"Orthodox in Communion with Rome"

[dzheremi]

Dear brother Dzheremi,

I guess the question is, “Are they really contradictory?” If two things are different, are they necessarily “contradictory?” This would seem to be an apporpriate thread to discuss specific issues that you feel are “contradictory.”

To the extent that there are some points on which the EO and RC are in agreement even while not sharing exactly the same understanding of the subject at hand, I agree with you. I don’t know where you are getting this idea that I think two things are contradictory simply because they differ. I have never stated as such, and would never state anything so ludicrous.

In point of fact, EO communion is not free from such supposedly “contradictory” beliefs. Neither is the OO communion. Such beliefs are relegated to “theologoumena,” but they exist nonetheless. No Churches are free of such apparent “contradictions” because the Church is composed of fallible, weak, and sinful human beings. But do you let such differences divide, or is there something deeper - and more important - that should be the basis for unity?

I believe I have been misunderstood more than once on this account in this thread. I must learn to be more precise. Anyway, I know that no church or communion is perfect. People are people, and there is no limit to our failings. I am also more than aware of the common bonds that bind believers in Christ regardless of their particular confession. I have bonded with Armenian, Ethiopian, and Syriac Orthodox friends and acquaintances in the past over many religious topics, and likewise with Protestants and Catholics of all stripes over the same. Still, when it comes to communion, I accept the reality that our communities are separate for good reasons – doctrinal reasons. Doctrinal reasons are important.

And what does it mean to “minimize?”

The tendency to believe that, because they can be characterized as misunderstandings, there is little substance to the theological disagreements that continue to divide our communions. I do not agree with this.

If two different Traditions exist in the same communion, a communion based on the same Faith, yet don’t wish to impose each others’ Traditions on each other, is that “minimizing” the importance of each others’ Traditions, or is it simply living together in Faith while acknowledging the legitimacy and orthodoxy of each others’ Traditions?

No, that is not minimizing. That is also not the situation I am objecting to. I have addressed this in my previous reply.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Dzheremi,

No, I do not agree with that. If we look at the etymology of the word “Catholic”…it took on the sense of “believed throughout the whole/universally accepted”. It is with this sense in mind that I feel the Orthodox are completely justified in using it (and, indeed, I think this is the sense they have in mind when they refer to themselves as such).

You’re kidding, right? In what sense is the the EO Faith “believed throughout the whole/universally accepted?” Do all EO accept the OO as Orthodox? Many do, many don’t. Do all EO believe that the doctrine of Toll Houses is dogma? You should see the debate among the EO themselves at some EO websites on the matter! Do all EO think that Catholics are heretics? No. These are just some of the issues within EO’xy, and they seem pretty fundamental. So are the EO a bunch of “indifferent” people, or is it just Catholics that you have a problem with? What’s your standard for judgment here. Is it fair?

In any case, the “original Greek” rationale can easily be applied to “orthodox.” If Orthodox can use “Catholic” according to their understanding, then Catholics can use “Orthodox” according to our understanding as well.

The geographic meaning of “found everywhere (in every place on Earth)”, which is the one I have most often encountered operating in the understanding of Roman Catholics, is obviously related but of much less importance or profundity. This goes back to my earlier point about the difference between mere corporeal unity and true unity of faith. If “large C” Catholics want to define their communion and catholicity in this or that particular way, fine, but I think there are certain Catholic-specific understandings of these terms and concepts that do not nurture a healthy understanding of the Christian faith. If I thought otherwise, I would gladly return to Rome.

I don’t understand how non-theological opinions of laity can affect you so much. If you want to know what the CC actually teaches about herself, just focus on the official documents, not the polemics or the pseudo-intellectual banter.

From whose perspective are you writing this? I would leave any such determination of a schismatic group’s orthodoxy (and, as the case may be, Orthodoxy) to the leaders of the church(es) from which they deviated – in the case of ROCOR, the Russian Orthodox Church.

The schismatic group thought they were Orthodox and did not regard the original Church as Orthodox. So you are saying the schismatic group had no right to call themselves Orthodox?

it is the Roman Pope’s sole prerogative to determine the status of schismatic groups such as the SSPX. Since the Eastern Catholic churches (with the possible exception of the Maronite Church) are in schism from their respective Orthodox counterparts, we should look to the leaders of those churches to see how the ECCs relate to the EOC and OOC. When we do so, we do not find agreement with this principle that Eastern Catholics are orthodox in any fashion.

ECC’s and OCC"s are our own Churches, and we can determine our orthodoxy/Orthodoxy just fine.

How so?

You criticized how different, objectionable things go on in the CC and no one seems to care, then complained that Eastern “differences” are subordinated for the sake of unity. Then you quote HH Pope Shenoute regarding uniformity, after which you flat out state that the “unity in diversity” is merely “indifference.”

But there is no uniformity within OO’xy itself, and Pope Shenoute would never say anything suggesting disrespect for the “unity in diversity” within OO’xy. So your quotation of him is out of place.

Please quote where I used any statement from HH Pope Shenouda in any way. I was paraphrasing a discussion I read between two Coptic Orthodox laypersons

I assumed the layperson was presenting HH’s own explanation for disciplining the priest.

I am certainly aware of the distinct traditions within the Oriental Orthodox Communion. I do not think you are making a sincere effort to understand the position I have taken.

You criticized “unity in diversity” as “indifference.” Unity in diversity exists in OO’xy (and also in EO’xy). And you quoted that explanation of Pope Shenoute’s actions regarding uniformity in an approving way. I think I understand you correctly as far as what you have written. Perhaps you need to explain yourself a bit more.

If you read the post you are referring to, you will see that what I am critical of is not the presence of different traditions within the same communion, but the indifference with which the Roman Catholic Church seems to treat its own traditions and its communion. Other “Orthodox in communion with Rome” posters seem to have understood this, and agreed.

I think they would agree that the EC and OC Traditions have not been treated fairly for about 200 years. But I seriously doubt they agree with you that efforts to promote understanding are a fruitless endeavor.

Still unfair? If so, I don’t know what to do other than repeat the old cliche about what can happen when you stand for nothing…

I stand for unity in Faith through the spiritual fruit of understanding. Here is my perspective as an Oriental. A 1500 year misunderstanding was healed between the CC and OOC. You berate the idea that differences can be nothing more than misunderstanding. The reality I have experienced dictates otherwise. EO/ CC disagreement on certain theological points haven’t existed for even half that time(!), and you expect me to believe that there is no hope for understanding between the EO and CC? You won’t convince this Oriental any time soon.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dzheremi]

You’re kidding, right? In what sense is the the EO Faith “believed throughout the whole/universally accepted?” Do all EO accept the OO as Orthodox? Many do, many don’t. Do all EO believe that the doctrine of Toll Houses is dogma? You should see the debate among the EO themselves at some EO websites on the matter! Do all EO think that Catholics are heretics? No.

What is your point here? I worte about the use of the word “catholic”, because that’s what you asked about. I wrote that it seems that Orthodox and Catholic people have different ideas of what the word means, and so within the specific definition(s) that they are operating under, each communion is ‘correct’ in using it (as far linguistics is concerned, meaning is developed by community agreement, so the idea of ‘correct’ usage can be pretty fluid). The Orthodox are correct in calling themselves “catholic” insofar as it is their contention that they are (that their faith is the one that has been “believed throughout the whole”, keeping in mind their view that the Roman Church left the common faith).

These are just some of the issues within EO’xy, and they seem pretty fundamental. So are the EO a bunch of “indifferent” people, or is it just Catholics that you have a problem with? What’s your standard for judgment here. Is it fair?

I have a problem with the kinds of things I personally experienced as a Catholic, yes. Why else do you think I eventually saw the need to leave that communion? It is not something done lightly. As far as the Eastern Orthodox are concerned, the differences of opinion over the issues you mentioned do not seem to rise to the level of affecting the practice of the faith (at least not as far as I have seen). Nobody goes to DL to find all kinds of aberrations occurring in it and strange doctrines being taught in it because the celebrant is of a particular view about toll houses. The same can hardly be said about a Catholic priest preaching to his congregation about our “Heavenly Mother” or whatever. One is a difference in private theological opinion on a matter for which there can be reasonable differences in opinion, the other is an extreme deviation from what the Church has taught about God for 2000 years.

In any case, the “original Greek” rationale can easily be applied to “orthodox.” If Orthodox can use “Catholic” according to their understanding, then Catholics can use “Orthodox” according to our understanding as well.

I see what you’re getting at, but you’ve missed the point: “Catholic” has two different, specific senses in which it is used by the respective communions. “Orthodox” has not developed any sort of analogical extension by which Catholics can have their own definition of it. You may be an orthodox Catholic, but by claiming that you are “Orthodox in union with Rome”, it is implying that you are sharing the faith of the Orthodox Christians, which they disagree with. There is no such disagreement about the RCs catholicity because Catholics have a different definition of what this means to begin with. I have yet to meet an Orthodox Christian who has disagreed that the RC communion is found everywhere and in visible union with the Roman pontiff, which seems to be the two requirements for catholicity according to the Catholics I know. I would assume that if a Catholic tried to argue with an Orthodox that the Roman Catholic communion is catholic in the same sense that the Orthodox are, they would likely be rebuked.

I don’t understand how non-theological opinions of laity can affect you so much. If you want to know what the CC actually teaches about herself, just focus on the official documents, not the polemics or the pseudo-intellectual banter.

And if I were to focus on the official documents, I would still find much with which I disagree. Much of this “pseudo-intellectual banter”, as you call it, is substantiated with reference to official documents, anyway, so I don’t know why you are drawing such a strict division between them. Is there any particular difference between widespread popular devotions (e.g., Fatima, various litanies) supported by Rome without being held as doctrinal and doctrinal pronouncements? Try arguing against them and see the reactions of the faithful Catholics. The reactions are largely the same whether we are talking about rejection of particular parts of the CCC (official) or a particularly well-rooted devotion (unofficial). So I don’t see the use in this…

The schismatic group thought they were Orthodox and did not regard the original Church as Orthodox. So you are saying the schismatic group had no right to call themselves Orthodox?

That’s exactly what I am saying, yes. Insofar as the ROCOR is now reunited with the mother Church, we must assume that they are, in fact, Orthodox. Think about it, Mardukm: If I, a person who is certainly in schism with the Roman Catholic Church, set up a “Roman Catholic Church Outside of Rome” which is not in communion with the mother Church, am I right to call it “Catholic” (keeping in mind our earlier discussion of what that means within the RC communion)? No, I am not. But, if in the course of time, reunion of my schismatic group with the RC is achieved then I am no longer a separate body, so I am once again fully “Catholic” and can call myself that without any confusion as to what is meant.

ECC’s and OCC"s are our own Churches, and we can determine our orthodoxy/Orthodoxy just fine.

You can determine your orthodoxy (in the sense of adherence to your own doctrines), sure, but you cannot say (as is the topic of this thread) that you are “Orthodox in Union with Rome”, implying that your faith is the same faith as that of the Orthodox churches you have left. It isn’t.

 

[dzheremi]

You criticized how different, objectionable things go on in the CC and no one seems to care, then complained that Eastern “differences” are subordinated for the sake of unity. Then you quote HH Pope Shenoute regarding uniformity, after which you flat out state that the “unity in diversity” is merely “indifference.”

Again, please quote where I quoted HH Pope Shenouda. Go on. I’ll wait.

But there is no uniformity within OO’xy itself, and Pope Shenoute would never say anything suggesting disrespect for the “unity in diversity” within OO’xy. So your quotation of him is out of place.

If you’re not going to bother to read what I actually write, then you ought not bother replying to it, either.

I assumed the layperson was presenting HH’s own explanation for disciplining the priest.

Perhaps he was. I really don’t know. That’s precisely why I did not present it as a quote.

You criticized “unity in diversity” as “indifference.”

I do not see what goes on in the RC communion as being “unity in diversity” to begin with, so…

The “indifference” comes in the way that the RC approaches its own communion. I attended RC masses for several years and observed many aberrations there (aberrations, it should be clarified, in relation to what RCs themselves had told me about the workings of the Roman communion). Is the RC church the only church with such problems? No, certainly not. But at the same time I don’t see anyone doing much of anything about liturgical and theological aberrations. The answer I got when I brought up concerns about (for instance) jazz bands and patriotic hymns invading the liturgy was “there is a Latin mass once a month at X church. Maybe you should go to that. It is more reverent.”

Unity in diversity exists in OO’xy (and also in EO’xy). And you quoted that explanation of Pope Shenoute’s actions regarding uniformity in an approving way. I think I understand you correctly as far as what you have written. Perhaps you need to explain yourself a bit more.

Alright. Perhaps it would help if we take Pope Shenouda and this particular situation out of the equation, as I meant it only as an example anyway. If anyone from any Christian church preaches his private theological opinions, which are at variance with the faith of the apostles and the common understandings of the ECFs, and represents them and not the apostolic faith as true Christianity, he ought to be disciplined for leading his flock astray. It is the prerogative of those above him and below him who recognize his error to correct him, and should he remain in insubordination it is the prerogative of his Church to act to censure, depose, or otherwise excommunicate him as they see fit in accordance with their procedures for dealing with those who preach false doctrines.

Better?

I think they would agree that the EC and OC Traditions have not been treated fairly for about 200 years. But I seriously doubt they agree with you that efforts to promote understanding are a fruitless endeavor.

Where have I said that efforts to promote understanding are a fruitless endeavor? I don’t recall writing anything like that, and I certainly do not agree with it. Stop putting words in my mouth.

I stand for unity in Faith through the spiritual fruit of understanding. Here is my perspective as an Oriental. A 1500 year misunderstanding was healed between the CC and OOC. You berate the idea that differences can be nothing more than misunderstanding.

No, no. I disagree with the stance that because they can be characterized as misunderstandings they are without substance. I have written as much in this thread. Please respond to what I actually write.

The reality I have experienced dictates otherwise. EO/ CC disagreement on certain theological points haven’t existed for even half that time(!), and you expect me to believe that there is no hope for understanding between the EO and CC? You won’t convince this Oriental any time soon.

I don’t expect you to believe anything. I am merely giving my own opinion as you are giving yours. I do not know that there is no hope for understanding between the EO and CC. My own experience with EO and OO Christians when I was Catholic tells me that we need to temper our understandings of schism with a large dose of reality many Catholics are either not aware of or unwilling to face. If the schism could be fixed by the Catholics’ insistence that it is all a big misunderstanding, then it would not remain. As that is not reality, we must deal with reality which means dealing with non-Catholic viewpoints that do not view the issues that divide the various communions in the same light as the CC does.

 

[JohnVIII]

…From the Catholic perspective, the EO have always been objectively in “schism,” not heresy. So EO are Orthodox not in communion with Rome, while there are other Easterns who are also Orthodox, but are in communion with Rome…

I’m interested in what you might mean when you say “objectively” in schism. Since all the anathema’s were lifted in 1964 and from what I’ve heard the Patriarch of Constantinople has the Popes name in his diptychs, and Rome is open to inter-communion; and seeing that historically no Eastern Church has ever been excommunicated by the Pope, and even the excommunication of the Patriarch of Constantinople in 1054 was done when the Pope was dead and therefore was not valid; any non-communing between East and West right now amounts to nothing more than local administrative decisions. An I see it the Eastern Orthodox are essentially in communion with Rome now.

Peace!

 

[malphono]

My own experience with EO and OO Christians when I was Catholic tells me that we need to temper our understandings of schism with a large dose of reality many Catholics are either not aware of or unwilling to face. If the schism could be fixed by the Catholics’ insistence that it is all a big misunderstanding, then it would not remain. As that is not reality, we must deal with reality which means dealing with non-Catholic viewpoints that do not view the issues that divide the various communions in the same light as the CC does.

Sorry to intrude on this, but if I may, I’ll offer a small (or, now that I look it, maybe not-so-small ) comment on the “misunderstanding” thing. On the one hand, I do believe that it originated as little (if anything) more than a series of “misunderstandings” but, in my experience, Rome has compounded the “misunderstandings” in such a way as to have rendered them (nearly, at least) unsurmountable.

Perhaps the “big one” here is the Papal primacy/Infallibility argument. It’s no secret in this forum that I happen to support what is termed the “High Petrine view” as being the authentic position, but it is equally no secret that I acknowledge that same does not exist in practice. It all goes back to 1870 and a vain attempt by the Bishop of Rome to hold his temporal power by demanding dogmatic definition his immediate, universal, and absolute ecclesiastical power. I find it ironic that despite that, he lost his temporal power anyway. (Of course there are the claims that Vatican II “clarified” this …yadayadayada, but I think we all know that it did nothing more than reiterate it.) I’d call it poetic justice, but unfortunately it’s at the expense of the East and Orient. The ecclesial model of the West is hierarchical in the first place, and had those “definitions” been made exclusively to the West, it would have been one thing, but they were not. The ecclesial model of the Orient and East is Synodal, yet Rome imposes a hierarchical structure above that, which gives us, in part, the CCEO, the infernal Oriental congregation … but enough. I think you can see where I’m going with this.

That said, the EO polemicists (who are generally sycophants in the thrall of MP) are little better, in that they go so far as to vilify anything Western, claiming that the West is “unholy” (or “without Grace” or whatever other euphemism they may want to use). And that even for matters internal to the Western Church, which are really none of their business. As autocratic as Rome can be, it normally doesn’t insinuate itself directly into EO internal matters. And of course the EO are diehard adherents of the “Low Petrine view” which is just as far from historical accuracy as is the “Absolute Petrine view” espoused by Rome. For their part, the OO are much more reasonable (although MP has had its effect there, too, particularly among certain Coptic bishops).

Anyway, can the divide be surmounted? Some aspects, at least with the OO, have been, but again, they are far more agreeable to dialogue than are the EO. As for the rest, I can only say possibly, but only if Rome redefines its own definitions. And, to put this in sloppy English, that ain’t likely to be happenin’ anytime soon.

Just an unsolicited :twocents: (undoubtedly worth less than half that) from your truly.

 

[dcointin]

Sorry to intrude on this, but if I may, I’ll offer a small (or, now that I look it, maybe not-so-small ) comment on the “misunderstanding” thing. On the one hand, I do believe that it originated as little (if anything) more than a series of “misunderstandings” but, in my experience, Rome has compounded the “misunderstandings” in such a way as to have rendered them (nearly, at least) unsurmountable.

Perhaps the “big one” here is the Papal primacy/Infallibility argument. It’s no secret in this forum that I happen to support what is termed the “High Petrine view” as being the authentic position, but it is equally no secret that I acknowledge that same does not exist in practice. It all goes back to 1870 and a vain attempt by the Bishop of Rome to hold his temporal power by demanding dogmatic definition his immediate, universal, and absolute ecclesiastical power. I find it ironic that despite that, he lost his temporal power anyway. (Of course there are the claims that Vatican II “clarified” this …yadayadayada, but I think we all know that it did nothing more than reiterate it.) I’d call it poetic justice, but unfortunately it’s at the expense of the East and Orient. The ecclesial model of the West is hierarchical in the first place, and had those “definitions” been made exclusively to the West, it would have been one thing, but they were not. The ecclesial model of the Orient and East is Synodal, yet Rome imposes a hierarchical structure above that, which gives us, in part, the CCEO, the infernal Oriental congregation … but enough. I think you can see where I’m going with this.

That said, the EO polemicists (who are generally sycophants in the thrall of MP) are little better, in that they go so far as to vilify anything Western, claiming that the West is “unholy” (or “without Grace” or whatever other euphemism they may want to use). And that even for matters internal to the Western Church, which are really none of their business. As autocratic as Rome can be, it normally doesn’t insinuate itself directly into EO internal matters. And of course the EO are diehard adherents of the “Low Petrine view” which is just as far from historical accuracy as is the “Absolute Petrine view” espoused by Rome. For their part, the OO are much more reasonable (although MP has had its effect there, too, particularly among certain Coptic bishops).

Anyway, can the divide be surmounted? Some aspects, at least with the OO, have been, but again, they are far more agreeable to dialogue than are the EO. As for the rest, I can only say possibly, but only if Rome redefines its own definitions. And, to put this in sloppy English, that ain’t likely to be happenin’ anytime soon.

Just an unsolicited :twocents: (undoubtedly worth less than half that) from your truly.

I’m interested in hearing how you understand the “low petrine view”, and how you believe it contradicts history.

 

[malphono]

I’m interested in hearing how you understand the “low petrine view”, and how you believe it contradicts history.

It amounts to the “primus inter pares” thing, but under whichever name, it has been tossed around in a number of threads in this forum for a while now. One such thread was [thread=349702]this one[/thread], where mardukm goes into some interesting detail.

 

[dzheremi]

As usual (?), I am in agreement with you, Malphono. Perhaps I would be a better “Old style Syriac Maronite” than I was a Roman Catholic…

Anyway, I believe I have essentially written nothing less than what you explained much more eloquently in your first paragraph, but I will reiterate my position regarding this “misunderstanding” business, lest I be…um…misunderstood by mardukm or anyone else: The schism(s) that have affected world Christianity may have began as “misunderstandings” of one kind or another (the big ones were primarily linguistic, from what I have seen), but as we are not living in 1055 AD (or 548, if you prefer) it is a little naive to try to reduce them to misunderstandings today, as though subsequent developments in the Roman/Eastern churches have not compounded them into something much more than what they perhaps started out as. Approach an Eastern Orthodox priest today with the idea that the filioque really means “through the Son” (the explanation I was given by my Dominican priest when I asked about it) and you’re not likely to be taken seriously, whether you are representing your church’s official view on the matter or not.

Addendum: And it is possibly not even correct to say that this is just the fault of doctrinal developments subsequent to the schism. In order to be consistent with my previous posts, I should maintain that while the Great Schism was finalized in 1054 AD, its roots are a theological and intellectual estrangement that go back centuries. So in answering the question “Can these divisions be surmounted?”, it is worthwhile to consider another question: “Can Rome return to its ancient understanding of the faith?” I am extremely pessimistic about this prospect, for many reasons.

 

[dcointin]

I hope you can provide some clarification for me on the issue of whether the Pope can change eastern liturgies. The following are two quotations from different threads and posters addressing this question:

Mardukm: “Vatican 1 explicitly taught that it is the Pope’s divine obligation to uphold and defend the rights and prerogatives of his brother bishops. And it is also his divine obligation to uphold the unity of the Church. And the Canons state that the Pope has no right to injure the inherent rights of persons. Easterns and Orientals have a right to their Liturgy and Traditions. The Pope has no authority to “throw out” these inherent aspects of Eastern/Oriental Christians.”

Crusader90: "I consulted a priest (the same FSSP priest) at daily Mass today and he assured me that various people are trying to limiting papal authority more than the Church has limited papal authority. I showed him my previous post and he explained the jurisdiction of the bishop to me. If a bishop is consecrated he is a bishop, but he doesn’t necessarily have jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is attached to the ecclesiastical office, not the “order of bishop.” The pope could take away a bishop’s ecclesiastical office and thus lose his jurisdiction. A bishop illicitly consecrated does not have ordinary jurisdiction. My priest said, and I quote, “He’s [the pope] the legislator and is not subject to ecclesiastical law and he can change it with the stroke of his pen. He can, among other things, change canon law, speak ex cathedra, and change liturgies in both the East and West without even consulting one bishop. He can do the same regardless of rite or particular church.”

Can you see why Orthodox are confused about what Catholics actually believe?

 

[dzheremi]

As usual (?), I am in agreement with you, Malphono. Perhaps I would be a better “Old style Syriac Maronite” than I was a Roman Catholic…

Anyway, I believe I have essentially written nothing less than what you explained much more eloquently in your first paragraph, but I will reiterate my position regarding this “misunderstanding” business, lest I be…um…misunderstood by mardukm or anyone else: The schism(s) that have affected world Christianity may have began as “misunderstandings” of one kind or another (the big ones were primarily linguistic, from what I have seen), but as we are not living in 1055 AD (or 548, if you prefer) it is a little naive to try to reduce them to misunderstandings today, as though subsequent developments in the Roman/Eastern churches have not compounded them into something much more than what they perhaps started out as. Approach an Eastern Orthodox priest today with the idea that the filioque really means “through the Son” (the explanation I was given by my Dominican priest when I asked about it) and you’re not likely to be taken seriously, whether you are representing your church’s official view on the matter or not.

Addendum: And it is possibly not even correct to say that this is just the fault of doctrinal developments subsequent to the schism. In order to be consistent with my previous posts, I should maintain that while the Great Schism was finalized in 1054 AD, its roots are a theological and intellectual estrangement that go back to even earlier centuries. So in answering the question “Can these divisions be surmounted?”, it is worthwhile to consider another question: “Can Rome return to its ancient understanding of the faith?” I am extremely pessimistic about this prospect, for many reasons.

 

[malphono]

I hope you can provide some clarification for me on the issue of whether the Pope can change eastern liturgies. The following are two quotations from different threads and posters addressing this question: …

Can you see why Orthodox are confused about what Catholics actually believe?

Perhaps mardukm can clarify better than I. If you notice in my earlier (somewhat windy) [post=7330420]post[/post], I said:

It’s no secret in this forum that I happen to support what is termed the “High Petrine view” as being the authentic position, but it is equally no secret that I acknowledge that same does not exist in practice.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I hope you can provide some clarification for me on the issue of whether the Pope can change eastern liturgies. The following are two quotations from different threads and posters addressing this question:

Mardukm: “Vatican 1 explicitly taught that it is the Pope’s divine obligation to uphold and defend the rights and prerogatives of his brother bishops. And it is also his divine obligation to uphold the unity of the Church. And the Canons state that the Pope has no right to injure the inherent rights of persons. Easterns and Orientals have a right to their Liturgy and Traditions. The Pope has no authority to “throw out” these inherent aspects of Eastern/Oriental Christians.”

Crusader90: "I consulted a priest (the same FSSP priest) at daily Mass today and he assured me that various people are trying to limiting papal authority more than the Church has limited papal authority. I showed him my previous post and he explained the jurisdiction of the bishop to me. If a bishop is consecrated he is a bishop, but he doesn’t necessarily have jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is attached to the ecclesiastical office, not the “order of bishop.” The pope could take away a bishop’s ecclesiastical office and thus lose his jurisdiction. A bishop illicitly consecrated does not have ordinary jurisdiction. My priest said, and I quote, “He’s [the pope] the legislator and is not subject to ecclesiastical law and he can change it with the stroke of his pen. He can, among other things, change canon law, speak ex cathedra, and change liturgies in both the East and West without even consulting one bishop. He can do the same regardless of rite or particular church.”

Can you see why Orthodox are confused about what Catholics actually believe?

Can the pope? Yes. Will he? Highly unlikely unless something terribly wrong happens in the said Liturgy like a major change that would promote heresy. Part of our faith is that the Pope is guided by the Holy Spirit, and thus wouldn’t make such brash decisions regarding the Church. He’s not going to power trip, although some may claim that some Popes has.

Besides, if a Pope unjustly would change or remove an Eastern Liturgy, I believe the Patriarch would just as soon as go into schism than allow their traditions to vanish. I highly doubt it will happen. And if a Liturgy is changed to the point of heresy, the Pope would most probably just revert it to its previous state than remove it completely.

 

[malphono]

As usual (?), I am in agreement with you, Malphono. Perhaps I would be a better “Old style Syriac Maronite” than I was a Roman Catholic…

Yeah, we do seem to agree from time to time, don’t we?

Anyway, I believe I have essentially written nothing less than what you explained much more eloquently in your first paragraph, but I will reiterate my position regarding this “misunderstanding” business, lest I be…um…misunderstood by mardukm or anyone else: The schism(s) that have affected world Christianity may have began as “misunderstandings” of one kind or another (the big ones were primarily linguistic, from what I have seen),

Yes, in the early centuries many (actually heresies more than schisms) do seem to have been primarily linguistic, with a hefty dose of Imperial politics thrown in for good measure.

 

[malphono]

Can the pope? Yes.

In and of itself, that is a matter opinion. One need only look at the thread I cited earlier.

 

[ConstantineTG]

In and of itself, that is a matter opinion. One need only look at the thread I cited earlier.

I don’t believe its a matter of opinion. The pope does exercise that right and authority over the universal Church. I know its a scary thought to think the Pope has so much power, but let us remind ourselves that the Pope is no ordinary leader on earth. He’s not a dictator, he’s the Vicar of Christ. Not just because he can means he will.

 

[malphono]

I don’t believe its a matter of opinion. The pope does exercise that right and authority over the universal Church. I know its a scary thought to think the Pope has so much power, but let us remind ourselves that the Pope is no ordinary leader on earth. He’s not a dictator, he’s the Vicar of Christ. Not just because he can means he will.

Yes, and that’s precisely why it remains a matter of opinion.

 

[dcointin]

I don’t believe its a matter of opinion. The pope does exercise that right and authority over the universal Church. I know its a scary thought to think the Pope has so much power, but let us remind ourselves that the Pope is no ordinary leader on earth. He’s not a dictator, he’s the Vicar of Christ. Not just because he can means he will.

If that is the case, then the distance between us is unfortunately even greater than I thought. I also consider it a real possibility that a pope would do such a thing given that it was done to the west with the Novus Ordo. This is something that the Eastern Orthodox simply can never accept.

 

[Ghosty]

If that is the case, then the distance between us is unfortunately even greater than I thought. I also consider it a real possibility that a pope would do such a thing given that it was done to the west with the Novus Ordo. This is something that the Eastern Orthodox simply can never accept.

The problem comes up that the language in the definition of such powers always speak about the Pope upholding the Faith and Tradition of the Church. Basically, authority is used to preserve the Faith, not distort it nor add to it.

The question then becomes whether the Pope acting unilaterally inherently has the power to change whatever he wishes, or does he only have the power when it is preserving rather than distorting? That, to me, is the crux of the “High Petrine” versus “Absolute Petrine” debate, and so far it seems untested. What we need is a clear definition one way or another, and until then we’re all just speaking opinion.

For what it’s worth I’m with you: the “Absolutist” view (expressed by the FSSP priest you spoke with) is unacceptable, and I would argue it violates the very essence of the Petrine role. I believe it also violates both the letter and the spirit of the law as codified by Vatican I and Vatican II. To me it is not just a question of what is acceptable to the Orthodox, it is a question of what is truly Catholic, regardless of any reunion talks with other Churches. There are certain organs of the Vatican, such as the Congregation for the Oriental Churches, which violate this principle IMO, and must be reformed or done away with for the sake of the Catholic Church, not out of “deference” to other Churches. So far it’s not enough to break Communion, and I have Faith that the situation will be remedied, but it is a very serious problem within the Catholic Church.

Peace and God bless!

 

[malphono]

If that is the case, then the distance between us is unfortunately even greater than I thought. I also consider it a real possibility that a pope would do such a thing given that it was done to the west with the Novus Ordo. This is something that the Eastern Orthodox simply can never accept.

As I recall saying (somewhere) in the thread I cited earlier, I rather doubt that the EC/OCs would accept it either. It would undoubtedly result in a mass exodus if not outright schism.

But, it actually wasn’t done even in the West: PP Benedict XVI couldn’t have been clearer when he said in Summorum Pontifiicum that the Missal of 1962 was never abrogated. That, and his words in the accompanying letter to the bishops

What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful.

actually give rise to the question as to whether any liturgy can be “thrown out”. My interpretation is no, just as PP Benedict XVI implies. I don’t normally quote myself, but I posted this in another forum here quite some time ago:

I do not argue the principle that one Pope cannot bind a future Pope. We have to take that as a given. At the same time, though, the case of the Missal of Pius V is quite interesting, particularly in light of Summorum Pontificum which is very clear that it was never abrogated.

IMHO, the principle at work here is that something that was legitimately promulgated by HMC and considered holy and efficacious cannot be subsequently deemed to be otherwise. The principle used by Trent to suppress certain liturgical usages was the “200 year” rule and that rule is still intact.

This is not to say that a new liturgical usage could not legitimately be introduced: we have the fact of the OF (whatever one’s opinion of it might be). But what it does say, IMHO, is that the EF remains a valid option since it has been in continuous use for well over the 200 year minimum.