Dual Unity?

[Altar_Server_01]

Has Rome even made a statement on this if so what is there view since the UGCC is not a patriarchate wouldn’t they need Romes consent and to call on others points how can a church that is part of the Catholic church be in communion with the EP if the rest of the Catholic church isn’t this all confuses me so much

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Michael,

*]Would the UGCC still be bound to affirm Latin theological constructs as valid and binding upon it’s own following?

May I ask what “Latin theological constructs” Easterns (and Orientals too, for that matter) are bound to accept as valid?

It is my impression that if Eastern and Oriental Catholics accept Catholic dogmas originating from the Latins, it has been done because Eastern/Oriental Catholics genuinely don’t feel such dogmas contradict Eastern/Oriental theology. Thus, such dogmas would not be particularly Latin, but truly universal. Granted - Eastern/Oriental Orthodox may not agree with the reasoning of Eastern/Oriental Catholics for accepting them.

So is your phrase “Latin theological constructs” simply your expression for those things that Eastern/Oriental Catholics accept because we have determined them not to contradict Eastern/Oriental theology, but that the Eastern/Oriental Orthodox might reject because you don’t agree with the reasoning Eastern/Oriental Catholics propose for accepting them? Or are you talking about something else?

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. This is not what I wanted to P.M. you about.

 

[Peter_J]

Would it be condemned as a Melkite influenced malady?

“In the long run of history, the censor and the inquisitor have always lost. The only sure weapon against bad ideas is better ideas.”
-Alfred Whitney Griswold quotes

(In case anyone is wondering, I don’t actually agree with Griswold’s statement; but I like it because it makes you think.)

 

[bobzills]

I have been trying to figure out the theoretical mechanism for such a movement for some time now.

As my beloved brother Marduk points out, it is not without precedent. But things are not quite as simple as they once were.

K’yiv itself maintained communion with both Rome and Constantinople for a good many years after 1054AD as I understand it. Antioch as well for a few decades (I think). But these were not dealing with the complications of a formal Universal Jurisdiction claim, these synods were acting pretty much on their own and yet with the acquiesence of both Rome and Constantinople…

MY first thought was that granting the eastern Catholic churches autocephaly would make this kind of scheme eventually possible. (I ran it up the flagpole a few times, half in jest, but it seems nobody was receptive.) However, I am actually quite skeptical at this point. Like I said things seem more complicated now than they were so many centuries ago.

I note that the article did say…
Is it possible that Catholics will miss the import of such a pregnant phrase?.. This does not address the actual relationship the UGCC would have with Rome and leaves some questions to be answered such as…

1. 
   *]Would the UGCC still be under the Pope, or merely in communion with the Pope?
   *]Would the UGCC still be bound to affirm Latin theological constructs as valid and binding upon it’s own following? I would presume so, if it is not specifically addressed, but is that what the EP is presuming in his statement?
   *]Would the idea be for a corporate merger of the ecclesiastical structures in Ukraine, or for parallel structures with open communion between them? If they intend to share one Patriarch I would assume that we are thinking of a corporate merger without overlapping eparchies, but then what happens to point #1 and #2 ?
   *]What does this do to the concept of Universal Jurisdiction as claimed by the Latin Patriarchate? Are Catholics reading this like it further extends to the Orthodox in Ukraine while Bartholomew may be reading it like it is removed from the UGCC?
   *]What would this do to the diaspora UGCC? Will it’s bishops still be appointed by the Pope? Would it be severed from the deal because it is not actually in Ukraine?
   And finally, although I hate to bring it up, would this be received well in the conservative TradLat community? Would it be condemned as a Melkite influenced malady?..a slippery slope?..an impending disaster?
   
   Michael

1. 
   I think that these problems can be solved from a RCC perspective. Although I would like to see a reunion, which this news report seems to indicate is on the horizon, still, I am somewhat skeptical, at least at this point. The reason I say that is that this proposal seems to be similar to the Melkite proposal which was turned down. If the Melkite proposal was turned down, then what is different about this one? And a question arises about the relationship between the Ukranian Greek Catholic Church and the Russian Orthodox Church.

 

[East_and_West]

Probably not. I wouldn’t be surprised if “traditionalist” Catholics are already pointing to this article saying “See? See? The EP is out to snare all of us, starting with the Eastern Catholics.”

But so what? From my point of view, it will just be another entry in their list of things to complain about.

Is this on your list of things to complain about with regard to all traditional Catholics?

 

[Fuerza]

I’m not really sure if this would fly with everyone. Isn’t this essentially just another form of the Zoghby Initiative about which both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches expressed serious reservations?

Also, what implications would this have for the Eastern Catholic Churches? Wouldn’t this relegate them to a kind of “default” church for those who are not sure whether Catholicism or Orthodoxy is the true faith?

 

[invocation]

Also, what implications would this have for the Eastern Catholic Churches? Wouldn’t this relegate them to a kind of “default” church for those who are not sure whether Catholicism or Orthodoxy is the true faith?

wouldn’t it be more like…“who think Catholicism AND Orthodoxy are the true faith?”

 

[Fuerza]

wouldn’t it be more like…“who think Catholicism AND Orthodoxy are the true faith?”

Perhaps I should have said, “…for those who are not sure whether Catholicism or Orthodoxy is the true Church”.

Even if one thinks that the two share the same faith (which I actually do), it still must be acknowleged that they are different churches.

 

[Chellow]

I’m not really sure if this would fly with everyone. Isn’t this essentially just another form of the Zoghby Initiative about which both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches expressed serious reservations?

Also, what implications would this have for the Eastern Catholic Churches? Wouldn’t this relegate them to a kind of “default” church for those who are not sure whether Catholicism or Orthodoxy is the true faith?

Do you recall why the Zoghby Initiative didn’t work out.

 

[belgianwaffles9]

Probably not. I wouldn’t be surprised if “traditionalist” Catholics are already pointing to this article saying “See? See? The EP is out to snare all of us, starting with the Eastern Catholics.”

But so what? From my point of view, it will just be another entry in their list of things to complain about.

Thats ridiculous. What an uncharitable thing to say, clearly born out of a complete misunderstanding of what most traditional Catholics believe and feel.

Most traditional catholics, myself included, think the Eastern Catholic churches are an extremely valuable and important part of Catholicism. We would never blame them or think they were out to snare us. I cannot even immagine where you got that from.

The simple reason, from the traditional (read: sensible) viewpoint, that this could not work is that no Catholic, whether easern or western, could possibly be in communion with an Eastern Orthodox church while they are in schism against Rome and hold onto beliefs contrary to the Catholic faith.

The simple reason, from the traditional (read: sensible) viewpoint is that no Catholic, whether easern or western, could possibly be in communion with an Eastern Orthodox church while they are in schism against Rome and hold onto beliefs contrary to the Catholic faith.

However, that the Patriarch of Constantinople is thinking like this is a good sign that unity is, at least, on the minds of the top Eastern and Western prelates, and that it is not viewed as impossible.

Is this on your list of things to complain about with regard to all traditional Catholics?

Amen.

 

[Chris_McAvoy]

If the logic of this were followed, it is not clear why Catholics could not be in union with at least those “High” Anglicans whose orders were valid from Rome’s POV.​

this is more evidence that:

“In many ways Roman Catholics comprehend the Protestant mind better than they do the Eastern Orthodox, perhaps because they live in the same environment and possess a similar mentality.” - Fr. Francis Dvornik (Preface of Byzantium and Roman Primacy)

Belgian Waffles makes it clear that traditional catholics are in many ways saving the Church from liturgical abuse. Although I consider myself a traditional catholic I do not think that the Orthodox Churches teach anything contrary to the first millenium’s traditions in the Latin Catholic Church.

 

[Hesychios]

wouldn’t it be more like…“who think Catholicism AND Orthodoxy are the true faith?”

Now there’s a thought…

Perhaps I should have said, “…for those who are not sure whether Catholicism or Orthodoxy is the true Church”.

Oh…bummer.

Even if one thinks that the two share the same faith (which I actually do), it still must be acknowleged that they are different churches.

I do acknowledge that they are ontologically different.

I do not believe Papal Catholics and Orthodox Catholics share the same Faith. The differences, as minor as they actually seem to be, are very real.

Ontologically different …now who actually said that recently?

Oh…Patriarch Bartholomew!

 

[Hesychios]

The simple reason, from the traditional (read: sensible) viewpoint, that this could not work is that no Catholic, whether easern or western, could possibly be in communion with an Eastern Orthodox church while they are in schism against Rome and hold onto beliefs contrary to the Catholic faith.

I don’t know of any beliefs taught by Holy Orthodoxy which are condemned by the Papacy, not one.

None of the things taught by the Orthodox church are actually alien to your own church.

All one need do to see that is pick up any Byzantine Catholic catechism. The entire catalog of Orthodox beliefs will be found there, including the so-called “Palamite” theology.

And they pray the same prayers in the liturgy, even holding the same notion of how sacraments function! (For instance, they teach that the priest is the sacramental minister of marriage, not the couple.)

However, that the Patriarch of Constantinople is thinking like this is a good sign that unity is, at least, on the minds of the top Eastern and Western prelates, and that it is not viewed as impossible.

Ah…but what kind of unity? Would you know it when you saw it?

Would you like it? I am convinced that when Orthodox speak of church unity it does not match what Papal Catholics think of when they speak of church unity.

So we can all be for church unity, but what is that really?

For the record, I believe we have all been victims of a badly conceived piece of journalism. His Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew is looking for a way to get control of the Eastern Catholic churches of the Byzantine Slavonic rite. They were originally subject to the Patriarch of Constantinople and were stripped from that synodal authority a long time ago.

He wants them back, I don’t blame him…

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

I don’t know of any beliefs taught by Holy Orthodoxy which are condemned by the Papacy, not one.

You must mean “the Church”

And we condemn divorce, for one.

And we also condemn forcing Mary to have sinned somehow through Adams sin.

And we condemn contraception as well.

 

[Hesychios]

You must mean “the Church”

I said the Papacy.

And we condemn divorce, for one.

Yet your bishop of Rome can grant divorces, how neat!

And we also condemn forcing Mary to have sinned somehow through Adams sin.

That has to be a result of your misunderstanding of what Adam’s Sin was really about.

She did die, did she not? She was a real person with a human nature no? Her YES was a real yes, was it not?

She was no more or less sinful at birth than you were.

And we condemn contraception as well.

Except for the rhythm method, of course.

 

[jimmy]

Yet your bishop of Rome can grant divorces, how neat!

The Petrine Privilege. That is the name of it.

 

[Chellow]

You know what would be interesting, lets say this Dual Unity deal goes through and then Cardinal Husar is elected Pope, what then.

 

[bobzills]

Yet your bishop of Rome can grant divorces, how neat!.

And let’s not forget about marriage annulments which are granted quite frequently these days. Of course, annulments are granted because the marriage never happened. However, considering the trivial reasons for which an annulment may be granted, the defense of the annulment process amounts to being an exercise in casuistry.

 

[East_and_West]

And let’s not forget about marriage annulments which are granted quite frequently these days. Of course, annulments are granted because the marriage never happened. However, considering the trivial reasons for which an annulment may be granted, the defense of the annulment process amounts to being an exercise in casuistry.

:banghead: Good grief.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Except for the rhythm method, of course.

Ha, this shows you don’t even understand what *contra_ception *is!