardly ever referred to as “dogma.” Dogma more often and normatively refers to the definitive teaching of the EXTRAordinary Magisterium (i.e., the Pope ex cathedra or the Ecumenical Council). The definitive teaching of the ordinary Magisterium (i.e., which incorporates the idea of “any bishop”) can take centuries to establish, and would more often be referred to with expressions such as “de fide” or “in the Deposit of Faith” or “in Sacred Tradition.”

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

2: If it is the Orthodox Catholic faith, then why would it not be echoed by his brother bishops?

Well, we should hope it is, but that is not the point of the matter. The criteria listed is for the purpose of identifying an infallible teaching of the Church. Without all these criteria, saying “any bishop who teaches the Orthodox Catholic Faith is infallible” is tantamount to the expression “every bishop is his own Pope.” What if two bishops teach contradictory things? How can you be sure who is teaching the infallible, Orthodox Catholic Truth? Brother Josephdaniel’s statement is certainly no help, wouldn’t you agree? And what if half of all the bishops of the world teach something different and opposed to the other half of the bishops of the world? How can you decide? And what if MOST of the bishops of the world teach something contradictory to the rest (the minority) of the bishops of the world? Is the majority always right, or did we learn nothing from the Arian controversy?

Those considerations are a lead-in to the last criteria on this matter - the confirmation of the head bishop of the Church.

3: How is this any different than 2, if the Pope of Rome is a brother bishop as well? (You see why I also classify myself on a more Low Petrine side of things here )

That’s a great question. I have myself expressed a very similar (not identical) viewpoint in the past - several times. I have often commented (even complained) on the all-too-common expressions used by Catholics “the Ecumenical Council and the Pope” or “the College of bishops and the Pope.” I have always thought, “why do you have to say ‘and the Pope’?” To me it is a fallacious redundancy. In the Oriental Orthodox Tradition from which I came, when one says “Synod” one automatically understands that it means “the head bishop and his brother bishops.” For example, to say “the Synod and HH Pope Shenoute” would imply that the HH was not a member of the Synod, which is ridiculous. Similarly, the expressions used by many Catholics (I insist that it is not all Catholics) - especially Latin Catholics (I insist that it is not all Latins) - give the erroneous impression that the Pope is not a member of the Ecumenical Council or the College of bishops, but is rather apart from and/or above it.

But therein lies the admitted difference between our points of view. Though we would both look askance at the idea of separating the bishop of Rome from the collective body of bishops (either in a Council or the College), whereas you would include the bishop of Rome as “just another bishop,” I would include the bishop of Rome specifically as “the head bishop.” I hope you don’t take this insultingly - and forgive me if it seems that way - but I believe my perspective is more patristic than your own, for the Apostolic Canon 34 itself makes a unique distinction between the head bishop and his brother bishops.

Given all that, I must add that I am more understanding today of the Catholic expression “the Ecumenical Council and the Pope” or “the College of bishops and the Pope” than I was in the past. Having debated many EO on the matter since I became Catholic, especially those of the Low Petrine view, I have come to realize just how low of an appreciation many Easterns have of the office of the head bishop. If you were around back in the day when there was still an “Eastern Christianity Forum” here in CAF, you would have come across several EO who denied that there was even such a thing as a head bishop!!! Just a few months ago, I debated an Eastern Catholic at another website who claimed that the office of head bishop is not necessary (I refuted his view by quoting at least 5 canons from the ancient Church on the necessity of the head bishop, including Apostolic Canon 34 - to which he had no response). In light of that, I do feel it is sometimes necessary to insist on the unique identity of the head bishop in relation to the Synod/Council, even if just for the sake of making others aware that the office of head bishop indeed exists and is part of the divine constitution of the Church. Of course, I will always oppose the Absolutist Petrine use of the expression “the Ecumenical Council and the Pope” or “the College of bishops and the Pope” because I know they use it to pretend that the Pope is separate from and above the Ecumenical Council or College of bishops (as demonstrated by a recent debate I had with some Absolutist Petrine advocates in the Apologetics Forum).

I’m not entirely sure how it’s different, for reasons implied above.

I hope the explanations I gave have clarified the matter.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother dzheremi,

Could you please clarify your position? Are you saying that unity depends on utter uniformity in theology and theological expression? You use the example of the ACOE (though I’ve heard your particular position expressed against the OO, as well). I guess one of our Chaldean or Syro-malabar (or is it Syro-malankara?) brethren would be better suited to address the issue. As far as I know, the “reformation of the Nestorius” has been achieved through the process of understanding, not compromise or syncretism. The understanding has come about by a realization that some of the theological expressions used by the ACOE - though identical in form to the theological expressions of the rest of the Church - actually have a different meaning to the ACOE, which mitigates the heterodoxy of their expressions. The exact same process has occurred on the issue regarding the Two Natures between the Chalcedonians and the non-Chalcedonians, on the issue of filioque (at least between the members of the North American consultation), on the issue of homoousion during the First Ecumenical Council, etc., etc.

I think it’s a matter of taking the effort to exercise the spiritual fruit of understanding.

Blessings,
Marduk

I appreciate your friendly manner in discussing this, but I am afraid that this is a perfect example of why union is not forthcoming: It does not matter at all what Rome would or would not require of the Orthodox; it matters what Rome would intend to hold as true even as others disagree. For instance, my old FOC once informed me that Rome exonerated the despised heretic Nestorius in 1994, and in this new understanding of the man and his doctrine an agreement on intercommunion was reached between the RC and the Assyrian Church of the East. In the name of all that is holy, WHY?! The Nestorians did not renounce their erroneous doctrine, and certainly Rome did not adopt Nestorianism (or did they? I don’t think they did), so on what basis can you have communion between the two? I’m sorry, but communion cannot work this way. This is why it seems so weird and wrong to me that, for instance, the ECs do not have to recite the filioque, but nonetheless cannot teach against it (this is my understanding; if it is wrong, please correct me). Why is that? Why shouldn’t they, if it is against the traditional theology of the mother churches that they are told to return to? It doesn’t make sense to me. I do not want that kind of communion, with Rome or anyone. I do not think it is healthy. It seems quite schizophrenic.

 

[dzheremi]

Dear brother dzheremi,

Could you please clarify your position? Are you saying that unity depends on utter uniformity in theology and theological expression?

No, I wouldn’t put it that way. Certainly not “utter uniformity” in theological expression, nor really even in theology, with the caveat that certain things ARE not negotiable and must be held to, and that anything that differs must do so in a way that is not contradictory with the positions held by others in the communion. Certainly any one particular church within a communion is informed by its own unique history and saints which may lead to different theological outlooks – but if that leads to, say, rejecting a given truth that is shared by all in the communion, then it is not to be accepted, because it is not just a different theological expression of a commonly held truth, but some sort of rejection or innovation. Does that make sense? There can be variation in as much as is allowed within established Orthodox tradition. Start reaching outside of that, and you will get into problems.

You use the example of the ACOE (though I’ve heard your particular position expressed against the OO, as well). I guess one of our Chaldean or Syro-malabar (or is it Syro-malankara?) brethren would be better suited to address the issue. As far as I know, the “reformation of the Nestorius” has been achieved through the process of understanding, not compromise or syncretism.

“Reformation of Nestorius”? Is this an actual historical event, or a word applied to Rome’s caving in on the Nestorian heresy? I’m sorry, Sir, but there is absolutely no way I will say it is anything else. If you approve of Nestorius, that’s on you. I have heard plenty of discussions from Nestorians who explain his doctrine this way or that way to try to make it sound orthodox. It isn’t. He has been condemned for very good reason, and as far as I know he never repented of his error, and neither do those who follow him. What that has to do with Chaldeans or Syro-Malabars, I don’t know. Neither are ACoE, are they?

The understanding has come about by a realization that some of the theological expressions used by the ACOE - though identical in form to the theological expressions of the rest of the Church - actually have a different meaning to the ACOE, which mitigates the heterodoxy of their expressions.

I don’t buy it.

The exact same process has occurred on the issue regarding the Two Natures between the Chalcedonians and the non-Chalcedonians, on the issue of filioque (at least between the members of the North American consultation), on the issue of homoousion during the First Ecumenical Council, etc., etc.

I also don’t buy this. It has long been recognized that St. Cyril, whose “one nature of the incarnate word” explanation has been the source of so much conflict with the Chalcedonians, had himself an orthodox understanding of the nature of Christ. I have never seen any writing from any age that says otherwise, and indeed the EO do venerate him as an Orthodox saint (and rightly so). Is this the case with Nestorius? No, I don’t think it is. I don’t think he had an orthodox understanding of the issues his doctrine sought to explain, so I maintain it is right to keep away from him. Certainly some EO say the same about the OO. That doesn’t really help Nestorius, though, as he is rightly condemned by both communions. It is really not relevant.

 

[steve_b]

So, the Church can function without the Pope, and the Pope is not above a council.

The Church answers your question in 2 councils. None of this is my opinion, or my paraphrasing. links to both documents for full context provided. I only provide emphasis] which is all mine.

from Canons Vatican I Council


emphasis mine]

Session 4, Ch3

1. • Since the Roman pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole church, we likewise teach and declare that
   • he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52] , and that
   • in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53] .
   • The sentence of the apostolic see (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone,
   • nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54] . And so
   • they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontiff.
   1. • So, then,
      • if anyone says that
      • the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and
      • not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this
      • not only in matters of
      • faith and morals, but also in those which concern the
      • discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that
      • he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that
      • this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful:
      let him be anathema.
      
      Do you see the answer to your question?
      
      This subject is further explained in Vat II
      
      from Vatican II council (Lumen Gentium, Constitution on the Church)
      vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
      
      Re: college/collegiality explained.
      
      Preliminary Note of Explanation (found at the end of document Lumen Gentium)
      1. The College, which does not exist without the head, is said “to exist also as the subject of supreme and full power in the universal Church.” This must be admitted of necessity so that the fullness of power belonging to the Roman Pontiff is not called into question. For the College, always and of necessity, includes its head, because in the college he preserves unhindered his function as Christ’s Vicar and as Pastor of the universal Church. In other words, it is not a distinction between the Roman Pontiff and the bishops taken collectively, but a distinction between the Roman Pontiff taken separately and the Roman Pontiff together with the bishops. Since the Supreme Pontiff is head of the College, he alone is able to perform certain actions which are not at all within the competence of the bishops, e.g., convoking the College and directing it, approving norms of action, etc. Cf. Modus 81. It is up to the judgment of the Supreme Pontiff, to whose care Christ’s whole flock has been entrusted, to determine, according to the needs of the Church as they change over the course of centuries, the way in which this care may best be exercised—whether in a personal or a collegial way. The Roman Pontiff, taking account of the Church’s welfare, proceeds according to his own discretion in arranging, promoting and approving the exercise of collegial activity.
      2. As Supreme Pastor of the Church, the Supreme Pontiff can always exercise his power at will, as his very office demands. Though it is always in existence, the College is not as a result permanently engaged in strictly collegial activity; the Church’s Tradition makes this clear. In other words, the College is not always “fully active [in actu pleno]”; rather, it acts as a college in the strict sense only from time to time and only with the consent of its head. The phrase “with the consent of its head” is used to avoid the idea of dependence on some kind of outsider; the term “consent” suggests rather communion between the head and the members, and implies the need for an act which belongs properly to the competence of the head. This is explicitly affirmed in n. 22, 12, and is explained at the end of that section. The word “only” takes in all cases. It is evident from this that the norms approved by the supreme authority must always be observed. Cf. Modus 84.
         It is clear throughout that it is a question of the bishops acting in conjunction with their head, never of the bishops acting independently of the Pope. In the latter instance, without the action of the head, the bishops are not able to act as a College: this is clear from the concept of “College.” This hierarchical communion of all the bishops with the Supreme Pontiff is certainly firmly established in Tradition.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Dzheremi,

No, I wouldn’t put it that way. Certainly not “utter uniformity” in theological expression, nor really even in theology, with the caveat that certain things ARE not negotiable and must be held to, and that anything that differs must do so in a way that is not contradictory with the positions held by others in the communion. Certainly any one particular church within a communion is informed by its own unique history and saints which may lead to different theological outlooks – but if that leads to, say, rejecting a given truth that is shared by all in the communion, then it is not to be accepted, because it is not just a different theological expression of a commonly held truth, but some sort of rejection or innovation. Does that make sense? There can be variation in as much as is allowed within established Orthodox tradition. Start reaching outside of that, and you will get into problems.

“Reformation of Nestorius”? Is this an actual historical event, or a word applied to Rome’s caving in on the Nestorian heresy? I’m sorry, Sir, but there is absolutely no way I will say it is anything else. If you approve of Nestorius, that’s on you. I have heard plenty of discussions from Nestorians who explain his doctrine this way or that way to try to make it sound orthodox. It isn’t. He has been condemned for very good reason, and as far as I know he never repented of his error, and neither do those who follow him. What that has to do with Chaldeans or Syro-Malabars, I don’t know. Neither are ACoE, are they?

I don’t buy it.

I also don’t buy this. It has long been recognized that St. Cyril, whose “one nature of the incarnate word” explanation has been the source of so much conflict with the Chalcedonians, had himself an orthodox understanding of the nature of Christ. I have never seen any writing from any age that says otherwise, and indeed the EO do venerate him as an Orthodox saint (and rightly so). Is this the case with Nestorius? No, I don’t think it is. I don’t think he had an orthodox understanding of the issues his doctrine sought to explain, so I maintain it is right to keep away from him. Certainly some EO say the same about the OO. That doesn’t really help Nestorius, though, as he is rightly condemned by both communions. It is really not relevant.

My only response to your comments is to hold off judgment because I’m not sure what you think the ACOE understands of its own doctrine. Without knowing your actual understanding of what the ACOE believes, I would feel inclined to judge your position in the same way I would judge the claims of non-Catholics who misrepresent the teachings of the Latin Church - like the link given by the OP. These non-Catholics think they know more about the Catholic Church than Catholics themselves. You admitted that you have spoken to ACOE members and that they have presented their doctrine which “sounds” orthodox, but for some reason you cannot agree. I would like to know the reasons why you cannot agree.

This should be discussed in a new thread, if you are willing

As far as why I think it has anything to do with the Chaldeans and the Syro-malabars, I would think that is obvious - the ACOE is their mother Church. The pastoral provision is primarily for the benefit of Chaldeans and Syro-malabars in the “old country”, not for other Catholics who may not understand the nuances of their particular theology, and not for Chaldeans and Syro-malabars who have easy access to a Catholic Church of another Rite (such as those in the Western countries). I am not Chaldean or Syro-malabar, and, truth to tell, I do not fully understand their theology. So I do not feel I can conscientiously commune in an ACOE Church even if that was available to me. On the other hand, a Chaldean or Syro-malabar would probably have the “inside” scoop on understanding what it is about the ACOE theology that is compatible with the teaching of the rest of the Church.

Without understanding your own understanding of ACOE theology, I will say that your statement that the Catholic Church has “caved in” to Nestorianism is baloney. It’s obvious you are not aware that the Syriac Orthodox Church has a very good relationship with the ACOE, and that they have formally ceased anathemizing each other. The Coptic Orthodox Church has not done the same. But it’s obvious you are not aware that the divide between the Coptic Orthodox Church and ACOE is not primarily theological (tremendous progress and theological understanding had been achieved in talks between the Coptic Orthodox and the ACOE during the last decades of the 20th century), but exists on the grounds that, at the final stages of talks between the two Churches, the ACOE refused to anathemize the person of Nestorius. Many CO interepreted this to mean that the Assyrians were reneging on the theological fruits of understanding that had already been achieved. I believe that was an unfair knee-jerk reaction by my fellow Copts. You apparently base your rejection of the ACOE on theological grounds, and are unaware that such a dichotomy has largely been recognized at one time or another to no longer exist by just about everyone. The only ones who maintain your “the ACOE are heretics and still deserve anathema” position are the ones who have the exact same mindset that still regards the OO as heretics. I will frankly confess that I have no sympathy for that type of mentality whatsoever.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Steve,

Please don’t try to pawn off your absolutist Petrine errors to someone who is sitting on the fence. I think that is really, really insensitive. At least keep it to yourself. The High Petrine view is just as valid (and actually more valid), than your Absolutist Petrine position.

Do you see the answer to your question?

I’m concerned that you will mislead brother Shiranui on this matter, so I hope you don’t mind my responding here. The most you can obtain from the V1 Decree is exactly what it states - that the Ecumenical Council is not above a Pope. What mental gymnastics does an Absolutist Petrine advocate have to go through to conclude from this statement that the Pope is above an Ecumenical Council? I mean, plainly Vatican 1 asserted no such thing. You can only draw such a conclusion by a cut-and-paste series of syllogisms - exactly as you have done here.

This subject is further explained in Vat II

How you can obtain the idea that “the Pope is above an Ecumenical Council” from the even more explicitly collegial teachings of V2 is beyond me.

Blessings,
Marduk