Ecumenical Councils and Eastern Catholics

[Alexander_Roman]

In fact, the self-government of the EC Churches is not and never has been to the exclusion of the powers of the pope - indeed they depend upon those powers. In contemporary times, RC episcopal conferences govern their own Local Churches in a similar way. The Pope simply does not get involved in local church matters without a specific reason and this is the way of the Church of the first millennium.

The Pope IS involved in the Latin Patriarchate/RC Church more than any other simply because he is also the patriarch and head of the Western Church. So when a pope changes, as he did, your ancient liturgy, EC’s were mercifully spared that bit of papal initiative as we are not under him in terms of our internal ritual matters. We have our own patriarchs/primates who are the heads of our Particular Churches. That in no way offends the unity of the Body of Christ which is formed of particular parts. The Decree on the Eastern Catholic Churches provides the background to all of this.

Well, you are being nice in calling Rome’s ostpolitik “at times a little foolish.” I will chalk it up to your enTRENTched papalism which is nervous about criticizing anything Rome does with the approval of the pope (if the Vatican didn’t have that aproval, tacit or otherwise, it wouldn’t be engaged in that ecumenical nonsense where the EC churches are offended etc.

The Decree on the EC Churches is a good reference. Rome affirms our right to self-government in union with the pope. The pope has yet to condemn or reverse ANY decision taken by our Patriarchal Synod. You are denying in theory something that already exists in practice. Forgive us if we continue without your approval . And from what I’ve seen re: how Rome has dealt with your liturgical life, I am very happy that our Eastern spirituality and liturgy is clear independent of the pope’s “supreme, immediate and universal power.” (Thank God, in fact!).

As for Original Sin, this would depend on what is meant by “guilt of original sin.” Does it mean that we inherit the guilt of Adam’s personal sin of disobedience? I’ve yet to see RC commentary that affirms this. In fact, this section of Trent is intended NOT to affirm how Original Sin is understood in the West (Latin Catholics and Protestants were agreed on this). That section was intended to do something quite different - to affirm that the sacrament of Baptism with pouring of water etc. confers Grace where Grace was compromised through Original Sin. The issue of how we are to understand “guilt of Original Sin” was NOT defined. St Thomas Aquinas’ views on Original Sin are actually close to that of Eastern theology which is one of the reasons why he enjoyed a personal cult among a number of Orthodox theologians and churchmen. Again, the “guilt or stain” of Original Sin has to do with how our human nature, which we do inherit from Adam, was stained by the rebellion against God that we inherited.

to be continued . . .

 

[Alexander_Roman]

With respect to predestination, this is also a case where the RC Church is specifically responding to something raised by Protestant Calvinism (which does have its roots in extreme Augustinianism). Were it not for Protestants and their predestination teachings, the Catholic Church would not have raised this at Trent. And what Rome affirmed at Trent on this teaches the East nothing about Soteriology. Eastern Christianity has never entertained the possibility that someone could have assured repentance and a place in heaven - this was ENTIRELY a Western issue/crisis brought on by the Grace/Works matter of the Reformation. This and a number of other issues affirmed by Trent constitute further evidence that the Council of Trent was truly a Latin Council that dealt with the challenge of the Reformation - defining nothing that would be of concern to the Eastern Churches. That we do not have nor entertain the issues raised by Trent simply means that the Reformation was not an issue for the East. And it never was.

As for indulgences, I’ve read New Advent several times on this. Yes, the Latin theology on indulgences is very “involved” and complex. It has precious little to do with the Soteriology and Eschatology of the Eastern Christian Churches, Orthodox or Catholic. The pith and substance of “indulgences” remains the same - the need to spend our lives in works of piety and penance for the “debt” (see what you are doing to me? ) incurred by our sins after they have been forgiven in Confession (“Sacrament of Reconciliation” is it for you fellows?).

Every prayer and good work is responded to by a measure of Divine Grace. But if indulgences are meant to “cancel the debt” and somehow thereby weaken our necessary resolve to pray and work for our salvation “in trembling”, then this is a problem. I certainly understood them to mean this when I was an altar-server and I’ve since stopped using them. I do say the Rosary and the Stations of the Cross and read Scripture as outlined in the new Enchiridion. But I’m unconcerned about what I can or cannot “obtain” thereby. I don’t ever want to be in a position again that I feel I’ve “done my duty” to pay off my debt to God and the Church. That is simply spiritually unhealthy. If it works for you and the Latin Church, be my guest. That kind of spiritual accountancy just isn’t “on” for the East. No one denies that the Church has the power to remit things via indulgences. I just don’t see why we need to be focused on trying to “cancel our debt” when we cannot know that we have. Plenary indulgences (for the rosary in church, the stations of the cross and a half hour’s reading of Scripture as examples) are only “plenary” when one is free of attachment to sin. Can you say that you are? I cannot, and this means that any work intended to obtain a plenary indulgence can only be “partial.” But all prayers, penances and good works obtain God’s Merciful Grace and we are to perform them until our dying breath.

As for the Canon of Scripture, I don’t read where Trent condemns the Eastern Christian canons of the Old Testament. In fact, it never did. The Word of God is not just the canon of scripture, as you well know. But Trent was, once again, reacting to Protestantism (which is why again it exhibited all the features of a “Local Latin Council”). Protestants were denying a good chunk of the OT in order to conveniently remove references for prayer for the dead etc. It is good that Rome affirmed the canonicity of what the Protestants were trying to remove from the OT. But how does the Greek, Russian or Ethiopian Churches’ additions of this or that OT deuterocanonical books abrogate or threaten any of this? Neither Rome nor Orthodoxy has ever issued a condemnation of their canons of Old Testament scripture. And the fact that Local Churches have slightly varying canons of the Old Testament does indeed demonstrate to Protestantism that it is the Church that defines the canon and not the other way around. Now if a Church affirmed an OT book that denied Christian truths - but no one does.

Trent had its gunsights set on the Protestant Reformation and it was NOT concerned with attacking Eastern Christianity at all (which was not even on its radar at the time).

It is you who are attempting to use Trent to attack Eastern Christianity.

Have a great day.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Lyons II, sure, but Florence? Do you really think Florence was guilty of attempted Latinization? Why? My impression is that Florence clarified in many ways that eastern views were, in the eyes of the Latins, perfectly orthodox and acceptable. For instance, isn’t it true that at Lyons II the Latins tried to make the Greeks recite the filioque even in Greek, while at Florence the Greek position was affirmed?

Please correct me if I’m wrong and/or give examples, as I admit I do not know that much about these matters.

Dear Fone Bone,

It is not my intention to correct, but to discuss! If I were infallible, I would end this thread by simply anathematizing TrentCath and then call it a day!

Florence was indeed a Latin Council casting Eastern theology within a Latin framework. For example, the council saw “through the Son” as being the same as “from the Son” in every which way and this did not resolve the issue then in any long-lasting way and it doesn’t today.

The Greek position, which as also that of Rome in the first millennium, was that the Symbol of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed is a Creed intended for the universal Church where no additions could be made without unilateral agreement, especially additions that reflect the particular Triadology of one Church only (namely the Filioque). The Latin Church at Florence simply obliged the Greeks to affirm that their interpolation of the Filioque was legitimate, that the theology behind it was legitimate and that the
Greeks could use the original Creed. That was and still is a Latin framework imposed on ecumenical unity. Unity could have been achieved if the both sides agreed to the original Creed (affirmed also by Pope St Leo IV who had tablets in Latin and Greek made of the Creed without the Filioque and had these placed on the tomb of St Peter) and then affirmed “Through the Son” in a way that was agreeable to both sides. The Filioque as a Latin teaching would have remained untouched. But that is not what happened.

Florence also obliged the Greeks to accept purgatory, but interestingly enough, a purgatory without “purgatorial fires” which the Greeks regarded as a pagan tradition. In fact, “hades” is the liturgical term in the East for souls not yet ready to be joined to Christ.

There are other points, but they illustrate the same thing. One would hear those who say that “Well, the Greeks signed the decrees, except for a few.”

The Greek bishops who did soon recanted and affirmed they only did so because of the emperor’s command (to obtain western aid against the Turks). And their signing the decrees of unity would have changed nothing about resolving the actual points of doctrine that divided East from West then, and now.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Dear TrentCath,

Because Trent ONLY acknowledged those books as scripture and no others, the additional books can be used to formulate dogmas and doctrines contrary to Catholic Teaching.

You have clearly never read those books and I would strongly suggest that you do so you may realize how silly your conclusion really is. Psalm 151, one of the six “books” has always been a part of the Byzantine Psalter. The prayer of Manasses (another) has always been part of the liturgical prayers and so on.

Trent, once again, was affirming the books that Protestantism was rejecting. It had NO intention to discuss the additional few books, perfectly orthodox, that the East always had in its Old Testament canon.

Trent was a local Latin Council dealing with the threat of Protestantism. It had NOTHING to do with the East.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Dear TrentCath,

“Guilt is guilt, look up the dictionary definition of the word. It’s incompatible with the idea we only inherit a ‘pre-disposition’ to sin”

So now you would have the secular dictionary define theology? I would caution against such sentiments and also against your condescending tone.

No one said (a good course in Eastern Christian theology might prove exciting for you!) that we “only inherit a pre-disposition to sin.”

We inherit a “stained” human nature, darkened by the effect of Original Sin, we inherit death, concupiscence etc.

The idea that we can inherit the actual guilt of another’s personal sin, in accordance with the venerable English dictionary, is something that indeed bears proper theological analysis.

Whenever you are ready.

Alex

 

[TrentCath]

In fact, the self-government of the EC Churches is not and never has been to the exclusion of the powers of the pope - indeed they depend upon those powers. In contemporary times, RC episcopal conferences govern their own Local Churches in a similar way. The Pope simply does not get involved in local church matters without a specific reason and this is the way of the Church of the first millennium. And I never said the pope was, rather I said that the term ‘self-governing’ is misleading

The Pope IS involved in the Latin Patriarchate/RC Church more than any other simply because he is also the patriarch and head of the Western Church. So when a pope changes, as he did, your ancient liturgy, EC’s were mercifully spared that bit of papal initiative as we are not under him in terms of our internal ritual matters. We have our own patriarchs/primates who are the heads of our Particular Churches. That in no way offends the unity of the Body of Christ which is formed of particular parts. The Decree on the Eastern Catholic Churches provides the background to all of this.

Well, you are being nice in calling Rome’s ostpolitik “at times a little foolish.” I will chalk it up to your enTRENTched papalism which is nervous about criticizing anything Rome does with the approval of the pope (if the Vatican didn’t have that aproval, tacit or otherwise, it wouldn’t be engaged in that ecumenical nonsense where the EC churches are offended etc. Oh no I’m quite free in my condemnation of certain papal actions, quite a few in fact. My ‘Papalism’ is simply the faith of the church, nothing more and nothing less.

The Decree on the EC Churches is a good reference. Rome affirms our right to self-government in union with the pope. The pope has yet to condemn or reverse ANY decision taken by our Patriarchal Synod. Give it time You are denying in theory something that already exists in practice. Forgive us if we continue without your approval Its not my approval you need nor my forgivenessAnd from what I’ve seen re: how Rome has dealt with your liturgical life, I am very happy that our Eastern spirituality and liturgy is clear independent of the pope’s “supreme, immediate and universal power.” (Thank God, in fact!). Yes that was a disaster. Still the reason the pope chose not to was simply to preserve ecumenicism, mark my words sooner or later you’ll be sacrificed on its altar if the Church doesn’t change its ways

As for Original Sin, this would depend on what is meant by “guilt of original sin.” Does it mean that we inherit the guilt of Adam’s personal sin of disobedience? I’ve yet to see RC commentary that affirms this. **Unless you have a better understanding of how it is newborn babies need to be washed of ‘guilt’?**In fact, this section of Trent is intended NOT to affirm how Original Sin is understood in the West (Latin Catholics and Protestants were agreed on this). That section was intended to do something quite different - to affirm that the sacrament of Baptism with pouring of water etc. confers Grace where Grace was compromised through Original Sin. The issue of how we are to understand “guilt of Original Sin” was NOT defined. Now you’re just being silly, guilt is a rather self explanatory word I’m afraid, playing semantics isnt going to help anyoneSt Thomas Aquinas’ views on Original Sin are actually close to that of Eastern theology which is one of the reasons why he enjoyed a personal cult among a number of Orthodox theologians and churchmen. Again, the “guilt or stain” of Original Sin has to do with how our human nature, which we do inherit from Adam, was stained by the rebellion against God that we inherited.

to be continued . . .

 

[TrentCath]

With respect to predestination, this is also a case where the RC Church is specifically responding to something raised by Protestant Calvinism (which does have its roots in extreme Augustinianism). Were it not for Protestants and their predestination teachings, the Catholic Church would not have raised this at Trent. And what Rome affirmed at Trent on this teaches the East nothing about Soteriology. Eastern Christianity has never entertained the possibility that someone could have assured repentance and a place in heaven - this was ENTIRELY a Western issue/crisis brought on by the Grace/Works matter of the Reformation. This and a number of other issues affirmed by Trent constitute further evidence that the Council of Trent was truly a Latin Council that dealt with the challenge of the Reformation - defining nothing that would be of concern to the Eastern Churches. That we do not have nor entertain the issues raised by Trent simply means that the Reformation was not an issue for the East. And it never was.

I am afraid you completely misunderstand the point here. I well understand exactly what Trent was and why it was called, I studied it for some considerable period of time… Rather what is it important is that the Council accepted that pre-destination was part of Catholic doctrine (and had been explicitly so for some time) And yet I have seen the idea completely rejected by the Orthodox more than once.

As for indulgences, I’ve read New Advent several times on this. Yes, the Latin theology on indulgences is very “involved” and complex. It has precious little to do with the Soteriology and Eschatology of the Eastern Christian Churches, Orthodox or Catholic. The pith and substance of “indulgences” remains the same - the need to spend our lives in works of piety and penance for the “debt” (see what you are doing to me? ) incurred by our sins after they have been forgiven in Confession (“Sacrament of Reconciliation” is it for you fellows?).

Every prayer and good work is responded to by a measure of Divine Grace. But if indulgences are meant to “cancel the debt” and somehow thereby weaken our necessary resolve to pray and work for our salvation “in trembling”, then this is a problem. I certainly understood them to mean this when I was an altar-server and I’ve since stopped using them. I do say the Rosary and the Stations of the Cross and read Scripture as outlined in the new Enchiridion. But I’m unconcerned about what I can or cannot “obtain” thereby. I don’t ever want to be in a position again that I feel I’ve “done my duty” to pay off my debt to God and the Church. That is simply spiritually unhealthy. If it works for you and the Latin Church, be my guest. That kind of spiritual accountancy just isn’t “on” for the East. No one denies that the Church has the power to remit things via indulgences. I just don’t see why we need to be focused on trying to “cancel our debt” when we cannot know that we have. Plenary indulgences (for the rosary in church, the stations of the cross and a half hour’s reading of Scripture as examples) are only “plenary” when one is free of attachment to sin. Can you say that you are? I cannot, and this means that any work intended to obtain a plenary indulgence can only be “partial.” But all prayers, penances and good works obtain God’s Merciful Grace and we are to perform them until our dying breath. Indeed but partial indulgences are much greater than ‘mere’ prayers, penances and good works, they are a ‘bonus’ so to speak on top of prayer, penance and good works. This was made somewhat clearer when partial indulgences were a certain number of days e.g 200 days, which meant equivalent to 200 days of penance and prayer. In that sense therefore rather than taking anything away from prayer, penance and good works they add to it and should be an incentive to live a good life not a detraction from it. Indulgences can of course also be applied to souls to Purgatory and in that sense are also of infinite worth.

As for the Canon of Scripture, I don’t read where Trent condemns the Eastern Christian canons of the Old Testament. In fact, it never did. The Word of God is not just the canon of scripture, as you well know. But Trent was, once again, reacting to Protestantism (which is why again it exhibited all the features of a “Local Latin Council”). Protestants were denying a good chunk of the OT in order to conveniently remove references for prayer for the dead etc. It is good that Rome affirmed the canonicity of what the Protestants were trying to remove from the OT. But how does the Greek, Russian or Ethiopian Churches’ additions of this or that OT deuterocanonical books abrogate or threaten any of this? Neither Rome nor Orthodoxy has ever issued a condemnation of their canons of Old Testament scripture. And the fact that Local Churches have slightly varying canons of the Old Testament does indeed demonstrate to Protestantism that it is the Church that defines the canon and not the other way around. Now if a Church affirmed an OT book that denied Christian truths - but no one does. Again I don’t need a history lesson, but I see it as a pretty logical that it is illogical to have different canons of scripture within the Church. The fact is Trent settled what the canon was, there are no more or less books in the bible than it set.

Trent had its gunsights set on the Protestant Reformation and it was NOT concerned with attacking Eastern Christianity at all (which was not even on its radar at the time).

It is you who are attempting to use Trent to attack Eastern Christianity.

Have a great day.

Alex

 

[TrentCath]

Dear TrentCath,

“Guilt is guilt, look up the dictionary definition of the word. It’s incompatible with the idea we only inherit a ‘pre-disposition’ to sin”

So now you would have the secular dictionary define theology? I would caution against such sentiments and also against your condescending tone.I would have a little logic and common sense

No one said (a good course in Eastern Christian theology might prove exciting for you!) that we “only inherit a pre-disposition to sin.”

We inherit a “stained” human nature, darkened by the effect of Original Sin, we inherit death, concupiscence etc.

The idea that we can inherit the actual guilt of another’s personal sin, in accordance with the venerable English dictionary, is something that indeed bears proper theological analysis. Well as I said before, unless you can find a better explanation for what Trent taught…

Whenever you are ready.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Dear Fone Bone,

“That still would exclude Constantinople I (381), at which no Latin delegates were present.”

But the decrees went to Rome and Rome was involved, and would have to have been, as the patriarchate of the West in order for that council to be “ecumenical.”

One problem in those days was that the West had but one Apostolic See, namely Rome, founded by St Peter.

But in the East, there were several Sees founded by St Peter and other Apostles, including the Churches of many towns and villages.

For the East, the primacy of Rome was based more on the fact that St Peter was martyred there and that his relics were there than the fact that Rome’s Church was “founded by St Peter” since if that standard alone were used, there would have been a list of churches all claiming to be “Peter’s See.”

In the ecumenical Councils of the first millennium, the bishop of Rome had the first seat or cathedra as “first among equals.” This is shown by the fact that the sixth Council, I believe, actually upbraided the Church of Rome for changing the universal weekly fasting rule. Tradition could override even papal authority . . .

But Rome’s approval in those Councils had more to do with ensuring ecumenicity on the basis of Rome’s participation in one way or another and not necessarily if delegates were actually present.

Alex

 

[steve_b]

So you agree that the approval of his brother bishops is NECESSARY for an Ecumenical council to have authority.

This is different from your past claims that it is the Pope ALONE who grants an Ecumenical Council its authority and infallibility. I’m glad you have changed your position.

Blessings,
Marduk

The bishops in council at least have to approve what they propose. That goes without saying. And the pope has to approve as well. But is that the end of it? Does that therefore make a council ecumenical, binding on the entire Church? No.

What is essential that makes it binding ecumenically? The pope alone confirms and promulgates the council.

Can. 341
§1. The decrees of an ecumenical council do not have obligatory force unless they have been approved by the Roman Pontiff together with the council fathers,confirmed by him, and promulgated at his order.

If the pope doesn’t confirm the council and promulgate it, it is NOT binding on the entire Church

§2. To have obligatory force, decrees which the college of bishops issues when it places a truly collegial action in another way initiated or freely accepted by the Roman Pontiff need the same confirmation and promulgation.

 

[steve_b]

For the East, the primacy of Rome was based more on the fact that St Peter was martyred there and that his relics were there than the fact that Rome’s Church was “founded by St Peter” since if that standard alone were used, there would have been a list of churches all claiming to be “Peter’s See.”

Would you agree that Irenaeus, hometown of Smyrna, qualifies as an Easterner. He gave quite an elaborate explanation of why all Churches must agree with the Church of Rome. As you know, he was only one man away from St John the apostlle
A:

In the ecumenical Councils of the first millennium, the bishop of Rome had the first seat or cathedra as "first among equals."

1. In Christian literature, the expression begins to be used in the East when, from the fifth century, the idea of the Pentarchy gained ground, according to which there are five Patriarchs at the head of the Church, with the Church of Rome having the first place among these patriarchal sister Churches. In this connection, however, it needs to be noted that no Roman Pontiff ever recognized this equalization of the sees or accepted that only a primacy of honour be accorded to the See of Rome.It should be noted too thatthis patriarchal structure typical of the East never developed in the West.
2. The expression appears again in two letters of the Metropolitan Nicetas of Nicodemia (in the year 1136) and the Patriarch John X Camaterus (in office from 1198 to 1206), in which they protested that Rome, by presenting herself as *mother and teacher, *would annul their authority.In their view, Rome is only the first among sisters of equal dignity.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/co…orelle_en.html

oops that link doesn’t get there
ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfsisch.htm
A:

This is shown by the fact that the sixth Council, I believe, actually upbraided the Church of Rome for changing the universal weekly fasting rule. Tradition could override even papal authority . . .

Fasting rules,…isn’t that a discipline issue, a (t)radition, not (T)radition?

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Dear Steve,

The rule of fasting on Wednesdays and Fridays was laid down in the 69th Apostolic Canon - to change it was to defy the authority of the Apostles, so, no, it wasn’t a small “t” tradition. (It became a small “t” in the contemporary RC Church, however . . .).

And so Rome was upbraided for daring to change it - the point is Rome, for all its authority, wasn’t above the laws and canons that bound all the Churches.

The issue of Rome not accepting the 'first among equals" status is an open question. There were popes who didn’t, to be sure. The pope of Alexandria held himself quite highly as well!

As for St Irenaeus, it matters not which part of the oikumene he comes from, he is a saint and Father. And Rome was truly orthodox and taught the faith authoritatively by way of standard. But Rome was part of the Apostolic tradition and the Catholic Church and spoke on behalf of that tradition and that Church. One would be hard-pressed to find papalism as we know it today in the early Fathers.

Alex

 

[Cecilianus]

Indulgences can of course also be applied to souls to Purgatory and in that sense are also of infinite worth.

Actually the Church only has jurisdiction over the “Church Militant” - indulgences are offered up to the souls in Purgatory in a supplicatory fashion, the same way prayers are.

None of this changes the fact that indulgences simply are not a part of our practice or soteriology and that nobody is making them into a source of disagreement. You use them, we don’t. We have just as many saints as you do, so we’re just as capable of getting to Heaven with our spirituality as yours is.

I also am starting to take offense at your insistence that we reject the Church’s teaching on the Papacy after we have clearly and repeatedly told you that we don’t. If I say I accept the dogma of papal infallibility and supremacy, then take my word for it. Would you rather think I am a heretic?

My actions speak the loudest in this regard. I am in communion with the Pope of Rome, though I’d rather be in communion with Christians of my same rite, because I believe it is the right and obligatory thing to do. You who trumpet your exaggerated papalism so loudly aren’t even in communion with the Pope; the Church has repeated time and time again the irregular status of the SSPX. At some point you need to practice what you preach.

 

[hazcompat]

It’s like watching twins contest paternity.

peace

 

[steve_b]

Dear Steve,

The rule of fasting on Wednesdays and Fridays was laid down in the ***69th Apostolic Canon ***- to change it was to defy the authority of the Apostles, so, no, it wasn’t a small “t” tradition. (It became a small “t” in the contemporary RC Church, however . . .).

And so Rome was upbraided for daring to change it - the point is Rome, for all its authority, wasn’t above the laws and canons that bound all the Churches.

I tried looking this issue up. All I found was

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Apostolic_Canons

I’m curious, you mention apostolic canon 69. This article starts out with "Canons, APOSTOLIC, a collection of ancient ecclesiastical decrees (eighty-five in the Eastern, fifty in the Western Church) …[snip]

I guess I’m curious. There seems to be some controversy here as to what’s accepted by each… From your perspective, maybe you could fill in some blanks on this.
A:

The issue of Rome not accepting the 'first among equals" status is an open question. There were popes who didn’t, to be sure. The pope of Alexandria held himself quite highly as well!

I think the article was clear from then Cardinal Ratzinger, as to who he was refering to.
A:

As for St Irenaeus, it matters not which part of the oikumene he comes from, he is a saint and Father. And Rome was truly orthodox and taught the faith authoritatively by way of standard. But Rome was part of the Apostolic tradition and the Catholic Church and spoke on behalf of that tradition and that Church. One would be hard-pressed to find papalism as we know it today in the early Fathers.

Alex

I disagree with your characterization but that’s for another thread.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother TrentCath,

I really don’t see the relevance of that entire quote to me. I well accept that the pope cannot do anything in liturgical matters, in fact I confess adherence to a group that believe as much… What I do object to is the idea of collegialism, its an idea thats inherently alien to Catholicism and alien to the De Fide teachings of the First Vatican Council

There’s only two options here. Papal absolutism or collegiality. Since you don’t believe in papal absolutism (as you claim that the Pope cannot do anything he wants on liturgical matters), then you believe in collegiality. If you claim you don’t, your position is simply inconsistent. Or perhaps you can claim “I don’t believe in papal absolutism with respect to the liturgy, but I believe in papal absolutism in all other cases.” If that is the case, you can’t escape the charge of inconsistency.

I’m not entirely sure what you mean by ‘the traditional western expression’ but I will say that the idea of us inheriting the guilt of Adam which every Eastern Catholic I’ve spoken to on here or book I’ve read on the subject rejects and indeed every authority I’ve encounted, is not an ‘expression’ its a Dogma. The Council of Trent defined that there was we inherited the ‘guilt of original sin’…Guilt is guilt, look up the dictionary definition of the word. It’s incompatible with the idea we only inherit a ‘pre-disposition’ to sin

This evinces your ignorance not only of the Eastern Tradition, but of the Latin Tradition as well. First of all, you claim that the Eastern Tradition teaches that “we only inherit a pre-disposition to sin.” That is false. The Eastern Tradition teaches we inherit the consequences of the ancestral sin, which includes not only the pre-disposition to sin, but also death, both spiritual (i.e, spiritual separation from God) and physical, and corruptibility.

Secondly, you blithely claim that “guilt is guilt.” But that is not true from the Latin perspective because there are actually two different Latin words with different meanings that can be translated into English as “guilt.” These two words, FYI, are culpa and reus. Culpa means “blame.” It is, in fact, the Latin word that is most generally translated into English as “guilt.” But there is also the word reus, which has a different meaning than culpa. Reus does not refer to the “blame” for an act. An illustration will best serve to explain the difference. Imagine that your rich father damaged someone else’s property. That action assigns to him both blame (culpa) and a responsibility to recompense for the act (reus). Your father dies, but he never fully recompensed for the act. A court of law might decide that you, as inheritor of your father’s estate, must pay off his debt. You yourself are not to blame for your father’s act , but it had certain consequences which you inherited by inheriting your fathers’ estate. In other words, you did not inherit your father’s culpa, but you inherited his reus. The illustration does not (and is not intended to) fully nor perfectly encapsulate the Catholic teaching, but serves to demonstrate only the difference between the two terms.

And herein lies your further ignorance of the Eastern Tradition, and perhaps the Latin Tradition as well. The fact is, the word translated into English as “guilt” in Trent’s decree is not culpa, but reus. What the Eastern (as well as the Oriental) Tradition rejects is inheritance of guilt as culpa. Incidentally, Trent did not teach that we inherit Adam’s culpa – only that we inherit Adam’s reus. So it would be false to claim that the Eastern or Oriental Traditions reject what Trent taught.

You misunderstand there is no distaste for Calvinist distortions, as was said on here, the concept is simply non-existent in Eastern Theology and as such Isn’t agreed with. If Orthodoxy doesnt believe in pre-destination and we do, the list goes son…

No it is you who misunderstand. You are confusing pre-destination with the heresy of pre-determinism (I think it is often called simply determinism). The terms pre-destination and pre-determinism (or determinism) are often used interchangeably, but when the Eastern and Oriental Traditions reject pre-destination, it is in the sense of the word as “pre-determinism.” I can’t speak solidly for the Eastern Tradition, but I know the Oriental Tradition accepts pre-destination as the Latin Catholics teach it. Pre-destination is defined not as the imposition of God’s will, but rather as God’s foreknowledge. It is true that St. Augustine taught pre-determinism (or determinism), but the Catholic Church has never accepted this feature of Augustinian thought, as can be seen from the debates between the Catholic Church and the Calvinists during the Reformation.

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

Because Trent ONLY acknowledged those books as scripture and no others, the additional books can be used to formulate dogmas and doctrines contrary to Catholic Teaching.

To be perfectly concise, Trent did not define what books are Scripture, but defined what books are to be regarded as “canonical” – i.e., to be used as a basis for doctrine and morals. Sacred Tradition recognizes that there are other books that are divinely inspired (i.e., are to be regarded as Scripture), yet not canonical (see St. Athanasius’ festal letter, as well as numerous other ancient sources). These Scriptures were used not as a source for doctrine and morals, but as a source of spiritual edification. They were not canonical, but they were regarded as Scripture nonetheless. It might also interest you to know that a subsequent papal ruling (I believe it was in the 17th century) mitigated Trent’s exhortation regarding the exclusive use of the Vulgate, asserting that this particular ruling by Trent applied only to the Latin Catholic Church.

No what I have seen is Eastern Catholics claim repeatedly that their church is self-governing and doesn’t need Rome’s interference unless it falls into heresy.

You might want to look up what the word “autonomy” means. It means, literally, “one who gives oneself his own laws.” Yes. Our churches are self-governing. We are autonomous. You are perhaps confusing “autonomous” with “autocephalous.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Steve,

But the Pope cannot confirm nor promulgate what has not been approved by his brother bishops. So it is a matter of cooperation (as your previous quotes have demonstrated), and the Pope ALONE is not the source of an Ecumenical Council’s authority nor infallibility.

Blessings,
Marduk

The bishops in council at least have to approve what they propose. That goes without saying. And the pope has to approve as well. But is that the end of it? Does that therefore make a council ecumenical, binding on the entire Church? No.

What is essential that makes it binding ecumenically? The pope alone confirms and promulgates the council.

Can. 341
§1. The decrees of an ecumenical council do not have obligatory force unless they have been approved by the Roman Pontiff together with the council fathers,confirmed by him, and promulgated at his order.

If the pope doesn’t confirm the council and promulgate it, it is NOT binding on the entire Church

§2. To have obligatory force, decrees which the college of bishops issues when it places a truly collegial action in another way initiated or freely accepted by the Roman Pontiff need the same confirmation and promulgation.

 

[TrentCath]

Actually the Church only has jurisdiction over the “Church Militant” - indulgences are offered up to the souls in Purgatory in a supplicatory fashion, the same way prayers are.

None of this changes the fact that indulgences simply are not a part of our practice or soteriology and that nobody is making them into a source of disagreement. You use them, we don’t. We have just as many saints as you do, so we’re just as capable of getting to Heaven with our spirituality as yours is.

I also am starting to take offense at your insistence that we reject the Church’s teaching on the Papacy after we have clearly and repeatedly told you that we don’t. If I say I accept the dogma of papal infallibility and supremacy, then take my word for it. Would you rather think I am a heretic?
Seeing as there are at last count 3 or 4 arguments that counter papal supremacy, yes I do have doubts about whether Eastern Catholics truly accept it
My actions speak the loudest in this regard. I am in communion with the Pope of Rome, though I’d rather be in communion with Christians of my same rite, because I believe it is the right and obligatory thing to do. **Why? ** You who trumpet your exaggerated papalism Not particularly exaggerated, Just the teaching of Vatican 1so loudly aren’t even in communion with the Pope; Again not truethe Church has repeated time and time again the irregular status of the SSPX.And yet time and time again it has started discussions with us At some point you need to practice what you preach.This is a complicated issue which really cant be summed up one thread

 

[TrentCath]

Dear brother TrentCath,

There’s only two options here. Papal absolutism or collegiality. Since you don’t believe in papal absolutism (as you claim that the Pope cannot do anything he wants on liturgical matters), then you believe in collegiality. **This is simply not true I am afraid, Vatican I says '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.' but it also says later 'For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter

not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine,
but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.' So they have a duty to guard and faithfully expounding the revelation or deposit of faith, failing to do so would supress the need for obedience in matters which were in contravention to this duty.** If you claim you don’t, your position is simply inconsistent.  Or perhaps you can claim “I don’t believe in papal absolutism with respect to the liturgy, but I believe in papal absolutism in all other cases.” If that is the case, you can’t escape the charge of inconsistency.

This evinces your ignorance not only of the Eastern Tradition, but of the Latin Tradition as well. First of all, you claim that the Eastern Tradition teaches that “we only inherit a pre-disposition to sin.” That is false. The Eastern Tradition teaches we inherit the consequences of the ancestral sin, which includes not only the pre-disposition to sin, but also death, both spiritual (i.e, spiritual separation from God) and physical, and corruptibility. I have been corrected but thanks nonetheless

Secondly, you blithely claim that “guilt is guilt.” But that is not true from the Latin perspective because there are actually two different Latin words with different meanings that can be translated into English as “guilt.” These two words, FYI, are culpa and reus. Culpa means “blame.” It is, in fact, the Latin word that is most generally translated into English as “guilt.” But there is also the word reus, which has a different meaning than culpa. Reus does not refer to the “blame” for an act. An illustration will best serve to explain the difference. Imagine that your rich father damaged someone else’s property. That action assigns to him both blame (culpa) and a responsibility to recompense for the act (reus). Your father dies, but he never fully recompensed for the act. A court of law might decide that you, as inheritor of your father’s estate, must pay off his debt. You yourself are not to blame for your father’s act , but it had certain consequences which you inherited by inheriting your fathers’ estate. In other words, you did not inherit your father’s culpa, but you inherited his reus. The illustration does not (and is not intended to) fully nor perfectly encapsulate the Catholic teaching, but serves to demonstrate only the difference between the two terms. Thats a nice distinction to make but regardless there still appears to be a difference between eastern and western though ‘Ancestral sin has a specific meaning. The Greek word for sin in this case, amartema, refers to an individual act indicating that the Eastern Fathers assigned full responsibility for the sin in the Garden to Adam and Eve alone. The word amartia, the more familiar term for sin which literally means “missing the mark”, is used to refer to the condition common to all humanity (Romanides, 2002). The Eastern Church, unlike its Western counterpart, never speaks of guilt being passed from Adam and Eve to their progeny, as did Augustine. Instead, it is posited that each person bears the guilt of his or her own sin. The question becomes, “What then is the inheritance of humanity from Adam and Eve if it is not guilt?” The Orthodox Fathers answer as one: death. (I Corinthians 15:21) “Man is born with the parasitic power of death within him,” writes Fr. Romanides (2002, p. 161). Our nature, teaches Cyril of Alexandria, became “diseased…through the sin of one” (Migne, 1857-1866a). It is not guilt that is passed on, for the Orthodox fathers; it is a condition, a disease.’ ‘His misinterpretation of a key scriptural reference, Romans 5:12, is a case in point (Meyendorff, 1979). In Latin the Greek idiom eph ho which means because of was translated as in whom. Saying that all have sinned in Adam is quite different than saying that all sinned because of him. Augustine believed and taught that all humanity has sinned in Adam (Meyendorff, 1979, p. 144). The result is that guilt replaces death as the ancestral inheritance (Augustine, 1956b) Therefore the term original sin conveys the belief that Adam and Eve’s sin is the first and universal transgression in which all humanity participates.’ The article from which I quote can be seen here

So I’ll retract what I said regarding pre-destination

CONTINUED