Eastern Catholics, are we really Catholic?

[ASimpleSinner]

Hi ASimpleSinner,

I think I basically agree with what you are saying, but I think your arguments would go across better if you calm down a little. I see no reason that this shouldn’t be a friendly little discussion.

If my exasperation shows, I am sorry. I feel like we are having this same conversation in a time loop and when off-hand references to me in the third persons begin to fly, I am a littlle (understandably?) annoyed. That as the case may be, I reviewed it several times before hitting “Submit Reply” and was as confident as I could be that my approach was dispassionate and the tone was was not unfriendly. I am no neutral party, but I can only do so much.

Also, for the sake of anyone just joining us, it might help to mention that not everything you’re responding to is contained in the quote at the beginning of your post.

God bless,
Peter.

Peter in all fairness, anyone who wants to jump head-long into a post that is now 394+ posts long and has been going for a month… Well they need to be prepared to take a look at the archives a bit to get up to speed.

For my part, in reviewing the different tacts taken, I am seeing a pattern of lose/lose propositions and today it occured to me that we might need to change course a little. For all we are told we do that is wrong, damaging, or ill-considered, it would be helpful if it was clear what, in Michael’s mind, we should be. I have this nagging suspician that at the end of the day a lot of this turmoil and discussion is focussed on creating opportunities of polemic and strain in an issue that is ultimately anciallary to his understanding of Orthodoxy and non-Orthodox churches.

More simply put, if we get down to brass tacks and it is made clear that Michael and those who have voiced similar opinions don’t agree we should even exist, any discussion of “whats wrong with us” seems opportunity for controversy without end. Especially if ultimately (I truly believe) most would be unsastisfied with ANY union arrangement. (Again, if it would be satisfying to not have agreement of beliefs and retain total autonomy in the models of autocepholous polyarchy that hold sway today, that could be achieved by the various and sundry national Churches of the Orthodox communion unilaterally allowing for communion of Catholic faithful the way the Catholic Church has already done… We would all be in communion, and that would be that?)

In a real way it is like debating the arrangements of the deck chairs on the Titanic when one sees us in that light.

I could be way off, but at this point I felt it was just as easy to put most cards on the table with some straight questions hoping for straight answers so that I can be disabused of any misunderstandings I may have.

 

[Peter_J]

Peter in all fairness, anyone who wants to jump head-long into a post that is now 394+ posts long and has been going for a month… Well they need to be prepared to take a look at the archives a bit to get up to speed.

Touché. freesmileys.org/sigs/sigs-cartoon-008.gif

As I was typing that, I thought about changing it to “anyone who’s just joining us or has forgotten what’s come before.”

-Peter.

P.S. Incidentally, there’s a recent page on my website called “Dogma and Eastern Catholics”. (I just sent you a PM with a link to it.) You’ll probably see some similarity between what I said there and what you said here in response to Hesychios.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

If my exasperation shows, I am sorry. I feel like we are having this same conversation in a time loop and when off-hand references to me in the third persons begin to fly, I am a littlle (understandably?) annoyed. That as the case may be, I reviewed it several times before hitting “Submit Reply” and was as confident as I could be that my approach was dispassionate and the tone was was not unfriendly. I am no neutral party, but I can only do so much.

Peter in all fairness, anyone who wants to jump head-long into a post that is now 394+ posts long and has been going for a month… Well they need to be prepared to take a look at the archives a bit to get up to speed.

For my part, in reviewing the different tacts taken, I am seeing a pattern of lose/lose propositions and today it occured to me that we might need to change course a little. For all we are told we do that is wrong, damaging, or ill-considered, it would be helpful if it was clear what, in Michael’s mind, we should be. I have this nagging suspician that at the end of the day a lot of this turmoil and discussion is focussed on creating opportunities of polemic and strain in an issue that is ultimately anciallary to his understanding of Orthodoxy and non-Orthodox churches.

More simply put, if we get down to brass tacks and it is made clear that Michael and those who have voiced similar opinions don’t agree we should even exist, any discussion of “whats wrong with us” seems opportunity for controversy without end. Especially if ultimately (I truly believe) most would be unsastisfied with ANY union arrangement. (Again, if it would be satisfying to not have agreement of beliefs and retain total autonomy in the models of autocepholous polyarchy that hold sway today, that could be achieved by the various and sundry national Churches of the Orthodox communion unilaterally allowing for communion of Catholic faithful the way the Catholic Church has already done… We would all be in communion, and that would be that?)

In a real way it is like debating the arrangements of the deck chairs on the Titanic when one sees us in that light.

I could be way off, but at this point I felt it was just as easy to put most cards on the table with some straight questions hoping for straight answers so that I can be disabused of any misunderstandings I may have.

God bless you. I feel your frustration. As a Latin Catholic in fly over country USA I have had no exposer the the Eastern Rites of the Church, I have attended the DL of a Orthodox in a near by city. as there are not Eastern Catholic within 100 miles. do not understand those that try to divide and refuse to look at the points in common or even allow for that fact that people can believe the same thing and have different ways to express it. Bless are we that the church is both east and west and.

 

[Peter_J]

More simply put, if we get down to brass tacks and it is made clear that Michael and those who have voiced similar opinions don’t agree we should even exist, any discussion of “whats wrong with us” seems opportunity for controversy without end.

In this case I think you’ve grossly misunderstood what Michael is saying. It’s certainly true that some Orthodox, such as the monks of Mt. Athos, would want to require (among other things) “the incorporation of the so-called Uniate Churches and their subjection under the Church of Rome before the inauguration of the dialogue, because Unia and dialogue at the same time are irreconcilable.”

But what I see Michael saying is just the opposite – that the Eastern Catholic Church should not just be allowed to continue existing but should be given even greater autonomy.

God bless,
Peter.

 

[Peter_J]

God bless you. I feel your frustration. As a Latin Catholic in fly over country USA I have had no exposer the the Eastern Rites of the Church, I have attended the DL of a Orthodox in a near by city. as there are not Eastern Catholic within 100 miles.

I feel for you!

do not understand those that try to divide and refuse to look at the points in common or even allow for that fact that people can believe the same thing and have different ways to express it. Bless are we that the church is both east and west and.

Well said!

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Well said!

Thank you. I get lucky once in awhile.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

But what I see Michael saying is just the opposite – that the Eastern Catholic Church should not just be allowed to continue existing but should be given even greater autonomy.

God bless,
Peter.

This much I understand, Peter, but to what end? I mean if we adopt models of replicating autocephalous polyarchy wherein we are completely self-governing, electing our hierarchs however we will, making prudential decisions on whom to ordain… Aside from the mechanism changing as to how we are governed or self-governed changing, what are folks imagining will be the end result of such a move? Greater autonomy that can lead to contrarian theologies with the wider communion or greater leeway in breaking communion?

Balamand and Ravenna make clear that Rome is not pursuing models of fractional or unilateral communion with Eastern Churches outside or apart from their respective communions. For better or worse, policies of trying to entice or convince non-Catholic Easterners into unia have been largely abandoned (all sensationalist claims to the contrary not withstanding)… so I would think that there is little truth or value to the idea that the relationship of Rome to the Eastern Churches as we have it now serves as some sort of “show room model” for the future.

If Moscow were to go into full communion with the Latin Church now, save for the possibility of an inter-communion agreement demanding immediately that Rome get to appoint a flock of bishops themselves, what are the chances that the models of Eastern Catholic Churches in communion with Rome right now would be an influence or a real concern? By coming into communion with us now, 100 years from now they think Jesuits will have been able to add molebans to the Sacred Heart in every prayer book and a set of Stations of the Cross in every Church of the Orthodox communion worldwide, with some 300M+ canonical members? Not hardly.

The difference is as vast as taking a neighbors children into your home, versus tearing down a spite fence between your home and your neighbors.

Again, the Orthodox looking at us as the excuse or reason for failing greater effort for unity talks seems like a pedantic expedience. As it stands right now, in their situation of autocephalous polyarchy, any or all of the national churches could allow for communion of Catholics, and that first step would be taken. But in the end, if we don’t agree on the nature of the ecclesiology of the Church and issues of authority and hierarchy, the moment the first issue of contention hits that is devisive - with parties not yielding to a final authority, we will likely and essentially be right back where we started from.

 

[anthony022071]

St. Ephrem is used often to support doctrines that he never supported. For example he is used to support the Immaculate Conception when the fact is that he believed that Mary was made immaculate at the Annunciation.

At least if you are going to use his quotes give the reference so that people can check it.

You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than the others; for here is no blemish in you, nor any stains upon your Mother.
(St. Ephraim, Nisibene Hymns, 27:8)

My Lady Most Holy, All-Pure, All-Immaculate, All-Stainless, All-Undefiled, All-Incorrupt, All-Inviolate …Spotless Robe of Him Who clothes Himself with light as with a garment …Flower unfading, purple woven by God, alone Most Immaculate. (Ibid.)

Prayer of Praise:
O pure and immaculate and likewise blessed Virgin, who art the sinless Mother of thy Son, the mighty Lord of the universe, thou who art inviolate and altogether holy, the hope of the hopeless and sinful, we sing thy praises. We bless thee, as full of every grace, thou who didst bear the God-Man: we all bow low before thee; we invoke thee and implore thine aid. Rescue us, O holy and inviolate Virgin, from every necessity that presses upon us and from all the temptations of the devil. Be our intercessor and advocate at the hour of death and judgment; deliver us from the fire that is not extinguished and from the outer darkness; make us worthy of the glory of thy Son, O dearest and most clement Virgin Mother. Thou indeed art our only hope, most sure and sacred in God’s sight, to whom be honor and glory, majesty and dominion for ever and ever world without end. Amen.
Saint Ephrem the Syrian
freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1933201/posts

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than the others; for here is no blemish in you, nor any stains upon your Mother.
(St. Ephraim, Nisibene Hymns, 27:8)

My Lady Most Holy, All-Pure, All-Immaculate, All-Stainless, All-Undefiled, All-Incorrupt, All-Inviolate …Spotless Robe of Him Who clothes Himself with light as with a garment …Flower unfading, purple woven by God, alone Most Immaculate. (Ibid.)

Prayer of Praise:
** O pure and immaculate** and likewise blessed Virgin, who art the sinless Mother of thy Son, the mighty Lord of the universe, thou who art inviolate and altogether holy, the hope of the hopeless and sinful, we sing thy praises. We bless thee, as full of every grace, thou who didst bear the God-Man: we all bow low before thee; we invoke thee and implore thine aid. Rescue us, O holy and inviolate Virgin, from every necessity that presses upon us and from all the temptations of the devil. Be our intercessor and advocate at the hour of death and judgment; deliver us from the fire that is not extinguished and from the outer darkness; make us worthy of the glory of thy Son, O dearest and most clement Virgin Mother. Thou indeed art our only hope, most sure and sacred in God’s sight, to whom be honor and glory, majesty and dominion for ever and ever world without end. Amen.
Saint Ephrem the Syrian
freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1933201/posts

Gotta love St. Ephrem!

He must have been very familiar with Mary in relationship to the Ark of the Covenant.

 

[jimmy]

Anthony,

“The Light settled on Mary, as on any eye; it purified her mind, it cleansed her understanding, it washed her thought, it made her virginity sine. The river in which Christ was baptized conceived him again symbolically, the damp womb of the water conceived him in purity, and bore him in holiness, made him rise up in glory. In the pure womb of the river you should recognize the daughter of man, who conceived without the aid of man, and gave birth as a virgin, and who brought up, through a gift, the Lord of that gift. (H. Eccles. XXXVI, 2-4)”

This following one is from the person of Mary.

“The Son of the Most High came and dwelt in me, and I became his mother. As I gave birth to him, - his second brith - so too he gave birth to me a second time. He put on his mother’s robe - his body; I put on his glory. (H. Nativ.XVI,11)”

So according to Ephrem Mary was purified in her mind, her understanding and her thought. He also says that as she conceived Christ she was conceived in the new birth. So no, Ephrem did not profess the IC. The IC essentially says that Mary recieved the benefits of baptism at her conception but the Syriac fathers say that Mary recieved baptism at the conception of Christ in her womb. So in a sense it is an immaculate conception which occurs when Christ is conceived in Mary’s womb and it is applied to Mary but the fact is that Mary was not conceived immaculately at her physical birth according to Ephrem or Jacob or Serug or the other Syriac fathers.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

but the fact is that Mary was not conceived immaculately at her physical birth according to Ephrem or Jacob or Serug or the other Syriac fathers.

I see the Immaculate Conception in those above quotations. Anyhow, since it was not a dogma back then, nobody is required to believe in it. So do you belive in it now?

 

[jimmy]

I see the Immaculate Conception in those above quotations. Anyhow, since it was not a dogma back then, nobody is required to believe in it. So do you belive in it now?

Yet she still needed further cleansing and she still recieved baptism later when Christ was in her womb? That seems like an imperfect immaculate conception.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Yet she still needed further cleansing and she still recieved baptism later when Christ was in her womb? That seems like an imperfect immaculate conception.

So you do deny the dogma of the IC? If this is the case, I pity you.

 

[Harpazo]

You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than the others; for here is no blemish in you, nor any stains upon your Mother.
(St. Ephraim, Nisibene Hymns, 27:8)

My Lady Most Holy, All-Pure, All-Immaculate, All-Stainless, All-Undefiled, All-Incorrupt, All-Inviolate …Spotless Robe of Him Who clothes Himself with light as with a garment …Flower unfading, purple woven by God, alone Most Immaculate. (Ibid.)

Prayer of Praise:
O pure and immaculate and likewise blessed Virgin, who art the sinless Mother of thy Son, the mighty Lord of the universe, thou who art inviolate and altogether holy, the hope of the hopeless and sinful, we sing thy praises. We bless thee, as full of every grace, thou who didst bear the God-Man: we all bow low before thee; we invoke thee and implore thine aid. Rescue us, O holy and inviolate Virgin, from every necessity that presses upon us and from all the temptations of the devil. Be our intercessor and advocate at the hour of death and judgment; deliver us from the fire that is not extinguished and from the outer darkness; make us worthy of the glory of thy Son, O dearest and most clement Virgin Mother. Thou indeed art our only hope, most sure and sacred in God’s sight, to whom be honor and glory, majesty and dominion for ever and ever world without end. Amen.
Saint Ephrem the Syrian
freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1933201/posts

I don’t see where it says that she was conceived free of any sin. It mentions here being immaculate, which means pure.

Alaha minokhoun,
Andrew

 

[Ghosty]

Yet she still needed further cleansing and she still recieved baptism later when Christ was in her womb? That seems like an imperfect immaculate conception.

Cleansing understanding and purifying the mind don’t necessarily indicate a lack of purity and cleanliness prior to the event. We are continuously purified and cleansed, even when we have no sins. We grow in Grace and Glory after Baptism, and therefore become more and more pure.

There is nothing in the dogma of the Immaculate Conception that says that Mary had the full and final benefits of Divine Grace at her Conception; if she had, then she would not have died, she would not have felt sorrow (a sword would never “pierce her heart”), ect. It merely teaches that she lacked the inherent damage that we bear, not that she couldn’t grow any greater in Grace.

Nothing from those quotes indicate that Mary was impure or unclean prior to the Annunciation, only that she grew in Holiness at that time, which is totally correct and reflects Apostolic tradition.

That being said, he also doesn’t say anything that automatically indicates the Immaculate Conception. I think it’s an error to say that St. Ephrem is definitive in either direction.

Peace and God bless!

 

[anthony022071]

So according to Ephrem Mary was purified in her mind, her understanding and her thought. He also says that as she conceived Christ she was conceived in the new birth. So no, Ephrem did not profess the IC. The IC essentially says that Mary recieved the benefits of baptism at her conception but the Syriac fathers say that Mary recieved baptism at the conception of Christ in her womb.

Even Christ,though he was born sinless,needed to receive the baptism of repentence “for all righteousness”,and Paul says that Jesus “learned obedience” and was “perfected” through his suffering. So I don’t think that what Ephrem says in those quotes qualifies what he said about Mary being All-Pure,All-Immaculate.

In the Nisibene Hymn,27,Ephrem puts Mary’s purity on the same unique level as that as Christ.

catholic-legate.com/articles/immacconcept.html
< The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception comes to us from the Syrian-speaking Church in the East – the branch of early Christianity which was closest in culture to the original, Jewish community of believers. I’ve already presented two of the Syrian fathers, St. Ephraem and St. John Damascene, speaking about how sin never touched the Virgin Mary. Once again, they write,

St. Ephraem the Syrian (c. 350)

“Thou, and Thy Mother are alone in this. You are wholly beautiful in every respect. There is in Thee, Lord, no stain, nor any spot in Thy Mother.” (Poem to Christ).

And,

“My Lady Most Holy, All-Pure, All-Immaculate, All-Stainless, All-Undefiled, All-Incorrupt, All-Inviolate …Spotless Robe of Him Who clothes Himself with light as with a garment …Flower unfading, purple woven by God, alone Most Immaculate.” (Ibid).

St. John Damascene (645-750):

“The serpent never entered that Paradise.”

“O blessed loins of Joachim, whence the all-pure seed was poured out! O glorious womb of Anna, in which the most holy fetus grew and was formed, silently increasing! O womb in which was conceived the living heaven, wider than the wideness of the heavens…This heaven is clearly much more divine and awesome than the first. Indeed he who created the sun in the first heaven would himself be born of this second heaven, as the Sun of Justice…She is all beautiful, all near to God. For she, surpassing the cherubim, exalted beyond the seraphim, is placed near to God.” (Homily on the Nativity 2, 3, 9 PG 96:664,676)

Fr. Luigi Gambero notes: “John Damascene often speaks of Mary as a sublime creature, filled with spiritual treasures. Accordingly, his homily on the Nativity, for example, goes so far as to make clear and explicit allusions…to the mystery of the Immaculate Conception.” (Mary and the Fathers of the Church [Ignatius Press, 1999], page 401-2)

Indeed, we know that there was a 5th Century feast called the “Immaculate Conception” celebrated in the Syrian Church on December 9th. However, then the Monophysite controversy came along, and many Syrian-speaking Christians embraced the heresy of Monophysitism, which taught that Christ had only one nature (that of God) as opposed to two natures (God and man). At this time, the Greek-speaking Emperor at Constantinople started to replace the native, Syrian-speaking bishops of Antioch and the other Syrian bishoprics with Greek bishops from Constantinople. These Greek bishops were resented by the Syrians, and called “Melchites” (from the Syrian word for “king”) because they had been forced upon them by the Emperor.

Well, these Greek bishops had the Greek understanding of Original Sin (an understanding which is different from the Latin and Syrian understanding, and which is still prevalent in the Eastern Orthodox Church today). And, because of this, serious theological objections to this feast of Mary’s Immaculate Conception came into being. Therefore, the feast was eventually withdrawn from both the Greek and the Syrian Liturgical calendar because of these theological disputes (much like the ones we see later in the 13th century). Yet, this December 9th feast was eventually restored in the East, and is still celebrated today in the Eastern Orthodox (Greek) Church as the “Conception of Mary” – a more “politically correct” title for the wary Byzantines.

Yet, the feast of the Immaculate Conception did not disappear all together. In the 7th & 8th Centuries, as Islam was overruning the Christian Middle East and more and more Christian bishops fled to the West, we began to have a lot of Syrians elected as Pope! Among these were Pope John V (685-86), Pope St. Sergius I (687-701), Pope Constantine (708-15), Pope St. Gregory III (731-41), etc. Most likely through their influence, or the influence of their disciples, the Syrian feast of the Immaculate Conception was transported to Italy in the mid 7th century. >

 

[jimmy]

Cleansing understanding and purifying the mind don’t necessarily indicate a lack of purity and cleanliness prior to the event. We are continuously purified and cleansed, even when we have no sins. We grow in Grace and Glory after Baptism, and therefore become more and more pure.

The whole concept of cleansing means that prior to cleansing there was some sort of uncleanness. The same with purification. Purification is not equivalent to deification. It is not growing in communion with God necessarily.

 

[jimmy]

I don’t see where it says that she was conceived free of any sin. It mentions here being immaculate, which means pure.

Alaha minokhoun,
Andrew

Exactly. There is not one mention of it in the Syriac fathers. The Syriac fathers, including Ephrem speak of her being cleansed when Christ was in the womb.

Regarding Christ recieving baptism. Christ did not recieve Christian baptism, He recieved the baptism of John which is not the same as that of Christ. John himself makes the distinction when he says I baptize with water but He who follows will baptize with the Holy Spirit. Christ was baptized but it wasn’t so that He would be purified but that He would purify the waters of the world. That is stated clearly by the fathers of all languages and it is also mentioned by Pope Benedict in his book Jesus of Nazareth.

 

[Hesychios]

So you do deny the dogma of the IC? If this is the case, I pity you.

You are making a pretty appalling judgment on a fellow Catholic. You don’t know what sense his understanding is based upon.

In his argument he pointed out a clear inconsistency in the logic presented, and your reaction is to threaten him with some kind of foreboding.

In any case I believe in immaculate conception, for what it’s worth I view you and Jimmy as immaculately conceived too, just like Saint Mary of Nazareth!

I don’t pity you for it. It’s really Good News.

The Theotokos is not a great exception, she is the Great Example.

 

[Ghosty]

The whole concept of cleansing means that prior to cleansing there was some sort of uncleanness. The same with purification. Purification is not equivalent to deification. It is not growing in communion with God necessarily.

If that were the case then the Virgin Mary could not be called “all-undefiled” by the same Saint, since she would have had to have been defiled at one point. At the very least it would be a total break in the Syriac tradition to view Mary as some how corrupt prior to the Annunciation, and I think you’d agree with me on that. Given that as context, it’s impossible for it to mean that Mary was somehow “dirty” and was then cleaned.

I totally disagree that purification is not the same as Deification, however, at least in this context. Purity is, by definition, a closeness with God, the All-Pure and Holy. To grow in purity is to grow closer to God, especially since it is God alone, and God’s power working in us, that purifies. We do not purify ourselves, and we are not purified by participation in things other than God.

To say that purification is not the same as deification is, in my mind, to deny that God alone raises us up and makes us whole. Purification does not exhaust the meaning of Deification, but then no human term does.

On another note, whenever our minds are brought out of this world, and into contact with God, we are cleansed and purified even if we haven’t sinned. We are less bogged down by the perspectives of this world, and see Divine things more clearly, our “lenses are cleaned”. Mary certainly experienced this at the Annunciation; what was before a hazy perspective on the Messiah and human salvation became clearer and more acute, and her understanding was no longer clouded by the expectations she may have developed in her life prior to that. Likewise, her role in life was no longer a murky question, but rather she was told directly that she would be the Mother of God. She no longer had to be as concerned with the questions of this world, of her marriage, or of the politics of Israel and Rome, but was clearly set apart and touched directly by the Holy Spirit. If that’s not a cleansing and purification, I don’t know what is, but it doesn’t imply prior sinfulness at all.

She was made more fit, nearly perfected, in that moment in order to carry the Son and be His mother; that doesn’t mean she was in any way tarnished by sin up to that point, only that she grew into something more.

If you can find some Syriac writings that imply that she was some how tarnished and fallen before that, I’m very interested in seeing them. It would certainly clash with the understanding of the other Oriental traditions, which have her healing people when she was still in Anna’s womb.

Peace and God bless!