Handing Over Relics to the Orthodox

[Hesychios]

JW10631:

Catholic-Orthodox unity will not be achieved in our lifetimes. If it happens, it will be two or three hundred years in the future, at least.

I agree.

Orthodoxy will never accept reunification with the Catholic Church based upon the way the Papacy now runs things.

I agree.

The Catholic Church´s hierarchy would look upon the petty bickering of Orthodox bishops and canonical territories as unfathomable.

I have no idea what you are talking about!

Are you saying that in the Western church there is no petty bickering?

Or that the Western petty bickering is more fathomable to the Western mind?

Please keep in mind that the Eastern churches adhere firmly to the one-bishop, one city Canons wherever possible. The only canonical mess is in North America where we Catholics have the same problem: there are at least three Catholic bishops of overlapping jurisdiction in Parma Ohio. These problems can be resolved, it does no good to exaggerate them for effect.

What about the ancient See of Antioch? There are five Patriarchs of Antioch today, three of which are Catholic.

The fracturing of the church of Saint Thomas in southern India was directly the result of Catholic meddling and mishandling, where once there was one unified church there are now five, three of which are Catholic.

It will take a real spirit of forgiveness and desire to do the Lord’s work to repair the split made by men in the Church created by Jesus Christ. Much of Orthodoxy - and Catholicism - is in the Slavic world, and they have long memories.

Everyone has long memories. But you are correct about the Slavic world, where they live they actually walk the ground where those things happened. They swim the rivers and farm the fields where great tragedies took place. History is not a merely intellectual exercise for them as it can be for North Americans.

The church can be pulled together again, but it will require a great deal more flexibility than we have thus far beeen willing to admit. So I agree that it could take hundreds of years, if ever.

In the meantime the church resembles Humpty Dumpty’s egg.

 

[FrmrTrad]

I will never understand how the filioque could cause any confusion. Suppose we find written of a John Q. Jones, in one document that “his mother was a teacher” and in another document “his father owned a restaurant”. Now who would fail to perceive that John Q. has both a mother and a father?

 

[Hesychios]

There is no confusion about the filioque whatsoever.

It doesn’t agree with Eastern concepts of the Holy Trinity.

If you would like to learn more, I would suggest a lttle light reading on Eastern Christology and Trinitarian theology. There are many good books, both Eastern Catholic and Orthodox on the subject. Therefore I will not recommend one without your asking, any author you chose to read on the subject should be helpful.

 

[Kaily]

JW,

All things are possible for God! To say it will never happen in our lifetime is not necessarily true, God can do anything and the reunification will be a miracle! In order to unite we all must bend (that does NOT mean to water down the truth), but we do all need to bend and the keys to unity are humility and love and I believe unity will come as unexpected as communism fell in Russia. Let us let the Holy Spirit use us to bring about this unity which has to be in the heart first.

God BLess,
Kaily

 

[Exporter]

OAT SODA,

**You wrote,
Quote:
4) Frankly, I found the tone of your post supercilious and rather officious and it’s not the first time.
first of all, i don’t know what supercilious means, or officious for that matter, second, who is john hooper? Finally, the fact it has any ties to the UK makes me more suspicious, it’s a near neo-pagan society only out-done by the Scandinavian countries.

Try this, it comes from a DICTIONARY.
SUPERCILIOUS:
coolly and patronizingly haughty <reacted to their breach of etiquette with a supercilious smile>
synonym see PROUD.

Maybe you were Pontificating with your nose up in the air, just maybe. In street language, you were dissing her!

**

 

[FrmrTrad]

Hesychios:

There is no confusion about the filioque whatsoever. It doesn’t agree with Eastern concepts of the Holy Trinity.

I always enjoy hearing book recommendations. As for this subject, it may have been ‘debated’ already here in the forum, but, I don’t see how “Eastern concepts” can override the reality that the Church is monarchical and hierarchical, and that different parts really aren’t permitted to have their own theology. Rome decides, and the decision from centuries back is that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and from the Son. I would to some extent avoid exposing myself to theology oriented toward undermining this, as it has been decided already. I would similarly avoid exposing myself to arguments that, say, pornography is healthy, or Calvinistic theology, or other points of view that are known in advance to be inconsistent with the Church. Arguments or points of view that are known to be at odds with revelation are useful for study only. Anyway, I am not planning at this point to become an ecumenist for the east.

 

[Hesychios]

FrmrTrad:

I always enjoy hearing book recommendations. As for this subject, it may have been ‘debated’ already here in the forum, but, I don’t see how “Eastern concepts” can override the reality that the Church is monarchical and hierarchical, and that different parts really aren’t permitted to have their own theology. Rome decides, and the decision from centuries back is that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and from the Son. I would to some extent avoid exposing myself to theology oriented toward undermining this, as it has been decided already. I would similarly avoid exposing myself to arguments that, say, pornography is healthy, or Calvinistic theology, or other points of view that are known in advance to be inconsistent with the Church. Arguments or points of view that are known to be at odds with revelation are useful for study only. Anyway, I am not planning at this point to become an ecumenist for the east.

It’s a pity, the Eastern Tradition and teachings are yours too!

The Rosary originated in the East, the Sign of the Cross originated in the East, The Stations of the Cross originated in the East, monasticism originated in the East!

We confirm infants, and give them communion from infancy in their mother’s arms! We cross ourselves the first way, and we venerate icons. We have always maintained the permanent diaconate and other minor orders long gone from the West. We have always received communion in both kinds. We have a different set of Holy days. We are Catholics.

different parts really aren’t permitted to have their own theology. Rome decides

Clearly you are mistaken about this, ours is Catholic Theology, always has been and Rome will never change it.

The Eastern Catholic churches are not compelled to use the filioque, and my parish does not.

We Eastern Catholics have a special charge to facilitate dialog between Easterners and Westerners and make it possible for each party to see the blessings and fruitfulness of each other. Our one great goal, and mine especially, is to bring down the walls of prejudice and misconception between the churches and make it possible for both sides of the great divide to come together.

I also do not wish to debate the point at this time, but I note that you have a fear of exposing yourself to theology that your church (I mean the Catholic Communion, taken as a whole) already accepts as valid. Out of 23 Sui Iuris churches, 22 teach one way and one teaches the other.

I am not planning at this point to become an ecumenist for the east.

As a Byzantine Catholic I constantly find myself in situations where I must defend the Roman Catholic church, it is my sister church. Let me tell you, it’s quite a job, especially when I know that most Roman Catholics will not lift a finger to defend my theology, and that goes for [Roman] Catholic Answers here too! Latin theology does not frighten me or confuse me, although I will say that we can all stand to learn more about our Faith and be open to it.

My theology is a match for Orthodox theology, it is taught that way at my parish. I am in Communion with Rome and I make no excuses for it. There is no conflict.

There is a misconception among many that adherance to the filioque is critical to being a Catholic, I can assure you that it is not.

And yes, our way of understanding the Holy Trinity is different, therefore the filioque is improper for us. There are two silver plaques in Rome (in St Peter’s) from the time of Leo III with the Creed in Latin and Greek, neither one contains the filioque. When the Holy Father concelebrates with his Eastern Catholic bishops and priests he omits the filioque!
http://www.archeparchy.org/grfx/angel-lft.gif
http://www.archeparchy.org/grfx/s’bohom.gif
Michael

 

[FrmrTrad]

Hesychios:

… monasticism originated in the East!

Christianity happened first in the East. (Are you from the East, by the way?)

From what you have said, it is plausible to me that my understanding of the filioque is incomplete. I have no fear of further reading, and you may give me a book recommendation. However, the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and from the Son. That’s what “filio que” means: ‘and the Son’. It is certainly not necessary for my sanctification and salvation to follow up on it.

Hesychios:

Our one great goal, and mine especially, is to bring down the walls of prejudice and misconception between the churches and make it possible for both sides of the great divide to come together.

What is the impediment? What is the divide? I did not have the idea that the 23 churches are “divided”.

Hesychios:

Out of 23 Sui Iuris churches, 22 teach one way and one teaches the other.

One is the head, 22 are not. The one is also enormous compared to the others.

Here are some items from Denzinger. I strongly suspect that the filioque issue is simply another expression of resistance to the reality that the Church is monarchical and hierarchical.

Decree of Damasus, A.D. 382, Dz 83: “For the Holy Spirit is not only the Spirit of the Father or not only the Spirit of the Son, but the Spirit of the Father and of the Son.” Council of Toledo, A.D. 675, Dz 277: “…He [the Holy Spirit] is the Spirit of both, not, however, begotten nor created but proceeding from both.” “Ex quo”, “Certain Errors of the Orientals”, Pius X, 1910, Dz 2147a, “grave error”: “No less rashly than falsely does one approach this opinion, that the dogma concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son by no means is taken from the very words of the Gospel, or is sanctioned by the faith of the ancient Fathers”. “Profession of Faith Prescribed for the Greeks”, Gregory XIII, A.D. 1575, Dz 1083: “…I accept and profess all the things which the holy ecumenical Synod of Florence defined and declared concerning the union of the western and eastern Church, namely that the Holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son; and that He has His essence and His subsistent being from the Father and from the Son together; and that He proceeds from both eternally, as from one principle…”

 

[FrmrTrad]

Hesychios:

our way of understanding the Holy Trinity is different, therefore the filioque is improper for us.

It strikes me that it is always the same process: a different idea about what should be true leads people to adjust their understanding of ecclesiology. Here are several examples.

A person lost in sexual sin typically does not want to believe that the Church is correct in her sexual teachings. Instead he says “Well, the Church is really just about believing in God and telling your sins to God directly; it’s about conscience and it can’t be dictated.”

The Protestants and the SSPX are in the same boat. They each became disoriented about one issue or another that they were complaining about, and they decided to adopt a bizarre ecclesiology, and eventually multiple ecclesiologies in the case of the Protestants. Anglicans believe in an erroneous “branch” theory, for example. Baptists believe, I guess, in “me and my Bible and the Holy Spirit”. Various congregations featuring more organization believe roughly that their costumes and groupings are somehow okay, but that one shouldn’t split off, and shouldn’t take the other groupings too seriously. The SSPX refuse the authority of the Church, and fail to accept/understand that the rites of the Church cannot contain error. All of these groups hurt themselves and lead others astray.

How do we know what the Bible should contain? How do we know that the Eucharist contains the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ? How do we know our sins are forgiven after confession? By the power of the keys. The Church decides what is true, and is guided by the Holy Ghost in that decision. When the Church decides that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and from the Son, that’s that. It’s a done deal. It may be that in some nebulous fashion that is difficult to fathom, Eastern theology is somehow so complex that it turns out that the relationship is more nuanced in their view, but it must be so tempting to reject true ecclesiology (Church is hierarchical and monarchical) by magnifying such issues and by refusing to accept that perhaps the dogmatically propounded theology is actually the safe one, under the power of the keys. Sexual sinners, rite schismatics, and heretics who reject most of the sacraments all are so tempted to adjust the concept of “Church” rather than adjusting their ideas and feelings to bring them into conformity with the dogmatically propounded truth.

I think that Eastern Catholics believe that they have a more “spiritual” faith, and that in the West we are more “legalistic”. This is another simplism, for we indeed have many mystics. Indeed many of our mystics probably don’t get credit for being mystics, because they wrote so much that clarified the Faith: St. Thomas and St. Augustine were both mystics. Also St. John of the Cross and St. Teresa of Avila were mystics.

I do not know the Eastern theology of the relationship between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, but I suspect it is a case of preferring to insist on an incorrect ecclesiology (and of Rome trying very hard to be accommodating) rather than adjusting pet ideas to bring them into conformity with those propounded under the protection of the Keys. Scripture, tradition, and centuries’ of dogmatic statements make it clear that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and from the Son.

As for giving the relics “back”, I think the Holy Father is trying to cast Peter’s net in different ways, and it may ultimately work.

 

[Hesychios]

Dear FrmrTrad,

One is the head, 22 are not. The one is also enormous compared to the others.

You are absolutely wrong about this. All 23 Sui Iuris churches are equal, there is no “head” church, and we aren’t your colonies!

I looks like you have a lot of issues.

Since by your own admission you do not comprehend Eastern theology, I will consider our discussion closed.

http://www.orthodoxphotos.com/graphics/father.jpg

 

[FrmrTrad]

Catholic Answers offers what seems an eminently sensible view of the matter:

However, union is still possible on the filioque issue through the recognition that the formulas “and the Son” and “through the Son” mean the same thing. Thus the Catechism of the Catholic Church states that “This legitimate complementarity [of expressions], provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed” (CCC 248).

Today many Eastern Orthodox bishops are putting aside old prejudices and again acknowledging that there need be no separation between the two communions on this issue. Eastern Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware (formerly Timothy Ware), who once adamantly opposed the filioque doctrine, states: “The filioque controversy which has separated us for so many centuries is more than a mere technicality, but it is not insoluble. Qualifying the firm position taken when I wrote [my book] The Orthodox Church twenty years ago, I now believe, after further study, that the problem is more in the area of semantics and different emphases than in any basic doctrinal differences” (Diakonia, quoted from Elias Zoghby’s A Voice from the Byzantine East, 43).

The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia entry also notes that sometime in the 800s (IIRC) there was some thought by the Pope that the creed shouldn’t contain the filioque, although the truth contained in the statement was dogmatically affirmed later, and long ago.

 

[katolik]

Hesychios:

The issues are more complex, but the fate of the Eastern Catholic churches has largely been decided upon:

If there ever is a reunion, those Eastern Catholic churches that derive from Orthodox churches as their mother churches will reunite, and cease being separate entities.

In other words, our mission is to disappear, at least we expect to.

But Uniatism as an issue exists as a problem now. We will not understand the issue until we view it with Eastern eyes, since we are westerners we have to put on these special 3D glasses: :whacky:

Many of the Eastern Catholic churches are children of adversity, and their histories are full of unpleasant incidents.

There is nothing in the West to compare so I have to invent a scenario: It is as if Eastern monks and priests had travelled West in the 16th century when there was so much discord, on the verge of the Reformation, and actually fomented trouble in Holland or Germany in order to split the churches there.

It can be imagined that the Bohemians, eager to be free of the Holy Roman Empire would ask to be admitted to the Orthodox church, or the king of Sweden taking his country to Orthodoxy instead of Lutheranism, with the Patriarch of Constantiople gladly accepting their church, then gradually introducing Eastern practices while suppressing Western devotions!

Could anyone imagine the effect it would have on our outlook if southern France and Catalonia had gone Orthodox during the Great Western Schism? Having the Western Gregorian Mass and chants but being obedient to the Patriarch of Antioch or Alexandria?

I think we would see it as a deep wound in the fabric of our church, and wish to heal that unnatural breach. The very existence of such a church body would be considered an insult to some, an “invasion” of sorts because they had not given us the time we needed to heal that terrible issue among ourselves in our own way!

Happily, Patriarchal churches are not inclined to poach on their neighbors flocks.

To his credit (and with a heightened awareness of the pitfalls), Pope John Paul II has recognized this potential problem: The Orthodox church of Macedonia exists in an uncertain state of Canonicity (once the region was directly under the Patriarch of Constantinople, later the Serbs incorporated the territory and eventually the Slavic church there was recognized as part of the Serbian Orthodox church). The Macedonians have declared their own church to be autonomous, a sort of “home rule” and no other Orthodox church will recognise them as such, so recently they approached the Catholic church seeking recognition from Rome!

His Holiness the Pope turned them down.

Can you tell me more about this? This is sad if it is true

 

[katolik]

Hesychios:

I agree.

I agree.

I have no idea what you are talking about!

Are you saying that in the Western church there is no petty bickering?

Or that the Western petty bickering is more fathomable to the Western mind?

Please keep in mind that the Eastern churches adhere firmly to the one-bishop, one city Canons wherever possible. The only canonical mess is in North America where we Catholics have the same problem: there are at least three Catholic bishops of overlapping jurisdiction in Parma Ohio. These problems can be resolved, it does no good to exaggerate them for effect.

What about the ancient See of Antioch? There are five Patriarchs of Antioch today, three of which are Catholic.

The fracturing of the church of Saint Thomas in southern India was directly the result of Catholic meddling and mishandling, where once there was one unified church there are now five, three of which are Catholic.

Everyone has long memories. But you are correct about the Slavic world, where they live they actually walk the ground where those things happened. They swim the rivers and farm the fields where great tragedies took place. History is not a merely intellectual exercise for them as it can be for North Americans.

The church can be pulled together again, but it will require a great deal more flexibility than we have thus far beeen willing to admit. So I agree that it could take hundreds of years, if ever.

In the meantime the church resembles Humpty Dumpty’s egg.

Why in the world are you a Catholic if call Catholic evangelization “Catholic meddling”? The Orthodox are in schism and it is the priority of Christ to end schism.

 

[JW10631]

One is not the “head”. Each Particular Church is equal to each other Particular Church. The Latin Church is not superior to any other Catholic Church. This is pure arrogance.

The filioque came about as a result of a heresy in 12th or 13th century Spain. It was not there to begin with, and this is what irritates the East. It isn’t anything that can’t be settled by reasonable people but religious zealots are rarely reasonable.

 

[Hesychios]

katolik:

Why in the world are you a Catholic if call Catholic evangelization “Catholic meddling”? The Orthodox are in schism and it is the priority of Christ to end schism.

Dear Katolik,
I am not calling Catholic Evangelization meddling.

The evangelization was marvelous, the unity of the church was beautiful, what happened afterward was criminal. What I am saying is the schism had ended and the intolerance began.

Further, just because I am a Catholic that’s no reason to deny what really happened, if I did that I would only be kidding myself. The parties who were involved know what happened, why should we go into denial? We can learn from this!

The Portuguese bishops with their heavy hands began to abuse this Apostolic, very ancient church in southern India. By turns they began to methodically destroy each tradition of the Catholics of Kerala, to replace them with Roman traditions and Roman disciplines.

I just want to help you get a sense of what happened, we cannot change history. Since most modern Roman Catholics know first hand the trauma that occured in the West with the institution of the “Novus” Ordo (we read the after effects every day on this board), I think it should be easy to relate to the reaction of these people to much greater changes forced upon them from outside by foreigners, this with the support and encouragement of Rome.

The church managed to alienate the entire population.

The situation was so bad that the Portuguese completely lost control and the Saint Thomas Christians sent outside of the Catholic church for new bishops (some of whom were murdered by the Portuguese).

Finally, in a reversal Rome intervened and asked Italian Carmelites (not Portuguese) to go to India and try to salvage the situation with promises not to interfere in the native church traditions, about 2/3 of the parishes were recovered. The process of interference began again later at a more gingerly pace.

The point is at first the entire church was in union with Rome, Catholic with a unique rite, and the church hierarchy was not satisfied to allow them their own customs and traditions. The very same thing has happened everywhere Eastern churches joined with Rome. Promises were made, then broken.

So I hope you see that my comments about meddling had nothing to do with evangelization, it had to do with a triumphal attitude coming from Roman officials responsible for these people.

For further clarification Rome is now encouraging the Catholics of Kerala to restore their ancient traditions, 400 years later.

+T+

 

[FrmrTrad]

Hesychios:

All 23 Sui Iuris churches are equal, there is no “head” church

JW10631:

One is not the “head”. Each Particular Church is equal to each other Particular Church.

Do you disagree with this statement?

Particular Churches are fully catholic through their communion with one of them, the Church of Rome “which presides in charity.” [315 – St. Ignatius of Antioch, *Ad Rom

. 1, 1: Apostolic Fathers, II/2, 192; cf. LG 13.] “For with this church, by reason of its pre-eminence, the whole Church, that is the faithful everywhere, must necessarily be in accord.” [316 – St. Irenaeus, *Adv. haeres. 3, 3, 2: PG 7/1, 849; cf. Vatican Council I: DS 3057.] Indeed, “from the incarnate Word’s descent to us, all Christian churches everywhere have held and hold the great Church that is here [at Rome] to be their only basis and foundation since, according to the Savior’s promise, the gates of hell have never prevailed against her.” [317 – St. Maximus the Confessor, *Opuscula theo.: PG 91:137-140.]CCC #834.

 

[tom.wineman]

Would these relics possibly have been lost when the Moslems captured Constantinople if they hadn’t been in Rome ?

 

[Hesychios]

FrmrTrad:

Do you disagree with this statement?CCC #834.

No, this is not an us vs them reference between the Latin Sui Iuris church and the Eastern Sui Iuris churches. It refers to the local church bodies everywhere and is operative within the Latin church as well as across Sui Iuris church boundaries.

Particular churches are the churches of each city, understood to be dioceses (or in some places Eparchys).

The church of Rome is the Particular church of Rome. The church of Paris, the church of Cologne, the church of Toledo, the church of Dallas etc. are each bound to Rome as the city of the disciples of Peter and Peter’s successors the Popes.

In other words this is a bishop to bishop relationship.

This was true even when the Popes’ resided in Avignon, they retained a suffragen in the form of an Archbishop at Rome because that was the Holy See.

This is not a reference to Sui Iuris churches, although the Popes as Patriarchs of the West have been running the Latin Sui Iuris church pretty much like their own diocese for quite a while now. Sui Iuris means self governing and in that sense there are self governing collections of Particular churches.

The Popes titles include Bishop of Rome, Primate of Italy, Patriarch of the West and Pope. ( I suppose there might be some other forms of these titles).

As bishop of Rome he is head of the Particular church (diocese) of Rome, that is the basis for all of the other roles he must assume.

To be sure there once was a principle called **praestantia ritus latini, **wherin the latin Rite was taken to be preferred in the church. This principle has been repudiated, largely because it was found to be counter-productive.

There are still many documents of historical interest that are based upon this operating theory. From the late Classical period and through the Middle ages such a principle was very effective in suppressing the rites of the local churches in the west. That is why the Mozarabic and Ambrosian rites are almost gone, the Celtic and Gallican churches have been absorbed and the Byzantine churches of Italy and central Europe were reduced considerably in numbers.

Continuing that policy as the Communion extended further into historically Eastern churches has proven to be a disaster, as in the case of the church in India and the Byzantine churches in North America. Praestantia ritus latini is no longer a valid operating theory for the Universal Church.

 

[Hesychios]

Would these relics possibly have been lost when the Moslems captured Constantinople if they hadn’t been in Rome ?

Anything is possible, the Muslims weren’t interested in sustaining Christianity in their lands beyond the obvious benefit of collecting extra taxes from Christians. They did seize churches and lands and there were cases of vandalism.

But historically the Muslims always regarded Christian and Jews as Peoples of the Book. The divisions between Christian bodies did not make any sense to them, they thought we were all pretty goofy to have such infighting between us.

The Muslims did not abuse Constantinople on the same scale that the Crusaders did. The Crusader decision was to dismantle the local church structure and replace it with another, the Muslim decision was to use the local church to help control the population.

I doubt that Crusaders were thinking that seizing bones and other items was a good thing because 300 years later there were bound to be Muslims in control there. Although in hindsight it just might have worked out for the better in the case of these relics.

On the other hand, if the local church had a stronger presense in the region perhaps the rate of conversion to Islam might have been slowed and the country would still have a vibrant Christian minority. We don’t know how history might have played out if the sack had never happened.

 

[FrmrTrad]

Hesychios:

Praestantia ritus latini is no longer a valid operating theory for the Universal Church. … This principle has been repudiated, largely because it was found to be counter-productive.

Is it the CCEC that effects this “repudiation” as you put it?