Ecumenical Councils and Eastern Catholics

[TrentCath]

Fair enough. I guess I’ve just never understood laying the blame for such things at the feet of the council itself. Sure, the same currents of change that inspired much of the council may also have been the inspiration for subsequent western abusive liturgical innovations, but that doesn’t change the fact that such abuses were nonetheless actually contrary even to the spirit of Vatican II…

But my diocese has plenty of reverent, obedient parishes, so I suppose I may be biased because of that. Plus, I wasn’t born until the late 1980s, so I probably didn’t even live to see the most egregious abuses…

You don’t have to have lived in the 80’s to witness bad abuses, try sitting through a Mass where the Priest invites everyone to sit around the altar while he celebrates mass and only asks to move back (but not off the sanctuary) when he consecrates…or where an altar boy gives communion to himself and then proceeds to give out communion to everyone else whilst the priest stands behind the altar doing nothing. And this only happened a few months ago…

 

[Vico]

I think one has to distinguish between the legal framework and doctrinal framework here. According to Canon Law (or at least what passes for it these days) 'a person is enrolled in a specific church sui iuris) but all are part of the Roman Catholic Church, in the sense that that church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. I humbly submit that this can be seen from the documents of the First Vatican Council which I have referred to time and time again and which unlike Canon law or a commentary on law is infallible and irreformable.

Please explain how that helps in understanding your statement that I replied to:

“No, they are rites within the Roman Catholic Church. And No it is a church (with a small c) that makes up the Roman Catholic Church.”

 

[TrentCath]

Please explain how that helps in understanding your statement that I replied to:

“No, they are rites within the Roman Catholic Church. And No it is a church (with a small c) that makes up the Roman Catholic Church.”

I’m not sure the statement needs much explanation, it seems rather self-explanatory? My response was rather to your quote from the new commentary of canon law, my point being that there is a difference between ‘churches’ in the legal sense e.g sui juris, and The Church in the Dogmatic sense that is, as the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. My point was further that the First Vatican Council explicitly identifies the Roman Catholic Church as the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church without mentioning any others and that this seems problematic for those that hold that each ‘church’ is also the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

The problem with the statement “they are rites within the Roman Catholic Church” is that more than one EC Particular Church can share the same rite. In addition, “Roman Catholic Church” has always been understood as “Roman Rite Catholic (Particular) Church” in the East.

Eastern Catholics would resist (probably to the death) that they are “Roman Catholics” in any sense. They have had a nasty history of enforced Latinization under a monolithic model of Roman Catholic ecclesial theology and praxis.

Trent and Vatican I are also not the final word on papal authority and jurisdiction. In fact, Vatican II and its document on the Eastern Catholic Churches affirmed that the EC Churches have the right to govern themselves (in union with the Pope of Rome).

So “rite” is an entirely weak category to describe the Particular Catholic Churches of the East with their own hierarchies and patriarchates that are in union with the pope of Rome within a collegial framework.

The idea that Eastern Catholics are “Roman Catholics of the Eastern Rites” is an ecclesial model that has died out long ago (happily).

As for the Ukrainian Catholic Church, she acts as a patriarchal church, without Rome’s approval or disapproval, with our patriarch and his patriarchal synod looking after the internal affairs of our Church.

The Holy Roman Catholic Church won’t acknowledge our patriarchate, not because of Trent or Vatican I, but because of its relationship with the patriarchate of Moscow.

I would like to ask TrentCath here is he agrees with that Vatican stance that would even limit the influence of the Ukrainian Catholic Church in Ukraine (we built our UGCC Cathedral in Kyiv without telling Rome or asking its precious permission).

The issue about Roman jurisdiction is rather dated, in terms of this contemporary development. What does TrentCath say about Vatican ostpolitik with respect to the UGCC that has produced so many martyrs and confessors of the Catholic Faith? Let’s talk in terms of today’s realities!

Alex

 

[TrentCath]

The problem with the statement “they are rites within the Roman Catholic Church” is that more than one EC Particular Church can share the same rite. Yes, that is rather problematic. Frankly introducing particular national churches appears to divide rather than unify the Church and introduce the orthodox problem of national churches into it. But be that as it may for the time being that is the situation in the churchIn addition, “Roman Catholic Church” has always been understood as “Roman Rite Catholic (Particular) Church” in the East.Sadly the East was in schism for several hundred years and then went on (and by this mean a majority of the churches of the east) to declare and teach heresy and obstinately refuse to obey the Papacy. So you’ll forgive me if after the time of the fathers and even more so after the schism I don’t pay much attention to what the east says.

Eastern Catholics would resist (probably to the death) that they are “Roman Catholics” in any sense. That may well be, but the teaching of The Church is otherwise and their duty is to obey The Church and follow its teachings They have had a nasty history of enforced Latinization under a monolithic model of Roman Catholic ecclesial theology and praxis. Would someone care to explain to me this problem of Latinization? I must confess It’s not a subject I know a whole lot about

Trent and Vatican I are also not the final word on papal authority and jurisdiction. In fact, Vatican II and its document on the Eastern Catholic Churches affirmed that the EC Churches have the right to govern themselves (in union with the Pope of Rome). No church can govern itself in exclusion to the pope of rome. To use the term ‘…govern themselves’ is therefore misleading, technically all bishops govern their own dioceses and bishops conferences collegially a particular country. All are however subordinate to the Pope and he can overrule them on any matter whether it be disciplinary or to do with faith or morals. Such a right has always been the teaching of the church and is guaranteeded by the councils of Florence and Vatican I as well as all the Code’s of Canon Law

So “rite” is an entirely weak category to describe the Particular Catholic Churches of the East with their own hierarchies and patriarchates that are in union with the pope of Rome within a collegial framework. Collegial framework is frankly speaking somewhat alien to the Churches Magesterium

The idea that Eastern Catholics are “Roman Catholics of the Eastern Rites” is an ecclesial model that has died out long ago (happily).I’m not sure something enshrined in Ecumenical Councils can ever ‘die out’, it may be ignored or brushed under the carpet but that makes it no more true

As for the Ukrainian Catholic Church, she acts as a patriarchal church, without Rome’s approval or disapproval, with our patriarch and his patriarchal synod looking after the internal affairs of our Church.

The Holy Roman Catholic Church won’t acknowledge our patriarchate, not because of Trent or Vatican I, but because of its relationship with the patriarchate of Moscow.**So you admit that calling yourselves a patriarchate is an act of rebellion against the very see you claim to be in union with? Or at the very least ‘obstinate and public disobedience’? And no perhaps The Holy Father has realised that he does not want to introduce the Orthodox problem of national churches and friction between them into The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church/B]

I would like to ask TrentCath here is he agrees with that Vatican stance that would even limit the influence of the Ukrainian Catholic Church in Ukraine (we built our UGCC Cathedral in Kyiv without telling Rome or asking its precious permission).**All I have to say on this matter is what God through the ecumenical councils has seen fit to declare 'Wherefore we teach and declare that,

by divine ordinance,
the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that
this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both
    episcopal and
    immediate. 
Both clergy and faithful,
    of whatever rite and dignity,
    both singly and collectively, 
are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this
    not only in matters concerning faith and morals,
    but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.

In this way, by unity with the Roman pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the church of Christ becomes one flock under one supreme shepherd [50] .

This is the teaching of the catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation. ’ I would draw particular emphasis to the last line in order to emphasise the seriousness of disagreeing with this view of The Church.****

The issue about Roman jurisdiction is rather dated, in terms of this contemporary development. What does TrentCath say about Vatican ostpolitik with respect to the UGCC that has produced so many martyrs and confessors of the Catholic Faith? Let’s talk in terms of today’s realities! There are no yesterdays, todays and tommorows realities, there are simply truths which are eternal and apply to the past, present and future equally. That said would you care to expand about what you mean by Vatican ostpolitik?

Alex

 

[Cecilianus]

No, because of course the entire Orthodox Church refusing to accept Papal infallibility, the supreme and plenary jurisdiction of the pope, indulgences, purgatory or the crowing of Mary as queen of heaven and Earth arent departing from the doctrines of the church

No, they’re not. The Catholic Church has never regarded the Orthodox as heretics - the ecclesiastical situation is a schism. The fact that we do not use Latin terminology or the forensic model of justification (and all the baggage that goes with it, including the term “indulgence”) does not mean they we depart from the doctrine of the Church.

The Council of Florence did not insist on physical combustion (“material fire”) in Purgatory, only on the purgation of sins which we have always accepted, regardless of whether it’s called purgatory, “toll houses”, theloneia, mytarstva, or not given a name at all. See this, for example:

johnsanidopoulos.com/2010/09/on-benefits-of-forty-liturgies-for.html

And you can clearly see that this purification can be done vicariously. We still fast for forty days every year as an “indulgence” if you must for St. Philip in the “Philipovka” or Nativity Fast, one of the four annual fasts once kept by the universal Church up through the day of St. Leo the Great when Roman Catholics still fasted. Here’s my source, again Orthodox:

johnsanidopoulos.com/2010/09/on-benefits-of-forty-liturgies-for.html

Your assertion about the Theotokos is genuinely puzzling. Byzantine Christians are a model for devotion and honor to Our Lady, a model which make the West look Protestant by comparison (how often do you say “More honorable than the Cherubim, and beyond compare more glorious than the Seraphim, who without spot gave birth to God the Word, truly do we magnify” every Liturgy and every time you pray? - don’t get offended at my teasing please; I know you can’t see my impish grin over the internet but I am only poking light-hearted fun at you). There is no teaching or doctrine about her that we reject - as unhappy as some of us may have been about the non-synodical promulgation of the last two (I personally am happy with the fact). The term “Queen of Heaven and Earth” is not a particularly Byzantine term or an Eastern devotion, though I recall seeing her called our Queen (probably “Tsaritsa” in the original) I believe in St. Theophan the Recluse, but it need not be. The Church embraces both Byzantine and Latin spirituality, and does not reject one for not having something in its devotional life that developed later in the other lung of the Church.

The Rosary devotion is not a “teaching” or “dogma”, it is a devotion. I’m not sure how you would phrase it in terms of a teaching. An ikon of the Theotokos hangs over the door of the nave of every Orthodox temple, which you can see walking out (facing west), and the reason my priest gave me is that it is Mary’s house - she is the mother of the household, and in charge of the place like every Jewish mother.

In the Theotokos Lestovka, our version of the Rosary antedating the Dominican one by several hundred years (it came to Russia, where it was kept alive mainly by the Old Believers, from Mount Athos, where it is believed to have originated from some form in the Egyptian Thebaid in the 4th century), the fifteenth mystery is not the Crowning of Mary but the Pokrova or Protecting Veil of the Theotokos, the summit of our Marian spirituality.

I would like to ask you to retract your statement that my Church is not the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. I am in communion with and obedient to the Pope of Rome, and therefore he acknowledges that I am as Catholic as the Pope, and my Carpatho-Rusyn Greek-Catholic Church is just as much the Catholic Church as your Roman Catholic Church is. Your denial of this constitutes an act of schism from me, and if you break communion with me then you break communion with the Pope who remains in communion with me, and you are no longer a Catholic.

If you insist that I am a Roman Catholic, you are just committing a factual error, and this isn’t a matter for disagreement. I’m pretty sure I know what religion I am! I have a letter from the Roman Catholic archbishop giving his blessing for (or at least informing me that he declined to protest) my canonical transfer to the Eparchy of Parma and releasing me from his jurisdiction and that of the Roman Catholic Church in the name of the Pope. The archbishop doesn’t think I’m Roman Catholic any more, and he seemed to think that his Church is a real, jurisdictional particular Church just as the Ruthenian one is.

 

[TrentCath]

No, they’re not. The Catholic Church has never regarded the Orthodox as heretics - the ecclesiastical situation is a schism. The fact that we do not use Latin terminology or the forensic model of justification (and all the baggage that goes with it, including the term “indulgence”) does not mean they we depart from the doctrine of the Church. I’ve yet to see anyone disprove the fact that the Orthodox obstinately and consistently refused (and still refuse) to accept Papal Supremacy or Infallibility and lets not even get started on the filioque…

The Council of Florence did not insist on physical combustion (“material fire”) in Purgatory, only on the purgation of sins which we have always accepted,Actually it also insisted on ‘Cleansing Pains’, ‘Also, if truly penitent people die in the love of God before they have made satisfaction for acts and omissions by worthy fruits of repentance, their souls are cleansed after death by cleansing pains’ **** regardless of whether it’s called purgatory, “toll houses”, theloneia, mytarstva, or not given a name at all. See this, for example:

johnsanidopoulos.com/2010/09/on-benefits-of-forty-liturgies-for.html

And you can clearly see that this purification can be done vicariously. We still fast for forty days every year as an “indulgence” **I would point out that there is a difference between ‘sacrifices of masses, prayers, almsgiving and other acts of devotion’ and Indulgences. Indulgences are according to the New Catholic Encyclopaedia ‘An indulgence is the extra-sacramental remission of the temporal punishment due, in God’s justice, to sin that has been forgiven, which remission is granted by the Church in the exercise of the power of the keys, through the application of the superabundant merits of Christ and of the saints, and for some just and reasonable motive.’**if you must for St. Philip in the “Philipovka” or Nativity Fast, one of the four annual fasts once kept by the universal Church up through the day of St. Leo the Great when Roman Catholics still fasted. Here’s my source, again Orthodox:

I take it then that you consider the Patriarchal Enyclical of 1895 to be ‘unorthodox’, said enyclical states ‘XII. The one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils, walking according to the divinely inspired teaching of the Holy Scripture and the old apostolic tradition, prays and invokes the mercy of God for the forgiveness and rest of those ‘which have fallen asleep in the Lord’; [13] but the Papal Church from the twelfth century downwards has invented and heaped together in the person of the Pope, as one singularly privileged, a multitude of innovations concerning purgatorial fire, a superabundance of the virtues of the saints, and the distribution of them to those who need them, and the like, setting forth also a full reward for the just before the universal resurrection and judgment.’ That seems like a pretty straightforward refutation of the theology behind indulgences as well as the Popes right to grant them. It also criticise the uses of unleavened bread, not immersing during baptism etc… and is one of a long list of documents written by Eastern Patriarchs and Saints that oppose and even insult the Church’s Teachings

johnsanidopoulos.com/2010/09/on-benefits-of-forty-liturgies-for.html

Your assertion about the Theotokos is genuinely puzzling. Byzantine Christians are a model for devotion and honor to Our Lady, a model which make the West look Protestant by comparison **I’ll retract this assertion then but seeing as the Church proclaims the Immaculate Conception and assumption of the blessed Vigin Mary as well as her divine queenship, I can hardly see it being protestant **(how often do you say “More honorable than the Cherubim, and beyond compare more glorious than the Seraphim, who without spot gave birth to God the Word, truly do we magnify” every Liturgy and every time you pray? - don’t get offended at my teasing please; I know you can’t see my impish grin over the internet but I am only poking light-hearted fun at you). Oh don’t worry I dont take things that seriously, I would just refer you to the little office of the blessed Virgin or the Litany of the blessed Virgin Mary for equally beautiful statements

In the Theotokos Lestovka, our version of the Rosary antedating the Dominican one by several hundred years the fifteenth mystery is not the Crowning of Mary but the Pokrova or Protecting Veil of the Theotokos, the summit of our Marian spirituality. Fascinating! I could go on about the divine institution of the Holy rosary but I wont, I’ll just look up more information about your version of it

I am in communion with and obedient to the Pope of Rome, and therefore he acknowledges that I am as Catholic as the Pope, and my Carpatho-Rusyn Greek-Catholic Church is just as much the Catholic Church as your Roman Catholic Church is. Your denial of this constitutes an act of schism from me, and if you break communion with me then you break communion with the Pope who remains in communion with me, and you are no longer a Catholic. I’m afraid I cannot, I confess ONE Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church not several, I will accept that your church is part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church but not that it IS said church.

The archbishop doesn’t think I’m Roman Catholic any more, and he seemed to think that his Church is a real, jurisdictional particular Church just as the Ruthenian one is.I’ve gone into the difference between the legal and Dogmatic definition of Church and churches in numerous posts and have no wish to do it again

 

[Cecilianus]

I take it then that you consider the Patriarchal Enyclical of 1895 to be ‘unorthodox’, said enyclical states ‘XII. The one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils, walking according to the divinely inspired teaching of the Holy Scripture and the old apostolic tradition, prays and invokes the mercy of God for the forgiveness and rest of those ‘which have fallen asleep in the Lord’; [13] but the Papal Church from the twelfth century downwards has invented and heaped together in the person of the Pope, as one singularly privileged, a multitude of innovations concerning purgatorial fire, a superabundance of the virtues of the saints, and the distribution of them to those who need them, and the like, setting forth also a full reward for the just before the universal resurrection and judgment.’ That seems like a pretty straightforward refutation of the theology behind indulgences as well as the Popes right to grant them. It also criticise the uses of unleavened bread, not immersing during baptism etc… and is one of a long list of documents written by Eastern Patriarchs and Saints that oppose and even insult the Church’s Teachings

I believe it is a gross calumny against the Church of Rome, and I believe they are wrong in rejecting the Orthodoxy of the West.

johnsanidopoulos.com/2010…rgies-for.html

I’ll retract this assertion then but seeing as the Church proclaims the Immaculate Conception and assumption of the blessed Vigin Mary as well as her divine queenship, I can hardly see it being protestant

The ultra-vostochnik hieromonk serving at our church once said to me, “You know, you should go look at the Armenians some time; they make us look Protestant by comparison”.

Oh don’t worry I dont take things that seriously, I would just refer you to the little office of the blessed Virgin or the Litany of the blessed Virgin Mary for equally beautiful statements

There’s a beautiful “Prayerbook of Favorite Litanies” compiled by a Father Hebert and published by TAN that I really love. They are very close in spirit to our Akathists, especially the Russian Akathist to the Most Sweet Jesus.

Fascinating! I could go on about the divine institution of the Holy rosary but I wont, I’ll just look up more information about your version of it

St. Anne’s Byzantine Catholic Church used to have instructions on it, but it has since been taken down. The Rule of the Theotokos has the standard Byzantine opening prayers with the Miserere and the Symbol of Nicea, and then is pretty similar but with the Ave Maria replaced by the Bohoroditse Devo (“Rejoice O Theotokos, Mary full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, for thou hast borne the Savior of our souls”, with some versions inserting “Christ” before “Savior”.) St. Seraphim Zvezdinsky, who was edinovertsy (an Old Believer in communion with Moscow), gave us the fifteen mysteries as following:

Nativity of the Most Holy Theotokos
Presentation of Mary in the Temple
Annunciation
Visitation
Nativity of Our Lord
Meeting in the Temple
Flight to Egypt
Jesus’ Teaching in the Temple
Wedding at Cana
Sorrow of the Theotokos at the Foot of the Cross
Resurrection
Ascension
Pentecost
Dormition
Holy Protection of the Theotokos

I’m afraid I cannot, I confess ONE Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church not several, I will accept that your church is part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church but not that it IS said church.

The fullness of grace and orthodoxy resides in my particular church, just as it does in every other one, and when my church speaks it is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church speaking. Of course it is “part” of it in the sense that it contains some of the members of the one Church while other churches contain other members of it - my point is that it is fully Catholic and speaks with full authority, and does not need to be monitered or overseen by the Roman Curia unless a controversy arises or some heresy is committed. Roman Catholics for centuries have just not trusted us to be orthodox, constantly analyzing our practices and asking “is that Catholic?” and figuring out what we can keep and what we can’t (enforcing their decision by sending posses of armed troops into our churches, as the Poles did to Latinize the Ukrainians). That has to end.

 

[Cecilianus]

You don’t have to have lived in the 80’s to witness bad abuses, try sitting through a Mass where the Priest invites everyone to sit around the altar while he celebrates mass and only asks to move back (but not off the sanctuary) when he consecrates…or where an altar boy gives communion to himself and then proceeds to give out communion to everyone else whilst the priest stands behind the altar doing nothing. And this only happened a few months ago…

I was thinking more along the lines of the rainbow banners strung across churches taken from the parish’s float in the Gay Pride Parade, concelebrating Mass with a Lutheran pastor, inviting nuns to give homilies, or having children (or adults!) perform skits instead of the homily, using leavened rye bread and white wine for Holy Communion, replacing plainchant with bongo drums and electric guitars, and the worst one of all - the home parish of the bishop who chrismated me, St. Ambrose’s in Woodbury - having a crucifix wearing a thong as the “gay Christ”. All of these are abuses in Roman churches in Minnesota; many others have been widely publicized (in Massachusetts, France, and Germany to take examples from the past couple months).

 

[TrentCath]

I believe it is a gross calumny against the Church of Rome, and I believe they are wrong in rejecting the Orthodoxy of the West.

And I’m afraid thats just the tip of the proverbial Iceberg. Also if the East never strayed into Heresy why bother defining and expounding truths for them in the acts of Union set forth at The Council of Florence? And Yet the Council did that for ‘The Greeks’ Copts and Syrians, it would appear that they had in fact departed from the teaching of the Church.

johnsanidopoulos.com/2010…rgies-for.html



The ultra-vostochnik hieromonk serving at our church once said to me, “You know, you should go look at the Armenians some time; they make us look Protestant by comparison”.

There’s a beautiful “Prayerbook of Favorite Litanies” compiled by a Father Hebert and published by TAN that I really love. They are very close in spirit to our Akathists, especially the Russian Akathist to the Most Sweet Jesus.

St. Anne’s Byzantine Catholic Church used to have instructions on it, but it has since been taken down. The Rule of the Theotokos has the standard Byzantine opening prayers with the Miserere and the Symbol of Nicea, and then is pretty similar but with the Ave Maria replaced by the Bohoroditse Devo (“Rejoice O Theotokos, Mary full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, for thou hast borne the Savior of our souls”, with some versions inserting “Christ” before “Savior”.) St. Seraphim Zvezdinsky, who was edinovertsy (an Old Believer in communion with Moscow), gave us the fifteen mysteries as following:

Nativity of the Most Holy Theotokos
Presentation of Mary in the Temple
Annunciation
Visitation
Nativity of Our Lord
Meeting in the Temple
Flight to Egypt
Jesus’ Teaching in the Temple
Wedding at Cana
Sorrow of the Theotokos at the Foot of the Cross
Resurrection
Ascension
Pentecost
Dormition
Holy Protection of the Theotokos

Thanks for that information, is there a website or anything where I might be able to look up more info?

The fullness of grace and orthodoxy resides in my particular church, just as it does in every other one, and when my church speaks it is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church speaking. I’m afraid here we’re simply going to have to agree to disagree until I see an ecumenical council saying otherwise I believe that view is irreconciable with the Magisterium, as expressed at The Councils of Florence, Vatican I and Vatican II. Something which I have expounded at lengthOf course it is “part” of it in the sense that it contains some of the members of the one Church while other churches contain other members of it - my point is that it is fully Catholic and speaks with full authority, I’m afraid that only the pope speaks with ‘full authority’ in that all others are subordinate to his judgement and does not need to be monitered or overseen by the Roman Curia unless a controversy arises or some heresy is committed. If even the Latin church is overseen by the Roman Curia on what basis can you argue that the Eastern churches should not be? The fact is that this is simply an expression of the popes ‘supreme, plenary and universal jurisdiction’ a de fide doctrine Roman Catholics for centuries have just not trusted us to be orthodox, constantly analyzing our practices and asking “is that Catholic?” and figuring out what we can keep and what we can’t (enforcing their decision by sending posses of armed troops into our churches, as the Poles did to Latinize the Ukrainians). Regrettable but considering the way the Orthodox Church reacted to the west, its continuing severe critcism of its practices and denial of its doctrines this is hardly surprising That has to end.

 

[Cecilianus]

And I’m afraid thats just the tip of the proverbial Iceberg. Also if the East never strayed into Heresy why bother defining and expounding truths for them in the acts of Union set forth at The Council of Florence? And Yet the Council did that for ‘The Greeks’ Copts and Syrians, it would appear that they had in fact departed from the teaching of the Church.

Or that the Latins didn’t understand the Greek teaching.

Thanks for that information, is there a website or anything where I might be able to look up more info?

I know you can google it - last time I described it to someone the only place I could find was a blog called “The Rosemary Tree”, but it wasn’t nearly as good a website as the church’s one.

I’m afraid that only the pope speaks with ‘full authority’ in that all others are subordinate to his judgement

No. You accuse people of “papal minimalism”; this is “episcopal minimalism”, reducing the teachings of the Church to just what is taught by the Pope.

If even the Latin church is overseen by the Roman Curia on what basis can you argue that the Eastern churches should not be?

Of course the Latins are overseen by the Roman Curia; it’s the Latin bureaucracy. That makes sense. What makes no sense is for a bureaucracy of the Latin Church to be managing other sui juris Churches, who are perfectly capable of overseeing themselves the same way the Latin Church is.

Regrettable but considering the way the Orthodox Church reacted to the west, its continuing severe critcism of its practices and denial of its doctrines this is hardly surprising

These were Catholics in union with Rome suffering at the hands of the Poles, not people who were criticizing Rome’s practices or denying its doctrines.

 

[TrentCath]

Or that the Latins didn’t understand the Greek teaching.

Somewhat unlikely considering the amount of time that was spent going over it or the fact that those who were re-united to the church agreed to profess that as their faith

I know you can google it - last time I described it to someone the only place I could find was a blog called “The Rosemary Tree”, but it wasn’t nearly as good a website as the church’s one.ah well it’ll have to do

No. You accuse people of “papal minimalism”; this is “episcopal minimalism”, reducing the teachings of the Church to just what is taught by the Pope.Whatever the pope teaches (infallibly and with rare exceptions non-infallibly) is the Church’steachings, I will say no more on that subject than that it is the opinion of ecumenical councils, catechisms and countless saints. The faith of Rome is that of the whole church.

Of course the Latins are overseen by the Roman Curia; it’s the Latin bureaucracy. That makes sense. What makes no sense is for a bureaucracy of the Latin Church to be managing other sui juris Churches, who are perfectly capable of overseeing themselves the same way the Latin Church is. It’s NOT Latin buerecracy, its the Universal Church’s buerecracy. The curia act with the full permission of and often with the authority of the pope as such they are universal in jurisdiction as the Pope himself is

These were Catholics in union with Rome suffering at the hands of the Poles, not people who were criticizing Rome’s practices or denying its doctrines.Sorry, I should have clarified this was in relation to the complaints regarding Western Catholics asking if eastern catholics were truly Catholic

 

[TrentCath]

I was thinking more along the lines of the rainbow banners strung across churches taken from the parish’s float in the Gay Pride Parade, concelebrating Mass with a Lutheran pastor, inviting nuns to give homilies, or having children (or adults!) perform skits instead of the homily, using leavened rye bread and white wine for Holy Communion, replacing plainchant with bongo drums and electric guitars, and the worst one of all - the home parish of the bishop who chrismated me, St. Ambrose’s in Woodbury - having a crucifix wearing a thong as the “gay Christ”. All of these are abuses in Roman churches in Minnesota; many others have been widely publicized (in Massachusetts, France, and Germany to take examples from the past couple months).

What a Tragedy

 

[Cecilianus]

It’s NOT Latin buerecracy, its the Universal Church’s buerecracy. The curia act with the full permission of and often with the authority of the pope as such they are universal in jurisdiction as the Pope himself is

No, it’s Latin bureaucracy - a creation of the Latin church, staffed by Latin cardinals in a Latin country, with the authority of a Latin pope. You really can’t get any more Latin than the Roman Curia.

 

[Vico]

I’m not sure the statement needs much explanation, it seems rather self-explanatory? My response was rather to your quote from the new commentary of canon law, my point being that there is a difference between ‘churches’ in the legal sense e.g sui juris, and The Church in the Dogmatic sense that is, as the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. My point was further that the First Vatican Council explicitly identifies the Roman Catholic Church as the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church without mentioning any others and that this seems problematic for those that hold that each ‘church’ is also the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church.

Ah. I see what you are saying. As said at Vatican I: “I acknowledge the holy, catholic, apostolic and Roman church, the mother and mistress of all the churches.”

There is the one Church of Jesus Christ which contains the 23 Catholic ritual churches, one being the Roman Church. But the significant universal component is the Supreme Pontiff and Roman Curia, not restricted to members of the Roman Church, also known as the Holy See or Apostolic See, and including the governing Congregation for Oriental Churches constituted with, among others, the Patriarchs of the eastern Catholic churches.

We also have from On the observance of Oriental Rites, 1755, Pope Benedict XVI:
Moreover, the Sacred Congregation has decided that it neither has been nor is permitted for those Catholics to abandon in any respect the custom and observance of their own rite which has likewise been approved by the Holy Roman Church. The complete and straightforward observance of this decree, renewed and confirmed by each and every prefect and missionary, has been commanded by these most eminent fathers." This decree, indeed, applies to Catholics of the Oriental Church and to their rites which have been approved by the Apostolic See. As everyone knows, the Oriental Church is composed of four rites-Greek, Armenian, Syriac, and Coptic; all these rites are referred to by the single name of the Greek or Oriental Church, just as the name of the Latin or Roman Church signifies the Roman, Ambrosian, and Mozarabic rites, as well as the special rites of different Regular Orders.
ewtn.com/library/encyc/b14allat.htm

 

[TrentCath]

No, it’s Latin bureaucracy - a creation of the Latin church, staffed by Latin cardinals in a Latin country, with the authority of a Latin pope. You really can’t get any more Latin than the Roman Curia.

I’m afraid we’re never going to agree. You’re insistent on setting East against West, dividing the church into ‘Latin’ and ‘Eastern’, I merely make reference to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church with the Pope as its head.

You do not believe that the East lapsed into heresy I maintain that its denial of Papal Infallibility, Papal supremacy (an attitude which is prevalent amongst even Eastern Catholics), Indulgences, Original Sin and thereby the Immaculate Conception, Purgatory (by at least some orthodox), pre-destination and the acceptance as scripture of some books which are not constitute heresy. The denial of these doctrines can easily be proved by reading any of the lives of the saints, encyclicals written by the patriarchs and so on.

You maintain that the church is essentially self-governing, I with the support of Council of Florence and The First Vatican Council say that this is impossible.

As for the curia it may be majority Latin but its reach is universal as it should be, being empowered to act in the place of the pope in certain cases.

 

[TrentCath]

Ah. I see what you are saying. As said at Vatican I: “I acknowledge the holy, catholic, apostolic and Roman church, the mother and mistress of all the churches.” ‘The mother and mistress of all the church’s’ A rather significant phrase wouldnt you agree? Now a mother can hardly be said to be equal to their children and whilst a mother can exist without her children, the children cannot have come into existence without the Mother

There is the one Church of Jesus Christ which contains the 23 Catholic ritual churches, one being the Roman Church. But the significant universal component is the Supreme Pontiff and Roman Curia, not restricted to members of the Roman Church, also known as the Holy See or Apostolic See, and including the governing Congregation for Oriental Churches constituted with, among others, the Patriarchs of the eastern Catholic churches. I’m not entirely sure its possible to seperate the Pope from his Church which is what you attempt to be doing here. The reason that he is the ‘Supreme Pontiff’ is because he is the Bishop of Rome and the successor of St Peter, to seperate him from the Roman Church and claim that it is he not the church that is universal seems very illogical to say the least

We also have from On the observance of Oriental Rites, 1755, Pope Benedict XVI:
Moreover, the Sacred Congregation has decided that it neither has been nor is permitted for those Catholics to abandon in any respect the custom and observance of their own rite which has likewise been approved by the Holy Roman Church. The complete and straightforward observance of this decree, renewed and confirmed by each and every prefect and missionary, has been commanded by these most eminent fathers." This decree, indeed, applies to Catholics of the Oriental Church and to their rites which have been approved by the Apostolic See. As everyone knows, the Oriental Church is composed of four rites-Greek, Armenian, Syriac, and Coptic; all these rites are referred to by the single name of the Greek or Oriental Church, just as the name of the Latin or Roman Church signifies the Roman, Ambrosian, and Mozarabic rites, as well as the special rites of different Regular Orders. I don’t particularly see how this in any way disproves my point
ewtn.com/library/encyc/b14allat.htm

 

[Vico]

TrentCath: The mother and mistress of all the church’s’ A rather significant phrase wouldnt you agree? Now a mother can hardly be said to be equal to their children and whilst a mother can exist without her children, the children cannot have come into existence without the Mother

Vico: Yes.

---

TrentCath: I’m not entirely sure its possible to seperate the Pope from his Church which is what you attempt to be doing here. The reason that he is the ‘Supreme Pontiff’ is because he is the Bishop of Rome and the successor of St Peter, to seperate him from the Roman Church and claim that it is he not the church that is universal seems very illogical to say the least.

---

Vico: The Bishop of Rome has roles with different powers, one universal, one for the Roman Church, etc. I am not sure what you mean by the phrase: “claim that it is he not the church”.

TrentCath: I don’t particularly see how this in any way disproves my point.
*Vico: it is not an attempt to disprove your point.
*

 

[Alexander_Roman]

I’m afraid we’re never going to agree. You’re insistent on setting East against West, dividing the church into ‘Latin’ and ‘Eastern’, I merely make reference to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church with the Pope as its head.

You do not believe that the East lapsed into heresy I maintain that its denial of Papal Infallibility, Papal supremacy (an attitude which is prevalent amongst even Eastern Catholics), Indulgences, Original Sin and thereby the Immaculate Conception, Purgatory (by at least some orthodox), pre-destination and the acceptance as scripture of some books which are not constitute heresy. The denial of these doctrines can easily be proved by reading any of the lives of the saints, encyclicals written by the patriarchs and so on.

You maintain that the church is essentially self-governing, I with the support of Council of Florence and The First Vatican Council say that this is impossible.

As for the curia it may be majority Latin but its reach is universal as it should be, being empowered to act in the place of the pope in certain cases.

There is a difference between the substance of the universal faith and its particular theological expressions among the various ritual Churches that make up the one Catholic Church.

The Roman Church defined the Immaculate Conception which means that Mary was totally sinless and holy always, from her very Conception.

It was the West’s view of the stain of Original Sin that allowed, for the longest time, western Catholics, including Aquinas, to deny that Mary was conceived immaculately. The Roman Pope put an end to that debate in the 19th century.

The Christian East with its patristic understanding of Original Sin always affirmed Mary’s siinlessness and total holiness - this was always celebrated in the liturgical tradition of the Byzantine East especially. There was thus no need to define what was not under attack and was always believed and affirmed. The same is true with the Dormition of our Lady, her being taken up into Heaven, body and soul, and her coronation as the Queen of heaven and earth (Trentcath at one point denied the Orthodox East believes the final point and he is completely wrong on that score).

As for purgatory, the East uses the term “hades” as a place where souls not yet ready to be joined to the heavenly choirs are kept until prayers, especially the prayer of the Divine Liturgy (“Mass”), good works et alia are performed sufficient for them. And the Orthodox East prays most assiduously for the faithful reposed, daily, on Saturdays and on twelve separate liturgical occasions throughout the year. It is second to none in the department of prayer for the dead. Again, the idea that because the East does not use Latin terminology it denies that terminology’s “pith and substance” is wrong and born willfull unfamiliarity with the Eastern Christian and liturgical tradition.

As for the curia, there is no reason why the Eastern Catholic particular Churches should have their internal affairs overseen by a special curial department. It is offensive to them that Latin curialists should know better than they themselves how to see to their own internal affairs. As for the curia acting with the authority of the pope, the primates of the
EC Churches who share their church government with the pope (Decree on the EC Churches) have a much stronger claim to that authority than Latin curialists. Any problems that could arise would be referred to the pope himself etc.

In the case of the Ukrainian Catholic Church, the largest EC Church with many martyrs and confessors for the Catholic faith, it has its own patriarchal synod which is disliked by the Russian Orthodox Church and also by the Vatican curialists desirous of seeking close relations with the ROC.

The eastern politicking of the Vatican with the ROC (in effect, “ostpolitik”) shows a grave problem that the Vatican has with respect to the Orthodox and the Eastern Catholics where the Vatican is willing to set aside the legitimate growth and development of the EC Churches (i.e. the UGCC) for perceived “gains” in its ecumenical relationship with the ROC.

But what are those gains that it has achieved via ostpolitik? What has been achieved by the Vatican in this respect? The answer is . . . nothing. Yet the Vatican curia continues to try and placate the ROC, especially by continuing to refuse to acknowledge what is already occurring within the Ukrainian Catholic Church, the existence of a patriarchal form of church government such as exists in so many other Eastern Churches, Catholic and Orthodox.

So, please forgive me if I in particular am not sympathetic to your cries for loyalty to a Vatican curialism that has proven to be morally bankrupt in this respect.

The UGCC has sufficient martyrs for Rome to not have to prove anything to western Roman Catholics. If anything, Roman Catholics who wish to triumph in their loyalty to Rome would do well to focus on their own fellow RC’s in North America to try and get them to “come back” to a similar sense of loyalty.

Alex

 

[hazcompat]

Alex,

be at peace. we use our tribal curia as interpreters not overseers. you eat His Flesh and Drink His Blood. You have eternal life in you. “morally bankrupt”? you express yourself better when you are not tired.

peace