C
ConstantineTG
Guest
From Ancient Faith Radio…
ancientfaith.com/podcasts/illuminedheart/eastern_catholics_are_they_orthodox
ancientfaith.com/podcasts/illuminedheart/eastern_catholics_are_they_orthodox
- Status
N
Nine_Two
Guest
Downloaded to my phone, I’ll have to listen to it tomorrow.
T
tradcathconvert
Guest
Very interesting program. Thank you so much for providing the link.
M
mardukm
Guest
For the most part, Fr. James Babcock (with all due respect) had a great opportunity to clarify matters, but he really didn’t. Again, with all due respect, he admited he really didn’t have a firm grasp of Latin theology to be able to clarify matters. I know it was only a 40-minute show, but he could have clarified matters concisely thus:
On the Immaculate Conception:
Latins don’t understand Original or Ancestral Sin the way we do. When the dogma of the IC says Mary did not have Original Sin, it doesn’t mean that Mary was not prone to physical corruption and death, but only that Mary was not separated spiritually from the Grace of God at any point of her existence.
On the matter of guilt in Original Sin:
The word “guilt” is actually a mistranslation of what the original teaching refers to. The original teaching of the Council of Trent actually refers to something more similar to a consequence of the Ancestral Sin, not the actual blame for the Ancestral Sin.
On filioque:
Filioque does not mean that the Son is the Source of the Holy Spirit. Only the Father is the Source. Filioque, which is literally translated as “and the Son” actually means “through the Son” in theology. The failed reunion Council of Florence actually asserted that “and” should be understood as “through.”
On Purgatory:
The only thing that the Catholic Church dogmatizes about it is that (1) there is a state or process of cleansing/perfection of the soul after death; (2) This cleansing or perfection is painful in some way; and (3) the suffrages of the Church and the Holy Sacrifice aid these souls in that process of cleansing/perfection. There is really nothing objectionable about that. Everything else that we find ourselves arguing about are just theologoumena.
On merit:
Merit is just the Grace of Christ applied.
On created Grace:
IIRC, Fr. Babcock admitted he was unfamiliar with the matter. Brother Ghosty in the past has demonstrated amply that the issue is just one of terminology. The notion of “created Grace” in Latin theology is not the opposite of “uncreated Grace” in Eastern theology.
The discussion on indulgences (with an admission from the host that the concept is not foreign to the Easten Tradition) and on infallibility (that it is not a matter of forcing acceptance) was handled sufficiently, IMO, given the time constraints.
I greatly appreciate the final statement that the Eastern Catholic Churches are there to promote understanding. However, I do believe with all my heart that the understanding must go both ways, not just in the direction of the East. In that light, my final impression was admittedly not good. To me, it made it seem like the Catholic communion of Churches is a bunch of Churches just waiting to burst at the seams, rather than a communion of Churches with a genuine mutual understanding that what each Tradition believes and teaches is not opposed to any of the others within that communion.
Blessings,
Marduk
On the Immaculate Conception:
Latins don’t understand Original or Ancestral Sin the way we do. When the dogma of the IC says Mary did not have Original Sin, it doesn’t mean that Mary was not prone to physical corruption and death, but only that Mary was not separated spiritually from the Grace of God at any point of her existence.
On the matter of guilt in Original Sin:
The word “guilt” is actually a mistranslation of what the original teaching refers to. The original teaching of the Council of Trent actually refers to something more similar to a consequence of the Ancestral Sin, not the actual blame for the Ancestral Sin.
On filioque:
Filioque does not mean that the Son is the Source of the Holy Spirit. Only the Father is the Source. Filioque, which is literally translated as “and the Son” actually means “through the Son” in theology. The failed reunion Council of Florence actually asserted that “and” should be understood as “through.”
On Purgatory:
The only thing that the Catholic Church dogmatizes about it is that (1) there is a state or process of cleansing/perfection of the soul after death; (2) This cleansing or perfection is painful in some way; and (3) the suffrages of the Church and the Holy Sacrifice aid these souls in that process of cleansing/perfection. There is really nothing objectionable about that. Everything else that we find ourselves arguing about are just theologoumena.
On merit:
Merit is just the Grace of Christ applied.
On created Grace:
IIRC, Fr. Babcock admitted he was unfamiliar with the matter. Brother Ghosty in the past has demonstrated amply that the issue is just one of terminology. The notion of “created Grace” in Latin theology is not the opposite of “uncreated Grace” in Eastern theology.
The discussion on indulgences (with an admission from the host that the concept is not foreign to the Easten Tradition) and on infallibility (that it is not a matter of forcing acceptance) was handled sufficiently, IMO, given the time constraints.
I greatly appreciate the final statement that the Eastern Catholic Churches are there to promote understanding. However, I do believe with all my heart that the understanding must go both ways, not just in the direction of the East. In that light, my final impression was admittedly not good. To me, it made it seem like the Catholic communion of Churches is a bunch of Churches just waiting to burst at the seams, rather than a communion of Churches with a genuine mutual understanding that what each Tradition believes and teaches is not opposed to any of the others within that communion.
Blessings,
Marduk
I
Inego_de_Loyola
Guest
C
Crescentinus
Guest
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
If the comment refers to one of the 23 Rites ( particular churches ) that are in union with the Universal ( Latin used to be called Roman
) Catholic Church, then yes they are " Orthodox. "
N
Nine_Two
Guest
I’m not going to touch on the other things out of a desire to not open those cans of worms, but this is quite a change from the Thomist theology you have previously advocated (and which has official standing in the Latin Church).
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Nine_Two,
Blessings,
Marduk
I did recently have a debate about it with Cavaradossi. My point was that the Latin Church, using Thomist theology (I guess you can call it that, though I don’t recall mentioning St. Thomas during that debate), understanding “cause” in different senses, distinguished the Father as Cause in the sense of Source (or “First Cause”), and the Son as Cause in the sense of agency (or “second cause”). Thus, the Father as “FIrst Cause” (or Source) possesses the quality of being “from,” while the Son as “second cause” (or agency) possesses the quality of being “through.” I’m not certain what you perceive as being different. Are you referring to a debate I had much further back? If so, what about that past debate do you perceive to be different from what I stated in this thread?
Blessings,
Marduk
R
revert_jen
Guest
It’s pretty much what I learned. From our standpoint (as humans who are not part of the Godhead, I mean) the Holy Spirit is coming from the Father and the Son. In fact, the Holy Spirit originates with the Father, and reaches us through the Son. I understood that the reason for the confusing wording was twofold: The original filioque addition started as a popular devotion, rather than proceeding (as it were) from a council, so it was perhaps not defined as precisely as one would like. Also, the Latin “procedere” means both proceeding from and proceeding through, so although the nature of the procession is different, there isn’t any simple way to make that clear in the Latin. The Creed is a prayer, not a doctoral dissertation, so there are limits as to length.
Anyway, that is what I was taught as a “Latin,” but I am not a trained theologian and I do not have a perfect memory, so I might have gotten some things wrong.
–Jen
F
Fone_Bone_2001
Guest
Please note that “rite” is not a synonym for “particular church” or “ritual church” or “sui iuris church.” Thus, it is incorrect to speak of “the 23 rites.” There are not 23 rites. There are five or six eastern/oriental rites, and a handful of Latin rites (though the Roman Rite’s widespread usage dwarfs the others).If the comment refers to one of the 23 Rites ( particular churches ) that are in union with the Universal ( Latin used to be called Roman
Also, concerning the words “Latin” and “Roman”:
My understanding is this…
The “Church of Rome” is the diocese of Rome only.
The Latin Church is all those western churches that are in communion with the Roman Pontiff, and whose patriarch he would also be if the “Pentarchy” were still intact.
The “Roman Catholic Church”, outside of CAF and other communities where people know what they’re talking about, refers to the entire Catholic Church. I don’t like it, but that’s how the term is used. (Here on this forum the term is usually a synonym for the Latin Church)
M
Matthew_Holford
Guest
Please note that “rite” is not a synonym for “particular church” or “ritual church” or “sui iuris church.” Thus, it is incorrect to speak of “the 23 rites.” There are not 23 rites. There are five or six eastern/oriental rites, and a handful of Latin rites (though the Roman Rite’s widespread usage dwarfs the others).
Also, concerning the words “Latin” and “Roman”:
My understanding is this…
The “Church of Rome” is the diocese of Rome only.
The Latin Church is all those western churches that are in communion with the Roman Pontiff, and whose patriarch he would also be if the “Pentarchy” were still intact.
The “Roman Catholic Church”, outside of CAF and other communities where people know what they’re talking about, refers to the entire Catholic Church. I don’t like it, but that’s how the term is used. (Here on this forum the term is usually a synonym for the Latin Church)
G
Ghosty
Guest
Actually, Mardukm is presenting precisely the Thomist position. It’s even laid out this way in the Summa.
Peace and God bless!
P
Peter_J
Guest
Very good podcast.
I did think he got a trifle negative near the end. He said that we’re not interested in Orthodox switching to ECism, which I completely agree with; but then he went on to say that we aim to disappear. Not that he was saying anything completely original there, but nevertheless I found it a tad negative, no to mention a bit simplistic.
V
Vico
Guest
We interrupt the regularly posted topic to discuss use of the word “rite” which has various meanings and has been applied differently. One example is from Pope Paul VI:
**THE INDIVIDUAL CHURCHES OR RITES **
2. The Holy Catholic Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ, is made up of the faithful who are organically united in the Holy Spirit by the same faith, the same sacraments and the same government and who, combining together into various groups which are held together by a hierarchy, form separate Churches or Rites. Between these there exists an admirable bond of union, such that the variety within the Church in no way harms its unity; rather it manifests it, for it is the mind of the Catholic Church that each individual Church or Rite should retain its traditions whole and entire and likewise that it should adapt its way of life to the different needs of time and place.(2)
**THE INDIVIDUAL CHURCHES OR RITES **
2. The Holy Catholic Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ, is made up of the faithful who are organically united in the Holy Spirit by the same faith, the same sacraments and the same government and who, combining together into various groups which are held together by a hierarchy, form separate Churches or Rites. Between these there exists an admirable bond of union, such that the variety within the Church in no way harms its unity; rather it manifests it, for it is the mind of the Catholic Church that each individual Church or Rite should retain its traditions whole and entire and likewise that it should adapt its way of life to the different needs of time and place.(2)
- These individual Churches, whether of the East or the West, although they differ somewhat among themselves in rite (to use the current phrase), that is, in liturgy, ecclesiastical discipline, and spiritual heritage, are, nevertheless, each as much as the others, entrusted to the pastoral government of the Roman Pontiff, the divinely appointed successor of St. Peter in primacy over the universal Church. They are consequently of equal dignity, so that none of them is superior to the others as regards rite and they enjoy the same rights and are under the same obligations, also in respect of preaching the Gospel to the whole world (cf. Mark 16, 15) under the guidance of the Roman Pontiff.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
Well I’d start with the terminology “second cause” to begin with.
However this is a digression and I don’t particularly care to get into a debate on that subject in this thread.
Having now listened to the interview, I have to say I found it fascinating, strangely because it seems to back up exactly what a number of Eastern Catholics have said on this forum regarding how the East perceives the Theology of the West. Like Allen, I was surprised there was not more disagreement - Fr. James (I assume Eastern Catholics do the Orthodox thing of using first name instead of last when addressing a priest) was himself very Orthodox, and though there were a few points of disagreement, represented an Eastern Orthodox viewpoint on a great many issues quite well.
Most interesting of all I found was his admission that the union of the Melkites and Rome reunited prematurely, and the ideal for reunification would see his church cease to exist. I’ve heard Eastern Catholics allude to this before, but I’ve never heard it said in such an outright manner.
I still can’t claim to understand the Eastern Catholic mindset, but this does help somewhat.
I’m curious if anyone can tell me what sort of standing Fr. James has in the Melkite Church?
N
Nine_Two
Guest
Perhaps in the same way that the first line of the Nicean Creed presents the Islamic position. You’re only touching the surface. Go deeper and you find the issues.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
Wait… Since when are you Melkite?
I did find his answers toward the end a bit unexpected (and negative from a Melkite perspective), and it sounded like his interviewer did as well.
My apologies for making all these consecutive posts.
V
Vico
Guest
Rt. Rev. Archimandrite James Babcock is the editor and chief of Sophia Journal in the Eparchy of Newton. He is the pastor of Holy Cross Melkite-Greek Catholic Church in Placentia, CA. From H.B. Bishop Nicholas (Samra) of the Eparchy of Newton, July 7, 2012:With the appointment of our former rector, Archimandrite Robert Rabbat, as Bishop of our Church in Australia – we are grateful for his service to our eparchy and especially as editor of Sophia magazine, I appointed Archimandrite James Babcock as the new editor of Sophia; he is doing a tremendous job.
melkite.org/eparchy/chancery/state-of-the-eparchy-address-2012
melkite.org/chancery
G
Ghosty
Guest
I studied the issue under the Dominican who teaches this subject at the Angelicum. How much deeper do I need to go?
Mardukm’s explanation here is the Thomist position, plain and simple.
Peace and God bless!
- Status