Hellenizing the West

[East_and_West]

I often hear a great deal from Eastern Catholics on this forum about how they the victims of Latinizations and how the Pope must change the way he and the Latin Church deal with the East. For example, some Eastern Catholics have stated that the Eastern Code of Cannon Law gives the Pope too much power over Eastern Churches. Other examples in clude the idea that Eastern Catholics should not be required to accept any of the Ecumenical Councils after the seventh.

However, changes in the Church like this I believe would be Hellinizations. The west would have to abandon her own traditions and ecclesiology in order to accomodate this. For example, in the west we see all of the Ecumenical Councils from Nicea up to Vatican II as infallibile and binding on the faithful everywhere. We see the Pope as the Vicar of Christ, infallible when teaching Ex Cathedra, having universal jurisdiction over the ENTIRE Church. If we give up these ideas to appease the East, then we are compromising our faith and our traditions. It seems while the East is asking us not to force our “Latin” (or what I view as Catholic) traditions on them, they want to Hellenize the west.

 

[Woodstock]

I don’t agree with you, but with that line of thinking can you explain why the pope remains in union with the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches?

If it compromises the Latin faith, why does the code of canon law recognize a difference in theology?

Why can Eastern and Oriental Orthodox receive the Eucharist without confessing to what you believe are heresies?

How do you explain the pope signing on to the Council of Florence?

Your line of reasoning isn’t able to be synced with the actions and documents from the Latin Church itself.

 

[East_and_West]

I don’t agree with you, but with that line of thinking can you explain why the pope remains in union with the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches?

If it compromises the Latin faith, why does the code of canon law recognize a difference in theology?

Why can Eastern and Oriental Orthodox receive the Eucharist without confessing to what you believe are heresies?

How do you explain the pope signing on to the Council of Florence?

Your line of reasoning isn’t able to be synced with the actions and documents from the Latin Church itself.

Really? Wow. I guess you are not aware of Latin theology.l am sorry you have not been educated in this matter. Vaticn I declared that Pope has universal jurisdiction over the entire Church. Many Eastern Catholics are calling for end to this. So they are calling for a hellenization of the West. I am sorry you were unaware of this Catholic teaching.

 

[Woodstock]

Really? Wow. I guess you are not aware of Latin theology.l am sorry you have not been educated in this matter. Vaticn I declared that Pope has universal jurisdiction over the entire Church. Many Eastern Catholics are calling for end to this. So they are calling for a hellenization of the West. I am sorry you were unaware of this Catholic teaching.

I’m not going to try to figure out how you got that condescending statement out of my questions for you.

I don’t think they are arguing against his universal jurisdiction within the Latin Church, and so, while you might disagree with how they think his relationship with other Churches he is in communion with should be, I don’t see how you could logically say they are trying to impose a hellenistic model on the Latin Church.

 

[jimmy]

I often hear a great deal from Eastern Catholics on this forum about how they the victims of Latinizations and how the Pope must change the way he and the Latin Church deal with the East. For example, some Eastern Catholics have stated that the Eastern Code of Cannon Law gives the Pope too much power over Eastern Churches. Other examples in clude the idea that Eastern Catholics should not be required to accept any of the Ecumenical Councils after the seventh.

However, changes in the Church like this I believe would be Hellinizations. The west would have to abandon her own traditions and ecclesiology in order to accomodate this. For example, in the west we see all of the Ecumenical Councils from Nicea up to Vatican II as infallibile and binding on the faithful everywhere. We see the Pope as the Vicar of Christ, infallible when teaching Ex Cathedra, having universal jurisdiction over the ENTIRE Church. If we give up these ideas to appease the East, then we are compromising our faith and our traditions. It seems while the East is asking us not to force our “Latin” (or what I view as Catholic) traditions on them, they want to Hellenize the west.

What hellenization is the idea that western dogmas are not to be forced on eastern Chrirstians? So what you are saying is that a lack of hellenization implies that the eastern Christians are to be latinized. Right? Hellenization or latinization.

This is purely false. Just as latins should not be hellenized, easterners should not be latinized. We are not here to submit to latin theology as defined by Rome. Rome has defined an ecclesiology that is purely western. It has nothing to do with the east. If you want to have it in the west that is yours to deal with, but it is contrary to eastern ecclesiology so it can not be inserted into our theology.

If you think that since Rome claims universal jurisdiction and the east does not submit therefore this is hellenization you are making a false statement. It is like a bully telling a little kid that if he fights back then he is violating the bullies right to beat him up.

 

[East_and_West]

I’m not going to try to figure out how you got that condescending statement out of my questions for you.

I don’t think they are arguing against his universal jurisdiction within the Latin Church, and so, while you might disagree with how they think his relationship with other Churches he is in communion with should be, I don’t see how you could logically say they are trying to impose a hellenistic model on the Latin Church.

For Latins, the pope is the Vicar of Christ. He is the earthly head of the Church. In his office as bishop he is equal with all the bishops. In his office of Patriarch, his equal with all the Patriarch. But in his office as Vicar of Christ he is the final judge of ALL things within the church. If the Pope deals with the East in the way many in the East want him to, then he abandons this final role as Vicar of Christ. The Papacy is destroyed, Vatican I is nullified, and the West loses its own traditions.

 

[jimmy]

Really? Wow. I guess you are not aware of Latin theology.l am sorry you have not been educated in this matter. Vaticn I declared that Pope has universal jurisdiction over the entire Church. Many Eastern Catholics are calling for end to this. So they are calling for a hellenization of the West. I am sorry you were unaware of this Catholic teaching.

So delatinization of the east is equivalent to hellinization of the west. If you want to apply the dogma of universal jurisdiction it is going to have to be applied to the Latin Church. It can not be applied to the east. The Latin Church has no right to latinize the east.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother East and West,

For example, some Eastern Catholics have stated that the Eastern Code of Cannon Law gives the Pope too much power over Eastern Churches.

I have never come across this claim. I’ve read through most of the Eastern Code, and it seems to mention the Patriarch more than the Pope.

Other examples in clude the idea that Eastern Catholics should not be required to accept any of the Ecumenical Councils after the seventh.

That’s a false assessment of the claim. What some Eastern and Oriental Catholics believe is that none of the Catholic Councils after the Seventh should be considered ecumenical, NOT that they should not be accepted. Please stop presenting false caricatures about your Eastern (and Oriental) Catholic brethren?

However, changes in the Church like this I believe would be Hellinizations. The west would have to abandon her own traditions and ecclesiology in order to accomodate this. For example, in the west we see all of the Ecumenical Councils from Nicea up to Vatican II as infallibile and binding on the faithful everywhere. We see the Pope as the Vicar of Christ, infallible when teaching Ex Cathedra, having universal jurisdiction over the ENTIRE Church. If we give up these ideas to appease the East, then we are compromising our faith and our traditions. It seems while the East is asking us not to force our “Latin” (or what I view as Catholic) traditions on them, they want to Hellenize the west.

This is another false caricature of what Easterns and Orientals claim for themselves.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

For Latins, the pope is the Vicar of Christ. He is the earthly head of the Church. In his office as bishop he is equal with all the bishops. In his office of Patriarch, his equal with all the Patriarch. But in his office as Vicar of Christ he is the final judge of ALL things within the church. If the Pope deals with the East in the way many in the East want him to, then he abandons this final role as Vicar of Christ. The Papacy is destroyed, Vatican I is nullified, and the West loses its own traditions.

You have GOT to be kidding!

Blessings

 

[jimmy]

For Latins, the pope is the Vicar of Christ. He is the earthly head of the Church. In his office as bishop he is equal with all the bishops. In his office of Patriarch, his equal with all the Patriarch. But in his office as Vicar of Christ he is the final judge of ALL things within the church. If the Pope deals with the East in the way many in the East want him to, then he abandons this final role as Vicar of Christ. The Papacy is destroyed, Vatican I is nullified, and the West loses its own traditions.

There are not three levels of ordination here: bishop, patriarch, pope. There is one level of ordination, that of bishop. A patriarch is not greater than any bishop in authority. The pope is not greater than a patriarch in authority. Maybe the Latin Church has developed an idea within itself that all bishops are subordinate to the bishop of Rome but that can not be forced upon those who are apart from the latin church.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Woodstock,

I’m not going to try to figure out how you got that condescending statement out of my questions for you.

I sense that tone to. I pray brother East and West offers an apology.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

Daer brother jimmy,

A comment on the emboldened portion of your post:

There are not three levels of ordination here: bishop, patriarch, pope. There is one level of ordination, that of bishop. A patriarch is not greater than any bishop in authority. The pope is not greater than a patriarch in authority. Maybe the Latin Church has developed an idea within itself that all bishops are subordinate to the bishop of Rome but that can not be forced upon those who are apart from the latin church.

I would say, “A patriarch is not greater than any bishop in ordinary authority; The pope is not greater than a patriarch in ordinary authoriity.”

I believe there are certain extraordinary circumstances (rare they may certainly be) which sets a patriarch above (BUT NEVER APART FROM) his fellow bishops; and there are certain extraordinary circumstances (even more rare they may certainly be) which sets the Pope (BUT NEVER APART FROM) his fellow Patriarchs and brother bishops.

Would you agree?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jimmy]

That’s a false assessment of the claim. What some Eastern and Oriental Catholics believe is that none of the Catholic Councils after the Seventh should be considered ecumenical, NOT that they should not be accepted. Please stop presenting false caricatures about your Eastern (and Oriental) Catholic brethren?

East and West wasn’t necessarily wrong with this one. Many in the east believe that they are not required to accept the councils after the seventh because they are purely western councils. So you have the Melkite catechism saying that there are only seven ecumenical councils because there was no participation of the Orthodox at the others.

This is not the same as declaring the west heretics because the west accepts them. It is simply to say that they are not part of our theology and we will not insert it into our theology.

I tend to agree with this perspective. I have a friend that recently explained his opinion to me about the east and the west. He basically said that neither the east nor the west can say that the other has been abandoned by Gods grace. They are both being guided by God. But you can’t force latin distinctions upon us easterners, and you can’t force Greek distinctions on latins. They aren’t necessarily contradictory but they can not be mixed, otherwise you have the anihalation of one of them. There is no reason why there shouldn’t be communion between east and west.

I thought that his explanation was pretty good.

 

[Woodstock]

If the Pope deals with the East in the way many in the East want him to, then he abandons this final role as Vicar of Christ. The Papacy is destroyed, Vatican I is nullified, and the West loses its own traditions.

You believe it destroys the papacy if Vatican I is determined to be a local council?

You need to keep up with the goings-on of your own Church!

Statement of Joint Catholic-Orthodox Commission
Ravenna, Italy
Nov 15, 2007

Unlike diocesan and regional synods, an ecumenical council is not an “institution” whose frequency can be regulated by canons; it is rather an “event”, a kairos inspired by the Holy Spirit who guides the Church so as to engender within it the institutions which it needs and which respond to its nature. This harmony between the Church and the councils is so profound that, even after the break between East and West which rendered impossible the holding of ecumenical councils in the strict sense of the term, both Churches continued to hold councils whenever serious crises arose. These councils gathered together the bishops of local Churches in communion with the See of Rome or, although understood in a different way, with the See of Constantinople, respectively. In the Roman Catholic Church, some of these councils held in the West were regarded [past tense] as ecumenical. This situation, which obliged both sides of Christendom to convoke councils proper to each of them, favoured dissentions which contributed to mutual estrangement. The means which will allow the re-establishment of ecumenical consensus must be sought out.

 

[jimmy]

Daer brother jimmy,

A comment on the emboldened portion of your post:

I would say, “A patriarch is not greater than any bishop in ordinary authority; The pope is not greater than a patriarch in ordinary authoriity.”

I believe there are certain extraordinary circumstances (rare they may certainly be) which sets a patriarch above (BUT NEVER APART FROM) his fellow bishops; and there are certain extraordinary circumstances (even more rare they may certainly be) which sets the Pope (BUT NEVER APART FROM) his fellow Patriarchs and brother bishops.

Would you agree?

Blessings,
Marduk

I think this anihalates Greek ecclesiology and consequently the rest of Greek theology, so I don’t think it can work. The Latins can not force this idea upon the east if it was not part of the eastern ecclesiology before the schism.

Further, I don’t think that even the Latins would agree with your statement. They would say that you have limited the pope and consequently are wrong. They would say that the pope has authority in all cases, not simply in certain cases. Obviously the east will never accept this. As long as the latins have a triumphalist approach in which the east must submit to every latin thought, then there will never be unity in Christianity. The triumphalism of the west will only prolong the schism. Same goes for the Eastern Orthodox.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Jimmy,

East and West wasn’t necessarily wrong with this one. Many in the east believe that they are not required to accept the councils after the seventh because they are purely western councils. So you have the Melkite catechism saying that there are only seven ecumenical councils because there was no participation of the Orthodox at the others.

This is not the same as declaring the west heretics because the west accepts them. It is simply to say that they are not part of our theology and we will not insert it into our theology.

I tend to agree with this perspective. I have a friend that recently explained his opinion to me about the east and the west. He basically said that neither the east nor the west can say that the other has been abandoned by Gods grace. They are both being guided by God. But you can’t force latin distinctions upon us easterners, and you can’t force Greek distinctions on latins. They aren’t necessarily contradictory but they can not be mixed, otherwise you have the anihalation of one of them. There is no reason why there shouldn’t be communion between east and west.

I thought that his explanation was pretty good.

Thanks for the explanation. My understanding is that though the Eastern/Oriental Catholics may reject the ecumenical standing and/or the theological expressions of the other Councils regarded as Ecumenical by the Latin Church, we must nevertheless accept the content of the FAITH from those Councils. Is my understanding correct?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Woodstock]

I would say the post-schism councils could not be contradictory to the faith already established by Jesus Christ and that it being non-contradictory is not exclusive to it being superfluous to the east.

 

[jimmy]

Dear brother Jimmy,

Thanks for the explanation. My understanding is that though the Eastern/Oriental Catholics may reject the ecumenical standing and/or the theological expressions of the other Councils regarded as Ecumenical by the Latin Church, we must nevertheless accept the content of the FAITH from those Councils. Is my understanding correct?

Blessings,
Marduk

I woouldn’t say they are heresy and if I were to I would cut myself off from the west. But the western councils seem to be irrelevant to the east. I accept that within a western framework they are probably fine but to insert them into the context of Greek or Syriac theology they become contradictory to the rest of Greek or Syriac theology simply because they are defined from a western outlook. At the same time we must realize that both east and west are led by Gods Grace. I can’t really say whether your understanding is correct or not.

I accept that the west is truely Catholic and orthodox with their councils, but they have to accept that we are fully Catholic and orthodox with our lack of those same councils.

 

[mardukm]

I think this anihalates Greek ecclesiology and consequently the rest of Greek theology, so I don’t think it can work. The Latins can not force this idea upon the east if it was not part of the eastern ecclesiology before the schism.

Further, I don’t think that even the Latins would agree with your statement. They would say that you have limited the pope and consequently are wrong. They would say that the pope has authority in all cases, not simply in certain cases. Obviously the east will never accept this. As long as the latins have a triumphalist approach in which the east must submit to every latin thought, then there will never be unity in Christianity. The triumphalism of the west will only prolong the schism. Same goes for the Eastern Orthodox.

This weekend, in the thread “EC/EO Ecclesiology” I will be presenting ancient canons from the Ecumenical Councils which I believe demonstrates the faithfulness of Catholic ecclesiology to the Tradition of the Church. I hope to have your (name removed by moderator)ut in that thread.

I don’t know if you are using the EOC of today as the standard for your ecclesiological paradigm. I do not believe the ecclesiology of the EOC today properly reflects the ecclesiology of the early Fathers, having been influenced adversely by post-Schism events between Easterns and Westerns. But I will bring all this up in the other thread, to which I look forward with your (name removed by moderator)ut.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jimmy]

This weekend, in the thread “EC/EO Ecclesiology” I will be presenting ancient canons from the Ecumenical Councils which I believe demonstrates the faithfulness of Catholic ecclesiology to the Tradition of the Church. I hope to have your (name removed by moderator)ut in that thread.

I don’t know if you are using the EOC of today as the standard for your ecclesiological paradigm. I do not believe the ecclesiology of the EOC today properly reflects the ecclesiology of the early Fathers, having been influenced adversely by post-Schism events between Easterns and Westerns. But I will bring all this up in the other thread, to which I look forward with your (name removed by moderator)ut.

Blessings,
Marduk

I think that a lot of things have changed since the first millenium. I think the EO represent Greek ecclsiology(pretty much) of the first millenium just as I think the Latins represent the Latin ecclesiology of the first millenium. I think those Catholic Churches who follow the Byzantine tradition must follow the Greek tradition otherwise there will never be communion between east and west. The one difference I think is that the Roman empire was very important in the first millenium. It had a large effect on what councils were accepted as ecumenical and what councils were not. So you see the east Syrians rejecting the council of Ephesus out of opposition to the Roman Empire and out of communion with the persian empire. But modern scholarship has come to recognize that the east Syrians were not expressing a heretical doctrine.

I look forward to your thread. I have wanted to start a thread on ecclesiology so I will look forward to reading your thread and possibly commenting on it. I might start a thread that explains Trinitarian theology from a Greek perspective as well. If you have knowledge of the Syrian perspective maybe you could post on that.