Orthodox Churches, and Eastern Rite

[Aramis]

May I ask a question. If you do not agree with the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church why are you a member of a Church in Communion with Rome? Seriously, you are intelligent enough to know that Rome expects obedience from the Melkite Patriarch and that the Melkites agree with Roman Catholic dogma. Although the Menaion of the Melkites honor St. Gregory Palamas, Byzantine Daily Worship, changes the 2nd Sunday in Lent from a commemoration of St. Gregory to a celebration of relics.

Fr. John

Because the doctrines are not binding upon the communion, only the dogma.

In the same manner, your church holds to an uncanonical organization that Moscow has called an abomination, and that their “ecumenist” bishop Hilarion has called “troubling.” Yet, Moscow remains in communion with you, whilst casting aspersions on the validity of your episcopacy. Moscow likewise claims to have inherited the authority of Byzantium, and has a “strong patriarch, weak synod” model within - something which your synod has decried, yet your synod remains in communion with them. And Both have said that the canons of the councils are dogmatic in total… yet ignore one or more of them. Like one bishop per city… I see cities with orthodox churches and no bishop, and cities with two orthodox bishops of different Eastern Orthodox Communion Autocephalous Churches…

Rome does not, and has not, required the Unia to hold to all the various doctrines that the western rites* are held to. The dogmas, yes, but not all doctrine is dogma, and not all teachings doctrine, either. We are not required to adhere to the disciplinary canons of the Ecumenical Councils when they do not pertain to our own particular rite. And the overlapping dioceses? Economia. In the US, it’s specifically Rome’s response to the American bishops rejecting non-Roman rite praxis within their dioceses (even to rejection of the separate rite of the Dominican Friars), and is a very clear case of economia - to permit us to have our non-Roman rite, the overlapping dioceses were created as a means to permit what Rome had promised when the local bishops would not.

• noting that the Western Rites have had no corporate reunions without reordinations, in a manner not dissimilar to your own Church’s bringing into communion a bunch of protestants by disbanding their churchness and making them parishes of a vicariate. The Anglican Ordinariate is a direct parallel to the Evangelical Orthodox.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Because the doctrines are not binding upon the communion, only the dogma.

In the same manner, your church holds to an uncanonical organization that Moscow has called an abomination, and that their “ecumenist” bishop Hilarion has called “troubling.” Yet, Moscow remains in communion with you, whilst casting aspersions on the validity of your episcopacy.

Absolute slander. The Russians do not question the validity of the episcopacy of the Antiochians, though they, I am sure, doubt the legitimacy of the Synod’s move to make diocesan bishops into suffragans.

And Both have said that the canons of the councils are dogmatic in total… yet ignore one or more of them. Like one bishop per city… I see cities with orthodox churches and no bishop, and cities with two orthodox bishops of different Eastern Orthodox Communion Autocephalous Churches…

…And the overlapping dioceses? Economia.

Nice double standard there. When Rome does it, it’s excused by Oikonomia (evidently, because Rome is above the law of the Church fathers). When Orthodoxy did it, recognizes now that it has caused a tremendous problem, and is looking for a solution to the problem of overlapping jurisdictions, it is somehow a sign that the canons are not dogmatic in toto, but rather are merely doctrinal, and also a sign that Orthodoxy is disunified on the level of doctrine just as Rome and her daughter sui juris Churches are disunified on the level of doctrine. But that conclusion simply does not follow, for we recognize that the problem of overlapping jurisdictions should be solved, and that the principles set down by the Fathers should hold, while Rome does not.

 

[frjohnmorris]

I agree with you Father! It was my understanding that in this forum we exchange ideas and knowledge of what we believe and hopefully learn from each other. Everyone has opinions as to what they think and while it is a debate of questions and thoughts etc. it never should be heated agruments. You are correct in that we can not change the past and those on every side of these issues, there have been wrongs committed, some in the name of God. That being said, I respect everyone’s opinion and thinking whether or not I agree with it. I do know from my own study of history that Orthodoxcy has a very rich tradition and spirituality. It just seems to me with the schism that occured, it is like a husband and wife being seperated when the two should complament each other, esperially in a world so full of hate and evil.

That is a very good comparison, as you know in order to restore a failed marriage the problems between the husband and wife must be resolved. If they come together again without resolving them, further problems will result. In order for Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism to reunite, we must speak openly and honestly in order to resolve the differences between us.

Fr. John

 

[frjohnmorris]

Because the doctrines are not binding upon the communion, only the dogma.

In the same manner, your church holds to an uncanonical organization that Moscow has called an abomination, and that their “ecumenist” bishop Hilarion has called “troubling.” Yet, Moscow remains in communion with you, whilst casting aspersions on the validity of your episcopacy. Moscow likewise claims to have inherited the authority of Byzantium, and has a “strong patriarch, weak synod” model within - something which your synod has decried, yet your synod remains in communion with them. And Both have said that the canons of the councils are dogmatic in total… yet ignore one or more of them. Like one bishop per city… I see cities with orthodox churches and no bishop, and cities with two orthodox bishops of different Eastern Orthodox Communion Autocephalous Churches…

Rome does not, and has not, required the Unia to hold to all the various doctrines that the western rites* are held to. The dogmas, yes, but not all doctrine is dogma, and not all teachings doctrine, either. We are not required to adhere to the disciplinary canons of the Ecumenical Councils when they do not pertain to our own particular rite. And the overlapping dioceses? Economia. In the US, it’s specifically Rome’s response to the American bishops rejecting non-Roman rite praxis within their dioceses (even to rejection of the separate rite of the Dominican Friars), and is a very clear case of economia - to permit us to have our non-Roman rite, the overlapping dioceses were created as a means to permit what Rome had promised when the local bishops would not.

• noting that the Western Rites have had no corporate reunions without reordinations, in a manner not dissimilar to your own Church’s bringing into communion a bunch of protestants by disbanding their churchness and making them parishes of a vicariate. The Anglican Ordinariate is a direct parallel to the Evangelical Orthodox.

I noticed that you used the term “Unia.” If I used that term to describe the Eastern Catholics, a fire storm would follow with Eastern Catholics denouncing me.
Moscow does not cast aspersions on the validity of our Bishops. Moscow is in full Communion with Antioch. We even have an Antiochian Bishop stationed in Moscow to act as a kind of ecclesiastical embassy representing Antioch to the Patriarchate of Moscow.
The Catholic Church has parishes under the authority of different Bishops in the same city. In Boston, where I went to seminary, the Latin Rite parishes are under the authority of the Latin Bishop, the Melkites are under the authority of the Melkite Bishop, the Maronites are under the authority of the Maronite Bishop.
Actually, the Antiochian Archdiocese has been careful to place our Bishops in cities without other Orthodox Bishops. Our Bishop with authority over the parishes in Pittsburgh is the Bishop of Charleston, West Virginia, to avoid having a Bishop of Pittsburgh because the Greek Archdiocese already has a Bishop of Pittsburgh. Our Bishop with authority over out parishes in Boston is the Bishop of Worcester, a nearby city.
Of course we had to ordain the Evangelical Orthodox and Anglicans who became Orthodox. They had no Apostolic Succession. Like Rome, we do not recognize the Apostolic Succession of Anglicans. Protestants do not even claim Apostolic Succession.

Fr. John

 

[Peter_J]

Absolute slander. The Russians do not question the validity of the episcopacy of the Antiochians, though they, I am sure, doubt the legitimacy of the Synod’s move to make diocesan bishops into suffragans.

I’m glad you said that – I’m was really wondering about that highly (I thought) unusual assertion.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Absolute slander. The Russians do not question the validity of the episcopacy of the Antiochians, though they, I am sure, doubt the legitimacy of the Synod’s move to make diocesan bishops into suffragans. .

We do not use the term suffragans to describe our auxiliary Bishops. I have never read anything that Moscow has any objection to the clarification of the position of our local Bishops as auxiliaries to the Metropolitan. Moscow does not interfere in the internal affairs of the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch just as Antioch does not interfere in the internal affairs of Moscow.

Fr. John

 

[frjohnmorris]

Because the doctrines are not binding upon the communion, only the dogma./QUOTE]

How does the Catholic Church distinguish between dogma and doctrine?
Your statement is difficult for Orthodox to understand because we have stated during ecumenical dialogues that agreement on all doctrine is an essential prerequisite for Communion. That is why I find it difficult to understand how an Eastern Catholic Church could be in communion with Rome if it did not believe as Rome does on all doctrinal matters.
Eastern Orthodox usually reserve the title dogma to doctrines concerning God and Christology and doctrine to deal with everything else. However, we consider all doctrines binding. For example, the doctrine of Apostolic Succession, or the doctrine that the bread and wine become the actual Body and Blood of Christ during the Eucharist are binding on all Eastern Orthodox Christians. We would not consider entering into Communion with a Protestant denomination that accepted all the dogmatic decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, but denied either Apostolic Succession or that the bread and wine become the real Body and Blood of Church during the Divine Liturgy, nor would we even consider entering into Communion with a Protestant denomination that ordains women or blesses same sex marriage.

Fr. John

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother RIchca,

Now, the Catholic Church baptizes infants who have only the stain of original sin but the Scripture says that God laid upon Jesus the guilt of us all. Therefore, original sin has the character of guilt or fault in every human being.

This is not Catholic teaching. It is what Protestants teach.

Here is what the Catechism states, contrary to your claim:

405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not
have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants.

“Fault” and “guilt” are indeed synonymous in the English mind, so it is best not to misrepresent the teaching of the Catholic Church on the matter. The Catechism is careful to avoid the translational errors of the past. Just follow it.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dearest Fr. John, bless,

I forgot to mention Canon IX of Chalcedon that gives a Bishop the right to appeal to Constantinople if he has a disagreement with his Metropolitan or Patriarch.

This is more than a primacy of mere honor.

I noticed that you used the term “Unia.” If I used that term to describe the Eastern Catholics, a fire storm would follow with Eastern Catholics denouncing me.

I’m Oriental Catholic, so this matter does not really affect me. But my own perception has always been that the term “Unia” is not often understood as pejorative, but the term “Uniate” is.

Moscow does not cast aspersions on the validity of our Bishops.

I understood brother Aramis’ term “uncanonical organization” to refer to the manner in which the Antiochian Church operates. I don’t think he was questioning (much less casting aspersions) on the sacramental character of the holy orders of a bishop.

The Catholic Church has parishes under the authority of different Bishops in the same city. In Boston, where I went to seminary, the Latin Rite parishes are under the authority of the Latin Bishop, the Melkites are under the authority of the Melkite Bishop, the Maronites are under the authority of the Maronite Bishop.

Each bishop is the ordinary of a different flock. The Catholic Church does not have more than one ordinary for a particular flock. So nothing is being violated here. I believe the spirit of the law is more important than following the letter of the law.

We do not use the term suffragans to describe our auxiliary Bishops.

If I understand you correctly, it is the same in the Catholic Church. The term “suffragan” primarily refers to bishops with ordinary and proper authority within the territorial jurisdiction of a head bishop. They are not auxiliary bishops.

I have never read anything that Moscow has any objection to the clarification of the position of our local Bishops as auxiliaries to the Metropolitan. Moscow does not interfere in the internal affairs of the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch just as Antioch does not interfere in the internal affairs of Moscow.

This is an important principle, and I believe EO should learn to apply it in ecumenical dialogue with the Catholic Church. All examples of supposed unilateral authority by the Pope of Rome have all occurred in the Latin Catholic Church. I do not believe it is fair for Easterns to use what goes on in the LCC as a gauge of the Pope’s role in the Church universal. The ecclesiology of the LCC is naturally (and perhaps understandably) more centralized than other Churches.

How does the Catholic Church distinguish between dogma and doctrine? Your statement is difficult for Orthodox to understand because

A good point, Father. Catholics distinguish between doctrine and dogma in this way:
DOGMA is what is believed.
DOCTRINE is what is taught.

There are the basic English connotations of the term. With respect to theology, it becomes:
DOGMA is what MUST be believed.
DOCTRINE is how the dogma is taught according to the unique and respective theologies of the different Churches.

An example:
The Essence/Energy distinction is doctrine. It is the way Easterns and Orientals express the underlying dogma which is:
(1) the utter otherness of God from created things;
(2) communion between God and his creation can be achieved.
The Latins believe in these same dogmas. It is just that they do not utilize the Essence/Energy distinction to express/teach it.

I hope that helps, and that you can bring the knowledge of this nuance to your fellow Orthodox during theological conferences with Catholics.

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[GaryTaylor]

An example:
The Essence/Energy distinction is doctrine. It is the way Easterns and Orientals express the underlying dogma which is:
(1) the utter otherness of God from created things;
(2) communion between God and his creation can be achieved.
The Latins believe in these same dogmas. It is just that they do not utilize the Essence/Energy distinction to express/teach it.

I hope that helps, and that you can bring the knowledge of this nuance to your fellow Orthodox during theological conferences with Catholics.

Humbly,
Marduk

Aside from what exists on each East and West, what exists which enters into analytical cross reference of the two?

 

[spina1953]

Dearest Fr. John, bless,

This is more than a primacy of mere honor.

I’m Oriental Catholic, so this matter does not really affect me. But my own perception has always been that the term “Unia” is not often understood as pejorative, but the term “Uniate” is.

I understood brother Aramis’ term “uncanonical organization” to refer to the manner in which the Antiochian Church operates. I don’t think he was questioning (much less casting aspersions) on the sacramental character of the holy orders of a bishop.

Each bishop is the ordinary of a different flock. The Catholic Church does not have more than one ordinary for a particular flock. So nothing is being violated here. I believe the spirit of the law is more important than following the letter of the law.

If I understand you correctly, it is the same in the Catholic Church. The term “suffragan” primarily refers to bishops with ordinary and proper authority within the territorial jurisdiction of a head bishop. They are not auxiliary bishops.

This is an important principle, and I believe EO should learn to apply it in ecumenical dialogue with the Catholic Church. All examples of supposed unilateral authority by the Pope of Rome have all occurred in the Latin Catholic Church. I do not believe it is fair for Easterns to use what goes on in the LCC as a gauge of the Pope’s role in the Church universal. The ecclesiology of the LCC is naturally (and perhaps understandably) more centralized than other Churches.

A good point, Father. Catholics distinguish between doctrine and dogma in this way:
DOGMA is what is believed.
DOCTRINE is what is taught.

There are the basic English connotations of the term. With respect to theology, it becomes:
DOGMA is what MUST be believed.
DOCTRINE is how the dogma is taught according to the unique and respective theologies of the different Churches.

An example:
The Essence/Energy distinction is doctrine. It is the way Easterns and Orientals express the underlying dogma which is:
(1) the utter otherness of God from created things;
(2) communion between God and his creation can be achieved.
The Latins believe in these same dogmas. It is just that they do not utilize the Essence/Energy distinction to express/teach it.

I hope that helps, and that you can bring the knowledge of this nuance to your fellow Orthodox during theological conferences with Catholics.

Humbly,
Marduk

Great Explaining. It is how I understood it, as I could not have said it better than you did explaining to all who read your post

 

[malphono]

We do not use the term suffragans to describe our auxiliary Bishops. I have never read anything that Moscow has any objection to the clarification of the position of our local Bishops as auxiliaries to the Metropolitan.

Indeed. The term “suffragan” in the RCC means a bishop-Ordinary of a diocese within a Metropolia. It does not mean “auxiliary” bishop. A suffragan has full jurisdiction within his own diocese, and is only subject to the Archbishop-Metropolitan in certain very limited matters. I could be wrong, but I don’t think that differs from standard EO practice. An auxiliary bishop, OTOH, is just that: a helper to the bishop-Ordinary, within his (the bishop-Ordinary’s) diocese. An auxiliary bishop has no jurisdiction whatsoever in his own right.

 

[Richca]

Aramis;11391095:

Because the doctrines are not binding upon the communion, only the dogma./QUOTE]

How does the Catholic Church distinguish between dogma and doctrine?
Your statement is difficult for Orthodox to understand because we have stated during ecumenical dialogues that agreement on all doctrine is an essential prerequisite for Communion. That is why I find it difficult to understand how an Eastern Catholic Church could be in communion with Rome if it did not believe as Rome does on all doctrinal matters.
Eastern Orthodox usually reserve the title dogma to doctrines concerning God and Christology and doctrine to deal with everything else. However, we consider all doctrines binding. For example, the doctrine of Apostolic Succession, or the doctrine that the bread and wine become the actual Body and Blood of Christ during the Eucharist are binding on all Eastern Orthodox Christians. We would not consider entering into Communion with a Protestant denomination that accepted all the dogmatic decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, but denied either Apostolic Succession or that the bread and wine become the real Body and Blood of Church during the Divine Liturgy, nor would we even consider entering into Communion with a Protestant denomination that ordains women or blesses same sex marriage.

Fr. John

Hello frjohn,
You make a very good point here. The Catholic Church does require that all catholics where ever they are in the world and whatever particular church or rite they belong too adhere to its teaching and doctrine which can be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The Catechism of the Catholic Church presents the universal teaching of the Church and it is binding on all catholics. A catholic who picks and chooses what doctrines he wants to believe in which is presented in the CCC is not truly catholic. For the CCC presents the very teaching of the Catholic Church.
One of the articles of the creed that we profess is “We believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.” The terms “one” and “catholic” means that we are united in our profession of faith concerning the Church’s teaching on faith and morals. St Paul says "striving to preserve the unity of the spirit through the bond of peace: one body and one Spirit, as you were also called to the one hope of your call; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. (Ephesians 4: 3-6). Obviously, the Catholic Church cannot be considered to profess one universal faith for all peoples if some of these peoples are professing a faith other than the one the Church proposes for our belief.

Pope John Paul II promulgated the Catechism of the Catholic Church by the Apostolic Constitution FIDEI DEPOSITUM. In it, he says:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of Catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion and a sure norm for teaching the faith…
The approval and publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church represents a service which the Successor of Peter wishes to offer to the Holy Catholic Church, and to all the particular Churches in peace and communion with the Apostolic See: the service, that is, of supporting and confirming the faith of all the Lord Jesus’ disciples (cf. Lk 22:32), as well as of strengthening the bonds of unity in the same apostolic faith…
Therefore, I ask the Church’s Pastors and the Christian faithful to receive this catechism in a spirit of communion and to use it assiduously in fulfilling their mission of proclaiming the faith and calling people to the Gospel life. This catechism is given to them that it may be a sure and authentic reference text for teaching Catholic doctrine and particularly for preparing local catechisms…
It is meant to support ecumenical efforts that are moved by the holy desire for the unity of all Christians, showing carefully the content and wondrous harmony of the Catholic faith. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, lastly, is offered to every individual who asks us to give an account of the hope that is in us (cf. 1 Pt 3:15) and who wants to know what the Catholic Church believes."

In the prologue to the CCC it states:
"This catechism aims at presenting an organic synthesis of the essential and fundamental contents of Catholic doctrine, as regards both faith and morals, in the light of the Second Vatican Council and the whole of the Church’s Tradition. Its principal sources are the Sacred Scriptures, the Fathers of the Church, the liturgy, and the Church’s Magisterium. It is intended to serve “as a point of reference for the catechisms or compendia that are composed in the various countries”. (#11)
“This catechism is conceived as an organic presentation of the Catholic faith in its entirety. It should be seen therefore as a unified whole.” (#18).

In regard to the catholicity of the Church, the CCC#834 says:
Particular Churches are fully catholic through their communion with one of them, the Church of Rome “which presides in charity.” “For with this church, by reason of its pre-eminence, the whole Church, that is the faithful everywhere, must necessarily be in accord” (St Iraneous).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.”(St Maximos Confessor)

Richca

 

[andrewstx]

I do not think that the Eastern Orthodox belief that an Epiklesis is essential came about in reaction to Latin Rite Catholicism. That is something that we have always believed. We actually try to avoid identifying a “point of consecration,” because we feel it necessary to preserve the concept that the Eucharist is a mystery. However, to be honest reading the actual text of the Byzantine Liturgy, it is clear that despite the claims of some Eastern Orthodox theologians to the contrary, the words of the Epiklesis, “make this bread the precious Body of thy Christ and that which is in this cup, the precious Blood of thy Christ; changing them by thy Holy Spirit…” certainly implies that the Epiklesis is the moment of consecration. Every ancient Liturgy had an Epiklesis. We had the Epiklesis long before the schism.
However, before the schism there was a lot of influence from East on West and West on East. For example, before he became Pope St. Gregory the Great spent time in Constantinople where he introduced the Presanctified Liturgy. At the same time the Latin Rite Mass begins with the “Gloria…” which actually comes from Byzantine Rite Matins.
You will notice that I am trying to use inoffensive terms out of sensibility for Roman and Eastern Catholic as well as Oriental Orthodox feelings.

Fr. John

Father John bless

What is the difference between the liturgy of the Presanctified and the Western Communion Service?

In the mission parish in Midland Tx we have no priest and one visits about once a month. But we do have a Deacon who serves presanctified gifts. Is that a Liturgy of the Presanctifed or does it have a different name?

I thought Liturgy of the Presanctified was served in Great Lent only?

 

[frjohnmorris]

Dear brother RIchca,

This is not Catholic teaching. It is what Protestants teach.

Here is what the Catechism states, contrary to your claim:

405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not
have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants.

“Fault” and “guilt” are indeed synonymous in the English mind, so it is best not to misrepresent the teaching of the Catholic Church on the matter. The Catechism is careful to avoid the translational errors of the past. Just follow it.

Blessings,
Marduk

What then is the teaching of the Catholic Church on original sin?

Does the Catholic Church teach that we have free will to accept of reject God’s offer of salvation?

Fr. John

 

[frjohnmorris]

Father John bless

What is the difference between the liturgy of the Presanctified and the Western Communion Service?

In the mission parish in Midland Tx we have no priest and one visits about once a month. But we do have a Deacon who serves presanctified gifts. Is that a Liturgy of the Presanctifed or does it have a different name?

I thought Liturgy of the Presanctified was served in Great Lent only?

The Deacon is probably serving a Typika and giving Communion from the reserved Sacrament. A Typika is basically the Divine Liturgy without the parts prayed by a Priest. Actually a Reader or even layman can lead a Typika, but, of course, only a Deacon can give Holy Communion.

The Divine Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts is a form of Great Vespers with Communion using a Lamb (Host) consecrated, dipped in the consecrated wine and dried out and put in a pyx. The Divine Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts. It is also called the Divine Liturgy of St. Gregory the Great because before he went to Rome and became Pope St. Gregory spent time in Constantinople and introduced the Byzantine Church to the Divine Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts.
You are correct the Liturgy of St. Gregory is served only on Wednesday and Fridays of Great Lent and on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday of Holy Week. Because it is a form of Vespers the Liturgy of St. Gregory is served in the evening except during Holy Week when it is served in the morning However in Antiochian tradition instead of the Liturgy of St.Gregory we serve Little Compline with the Akathist Hymn on Friday evenings during Great Lent.

Fr. John

 

[frjohnmorris]

frjohnmorris;11391558:

Hello frjohn,
You make a very good point here. The Catholic Church does require that all catholics where ever they are in the world and whatever particular church or rite they belong too adhere to its teaching and doctrine which can be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The Catechism of the Catholic Church presents the universal teaching of the Church and it is binding on all catholics. A catholic who picks and chooses what doctrines he wants to believe in which is presented in the CCC is not truly catholic. For the CCC presents the very teaching of the Catholic Church.
One of the articles of the creed that we profess is “We believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.” The terms “one” and “catholic” means that we are united in our profession of faith concerning the Church’s teaching on faith and morals. St Paul says "striving to preserve the unity of the spirit through the bond of peace: one body and one Spirit, as you were also called to the one hope of your call; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. (Ephesians 4: 3-6). Obviously, the Catholic Church cannot be considered to profess one universal faith for all peoples if some of these peoples are professing a faith other than the one the Church proposes for our belief.

Pope John Paul II promulgated the Catechism of the Catholic Church by the Apostolic Constitution FIDEI DEPOSITUM. In it, he says:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of Catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion and a sure norm for teaching the faith…
The approval and publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church represents a service which the Successor of Peter wishes to offer to the Holy Catholic Church, and to all the particular Churches in peace and communion with the Apostolic See: the service, that is, of supporting and confirming the faith of all the Lord Jesus’ disciples (cf. Lk 22:32), as well as of strengthening the bonds of unity in the same apostolic faith…
Therefore, I ask the Church’s Pastors and the Christian faithful to receive this catechism in a spirit of communion and to use it assiduously in fulfilling their mission of proclaiming the faith and calling people to the Gospel life. This catechism is given to them that it may be a sure and authentic reference text for teaching Catholic doctrine and particularly for preparing local catechisms…
It is meant to support ecumenical efforts that are moved by the holy desire for the unity of all Christians, showing carefully the content and wondrous harmony of the Catholic faith. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, lastly, is offered to every individual who asks us to give an account of the hope that is in us (cf. 1 Pt 3:15) and who wants to know what the Catholic Church believes."

In the prologue to the CCC it states:
"This catechism aims at presenting an organic synthesis of the essential and fundamental contents of Catholic doctrine, as regards both faith and morals, in the light of the Second Vatican Council and the whole of the Church’s Tradition. Its principal sources are the Sacred Scriptures, the Fathers of the Church, the liturgy, and the Church’s Magisterium. It is intended to serve “as a point of reference for the catechisms or compendia that are composed in the various countries”. (#11)
“This catechism is conceived as an organic presentation of the Catholic faith in its entirety. It should be seen therefore as a unified whole.” (#18).

In regard to the catholicity of the Church, the CCC#834 says:
Particular Churches are fully catholic through their communion with one of them, the Church of Rome “which presides in charity.” “For with this church, by reason of its pre-eminence, the whole Church, that is the faithful everywhere, must necessarily be in accord” (St Iraneous).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.”(St Maximos Confessor)

Richca

Your explanation makes sense to me. If every Church in Communion with Rome has their own doctrine, The Catholic Church would be like the Episcopal Church. On that issue, we agree. A common doctrine is absolutely essential for two Churches to be in Communion.
I cannot help but mention that about 15 years ago, I was hired by the Catholic Diocese of Shreveport to teach church history. They teamed me with a radical feminist nun. She told the people that the Catechism of the Catholic Church was for the laity, but was not binding on theologians like herself. Naturally she favored woman’s ordination. She once called the “Our Father…” a Jewish Patriarchal prayer and favored so called inclusive language for God. Naturally, we clashed. I was not asked back.

Fr. John

 

[frjohnmorris]

Indeed. The term “suffragan” in the RCC means a bishop-Ordinary of a diocese within a Metropolia. It does not mean “auxiliary” bishop. A suffragan has full jurisdiction within his own diocese, and is only subject to the Archbishop-Metropolitan in certain very limited matters. I could be wrong, but I don’t think that differs from standard EO practice. An auxiliary bishop, OTOH, is just that: a helper to the bishop-Ordinary, within his (the bishop-Ordinary’s) diocese. An auxiliary bishop has no jurisdiction whatsoever in his own right.

In the Antiochian Arcdiocese an auxiliary Bishop is subject to the authority of the Metropolitan. However, Metropolitan Philip is not a micromanager, and unless there is a problem lets his auxiliary Bishops administer the diocese under them. The auxiliary Bishops also form a local Synod that advise the Metropolitan and elect new auxiliary Bishops from a list of three nominees chose by the vote of the Convention of the Archdicoese which represents the clergy and Faithful of the Archdiocese. An auxiliary Bishop can recommend that a priest be moved or assigned to parish to the Metropolitan. The Metropolitan is a member of the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Antioch.

Fr. John

 

[frjohnmorris]

mardukm;11391809]Dearest Fr. John, bless,

This is more than a primacy of mere honor.

I’m Oriental Catholic, so this matter does not really affect me. But my own perception has always been that the term “Unia” is not often understood as pejorative, but the term “Uniate” is.

I RESPOND: I do not see much difference. A Uniate is an adherent to the Unia. The term was first used to describe the Union of Brest that established the Ukrainian Catholic Church. However, I do not want to start another fire storm, so am trying to be very careful not to use any terms that offend anyone.

I understood brother Aramis’ term “uncanonical organization” to refer to the manner in which the Antiochian Church operates. I don’t think he was questioning (much less casting aspersions) on the sacramental character of the holy orders of a bishop.

I RESPOND: The canons are not that specific. Each autocephalous Eastern Orthodox Church is free to develop its own system of administration. Thus our North American Antiohcian system of a Metropolitan with auxiliary Bishops is canonical. But so is the OCA system that gives more authority to the local Bishops.

Each bishop is the ordinary of a different flock. The Catholic Church does not have more than one ordinary for a particular flock. So nothing is being violated here. I believe the spirit of the law is more important than following the letter of the law.

If I understand you correctly, it is the same in the Catholic Church. The term “suffragan” primarily refers to bishops with ordinary and proper authority within the territorial jurisdiction of a head bishop. They are not auxiliary bishops.

This is an important principle, and I believe EO should learn to apply it in ecumenical dialogue with the Catholic Church. All examples of supposed unilateral authority by the Pope of Rome have all occurred in the Latin Catholic Church. I do not believe it is fair for Easterns to use what goes on in the LCC as a gauge of the Pope’s role in the Church universal. The ecclesiology of the LCC is naturally (and perhaps understandably) more centralized than other Churches.

I RESPOND: Don’t Eastern Catholics accept the 1st Vatican Council? That certainly gives the Pope a great deal of authority to unilaterally declare the doctrine of the Catholic Church. Exactly what authority does the Pope have over Eastern and Oriental Catholics?

A good point, Father. Catholics distinguish between doctrine and dogma in this way:
DOGMA is what is believed.
DOCTRINE is what is taught.

There are the basic English connotations of the term. With respect to theology, it becomes:
DOGMA is what MUST be believed.
DOCTRINE is how the dogma is taught according to the unique and respective theologies of the different Churches.

An example:
The Essence/Energy distinction is doctrine. It is the way Easterns and Orientals express the underlying dogma which is:
(1) the utter otherness of God from created things;
(2) communion between God and his creation can be achieved.
The Latins believe in these same dogmas. It is just that they do not utilize the Essence/Energy distinction to express/teach it.

I RESPOND: In other words you seem to be saying that we can believe the same thing but express that belief using different terms.

I hope that helps, and that you can bring the knowledge of this nuance to your fellow Orthodox during theological conferences with Catholics.

I RESPOND: We have very good people representing us on the North American Orthodox Catholic dialogue. We tend to send theologians. I was put on the Orthodox Lutheran dialogue because of my studies of the Protestant Reformation as an historian. I do serve, however, as the Antiochian representative to the Ecumenical Affairs Committee of the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in North and Central America.

Humbly,
Marduk

Fr. John

 

[tdgesq]

What then is the teaching of the Catholic Church on original sin?

Does the Catholic Church teach that we have free will to accept of reject God’s offer of salvation?

Fr. John

Canon 5.
If anyone says that after the sin of Adam man’s free will was lost and destroyed, or that it is a thing only in name, indeed a name without a reality, a fiction introduced into the Church by Satan, let him be anathema. ewtn.com/library/councils/trent6.htm#2