"Orthodox in Communion with Rome"

[ConstantineTG]

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.

If we can’t put our faith in the Pope, then we can’t put our faith in the Church. The Pope is intertwined with the Church. He isn’t the Church because the Church is the body of Christ, but the Pope does exercise such authority on it as mandated by Christ until His return.

What the Pope did with Vatican II and the Roman Mass he did so also as Patriarch of the Roman Church. He has that authority as well, but it was done in a council, not through a spur of the moment decision and flexing of his Papal muscles.

Here’s the thing, what document can calm your mind? The Pope is above Canonical Law. Even if there is a Canon that says the Pope cannot touch Eastern Liturgies. Also the Pope is infallible in faith and morals, so if he touches an Eastern Liturgy, we believe he does so because it is the right thing to do, that he is guided by the Holy Spirit in doing so.

But here’s the thing, given the Pope has absolute authority over the Church on earth, just look at his track record. Has any Pope seriously veered the Church off-course that faith and morals went down the toilet? He has the authority to do that, and yet hasn’t. So why worry that he will change the Eastern Liturgies?

 

[dcointin]

If we can’t put our faith in the Pope, then we can’t put our faith in the Church. The Pope is intertwined with the Church. He isn’t the Church because the Church is the body of Christ, but the Pope does exercise such authority on it as mandated by Christ until His return.

What the Pope did with Vatican II and the Roman Mass he did so also as Patriarch of the Roman Church. He has that authority as well, but it was done in a council, not through a spur of the moment decision and flexing of his Papal muscles.

Here’s the thing, what document can calm your mind? The Pope is above Canonical Law. Even if there is a Canon that says the Pope cannot touch Eastern Liturgies. Also the Pope is infallible in faith and morals, so if he touches an Eastern Liturgy, we believe he does so because it is the right thing to do, that he is guided by the Holy Spirit in doing so.

But here’s the thing, given the Pope has absolute authority over the Church on earth, just look at his track record. Has any Pope seriously veered the Church off-course that faith and morals went down the toilet? He has the authority to do that, and yet hasn’t. So why worry that he will change the Eastern Liturgies?

I hope this isn’t too blunt, but the liturgies I’ve witnessed in Catholic parishes are not faithful to holy tradition, they are a destruction of the traditional liturgy of the western church, and I would never support reunion if the Catholic Church believed it had the authority to do something similar with our liturgies.

 

[JohnVIII]

…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…

That’s funny to me. The ROCOR was canonically established by the order of the Patriarch of Russia (ukaz #362). It would be better to compare ROCOR to the official Russian Church as you would compare a Eastern Catholic Church to Rome.

 

[dzheremi]

I do not know the first thing about ROCOR (obviously), so I was going on statements made by Mardukm such as

The reason I had earlier asked about the status of pre-union ROCOR and Old Believers is that schism does not necessarily cause you to lose your status as “Orthodox”

and

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?

which seem to imply that they are (or rather, were, prior to the reunion) a schismatic group, regardless of their foundation. The canonical foundation of ROCOR is somewhat irrelevant to their example, for the purposes of my argument. My argument stands without reference to any particular group: It is the right of the mother church to determine the orthodoxy of any non-communing body which descends and dissents from it, for the purposes of clarifying just who is Orthodox (or Catholic, as the case may be with SSPX, Old Catholics, etc).

 

[ConstantineTG]

I hope this isn’t too blunt, but the liturgies I’ve witnessed in Catholic parishes are not faithful to holy tradition, they are a destruction of the traditional liturgy of the western church, and I would never support reunion if the Catholic Church believed it had the authority to do something similar with our liturgies.

Not that I’m trying to turn you off Catholicism, but just the facts. I learned this mostly from Bro. JR in his posts. I always believed that the Pope works within Canon Law, but has the option to change Canon Law on a whim. Reality is that he can just say that Canon Law doesn’t apply to him, and thats it. But don’t think this happens all too often. The Pope didn’t make Canon Law just so he can show others how powerful he is by being above the law and not following it. The Pope going above Canon Law is usually in extreme and important cases, and its there to make sure that he is not impeded for doing what is for the good of the Church.

I wonder, if your view of the OF tainted by the view of the traditionalists? I would expect that an Orthodox would have more affinity to the OF than to the EF because of congregational participation in the East. I attended a couple of EFs before I attended my first Divine Liturgy and I can say the difference is night and day. Not that I’m saying the EF is bad or broken or anything, but I always believed that I should be a participant and not an observer in praising and worshiping God. I’ve always had that in the OF being borin in the “Vatican II era” and it was a big gaping hole for me in the EF. The EF works for some people and God bless them for it. I’m always thankful for the variation in liturgies that God has allowed for us to have, so that we may praise and worship him in different ways that conforms to our limitations as man. But when I attended the Divine Liturgy, it was just so much joy for me I decided to stay.

Again, the point that the Pope has authority to do something is to prevent any perversion or heresy. He’s not going to change something for the sake of it or because of his own whims. But its there because its his role to safeguard our faith and ensure that no sheep goes astray.

 

[ProVobis]

The Pope is above Canonical Law. Even if there is a Canon that says the Pope cannot touch Eastern Liturgies.

Here’s what I learned from a very respected priest, while we were both pursuing an advanced degree in business:

All legalities aside, there is a principle in well-established organizations, that of stare precis, which dictates that a head of it should respect his predecessors in order to maintain stability of that organization. So if this is not a matter of faith and doctrine, as you claim, then this principle applies to the Church as well.

By the way this principle in full: Stare decisis et non quieta movere (“Maintain what has been decided and do not alter which has been established.”)

 

[ConstantineTG]

Here’s what I learned from a very respected priest, while we were both pursuing an advanced degree in business:

All legalities aside, there is a principle in well-established organizations, that of stare precis, which dictates that a head of it should respect his predecessors in order to maintain stability of that organization. So if this is not a matter of faith and doctrine, as you claim, then this principle applies to the Church as well.

By the way this principle in full: Stare decisis et non quieta movere (“Maintain what has been decided and do not alter which has been established.”)

I wish you quoted (or read) the other stuff I said because that is what I said as well. Simply put, not just because the Pope can means he will. And my last post did clarify that this authority is reserved to him because of his role in preserving our faith. He’ll only go beyond the boundaries of the laws he set when it is absolutely necessary, when it is needed to preserve the faith. If an Eastern Patriarch changes their Liturgy and borders on heresy, for example, then the Pope can and should step in and correct him and probably revert the Liturgy to its previous state. I highly doubt the Pope will make changes for the sake of making changes, or because he thinks he needs to lead the changes. For people to understand why the Pope has such authority, we first need to understand his role. When the role is clear, the reason for the authority will make sense.

 

[dvdjs]

I hope this isn’t too blunt, but the liturgies I’ve witnessed in Catholic parishes are not faithful to holy tradition, they are a destruction of the traditional liturgy of the western church, and I would never support reunion if the Catholic Church believed it had the authority to do something similar with our liturgies.

The Pope is above Canonical Law. Even if there is a Canon that says the Pope cannot touch Eastern Liturgies. … But here’s the thing, given the Pope has absolute authority over the Church on earth, just look at his track record.

So dcointin, what are authority are you willing to accept? You should be aware of the practical implementation of Orthodox church authority over history: I would guess people in your church would be brushing up on it of late. Patriarchal authority, however limited on paper, has been exercised in was that go beyond anything done by Popes. Apparently however that did not give you cause to unite yourself to the Orthodox church. So what authority, objectively, would you have to accept in a communion with Rome that you have not already accepted?

 

[ConstantineTG]

So dcointin, what are authority are you willing to accept? You should be aware of the practical implementation of Orthodox church authority over history: I would guess people in your church would be brushing up on it of late. Patriarchal authority, however limited on paper, has been exercised in was that go beyond anything done by Popes. Apparently however that did not give you cause to unite yourself to the Orthodox church. So what authority, objectively, would you have to accept in a communion with Rome that you have not already accepted?

I can understand dcointin’s worries. The Patriarch is part of that Particular Church and is part of that tradition. The Pope isn’t. He’s an outsider. Its like you work for a company thats a 100% owned subsidiary of a larger parent company. You feel that the CEO of the parent company doesn’t really know the culture of the smaller owned company. Thus his decisions are limited to the parent company alone and he’s largely unsympathetic to the subsidiary, or at least that is the view.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Dzheremi,

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.

From what I’ve seen, and this is just a basic life-lesson, when there is a misunderstanding between two friends or brothers, they two take the time to talk it out. They take the misunderstanding seriously enough and they want to resolve the matter.

Sorry, I don’t understand your objection. I don’t see - from a very basic human point of view - how classing something as a “misunderstanding” makes the matter of “little substance.”

Since you oppose the label of “misunderstanding” so much, I assume it is your position that there is no hope of understanding on certain issues? If that is correct, we will have to agree to disagree. If a 1500 year misunderstanding can be healed, issues that have been in contention for less than half that time certainly have the hope of being resolved, IMO.

In any case, what issues would you label as “irreconcilable?”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

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.

So the Pope has been given the authority to dispense with the Sacraments. The Pope has been given the authority to say priests and bishops can no longer forgive sins. The Pope has been given the authority to get rid of the Liturgy of St. James, handed down from the Apostles. The Pope has been given the authority to tear down the Church that Christ built.

But Absolutist Petrine advocates say, “Oh don’t worry. He CAN do it, but he won’t. Trust us.” It doesn’t make sense even on the most basic principles of reason. I don’t know why God would give the authority to do something that shouldn’t be done in the first place.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dzheremi]

Sorry, I don’t understand your objection. I don’t see - from a very basic human point of view - how classing something as a “misunderstanding” makes the matter of “little substance.”

It doesn’t, necessarily. My only point is that the fact that something may have started out as misunderstanding does not mean that it is appropriate to proceed with it as though it is of little consequence (which, yes, is the attitude of many of the Latins I asked about the filioque, some aspects of Marian devotion, etc. – “Oh, they don’t understand! They just say it means X because that’s what they want it to mean to justify their schism from us!”). I am not arguing that this is what you personally are doing by saying that such and such a thing is rooted in a misunderstanding (in fact, I have agreed with you in principle). I just don’t think claiming something is a misunderstanding ought to be the end of the story. As Malphono pointed out, things that are indeed misunderstandings have been compounded by intransigence on both sides. Rome will not renounce its Absolute Petrine view any more readily than the Orthodox will accept it. So…what now?

Since you oppose the label of “misunderstanding” so much

I don’t oppose the label. I oppose the narrow thinking that follows from it.

I assume it is your position that there is no hope of understanding on certain issues?

This is a tricky question. Please define what you mean by “understanding” so that I can appropriately address it. My gut reaction is that if understanding means adopting or accepting Latin understandings or practices as a matter of course, none of the Orthodox will go for it. Those who see Catholic understandings and Orthodox understandings as complementary in all cases likely would not remain Orthodox, just as those who cease to support Rome’s view that the RC and the Orthodox Churches share the same faith but with different expressions would not likely remain Catholic…

In any case, what issues would you label as “irreconcilable?”

Do we really need to go down this road? I don’t think anything I would list would surprise you, and certainly I would expect you to have ready Catholic apologetic points for all of them. We would come away hardened in our lines of thinking. And besides, this is not the way that I approach the faith to begin with. My problem with the Catholic Church comes more from its overall approach to the faith which I personally ultimately found quite stifling. This is within the context of the Latin Church specifically, as that was my home, but I have already addressed in this thread why I do not feel the Eastern Catholic Churches to be a suitable replacement.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother ConstantineG,

I wish you quoted (or read) the other stuff I said because that is what I said as well. Simply put, not just because the Pope can means he will. And my last post did clarify that this authority is reserved to him because of his role in preserving our faith. He’ll only go beyond the boundaries of the laws he set when it is absolutely necessary, when it is needed to preserve the faith. If an Eastern Patriarch changes their Liturgy and borders on heresy, for example, then the Pope can and should step in and correct him and probably revert the Liturgy to its previous state. I highly doubt the Pope will make changes for the sake of making changes, or because he thinks he needs to lead the changes. For people to understand why the Pope has such authority, we first need to understand his role. When the role is clear, the reason for the authority will make sense.

I accept what you are saying. It makes the Pope’s actions based on necessity, not mere will (which is what others have been promoting in another thread in the Traditional Catholicism Forum).

Still, I cannot get my head around the idea that the Pope has the inherent authority to do something he actually should not do in the first place (which some in the Traditional Catholicism Forum keep saying). I believe the Pope only has the actual authority to do what he needs to do for the Church, nothing more, nothing less. Anything beyond that is ideally despotism.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Dzheremi,

It doesn’t, necessarily. My only point is that the fact that something may have started out as misunderstanding does not mean that it is appropriate to proceed with it as though it is of little consequence (which, yes, is the attitude of many of the Latins I asked about the filioque, some aspects of Marian devotion, etc. – “Oh, they don’t understand! They just say it means X because that’s what they want it to mean to justify their schism from us!”). I am not arguing that this is what you personally are doing by saying that such and such a thing is rooted in a misunderstanding (in fact, I have agreed with you in principle). I just don’t think claiming something is a misunderstanding ought to be the end of the story. As Malphono pointed out, things that are indeed misunderstandings have been compounded by intransigence on both sides.

I don’t oppose the label. I oppose the narrow thinking that follows from it.

I understand you now. So two Catholics approach an Orthodox. Then the rabbi said – oops., different story. They both say to the Orthodox, “You have misunderstood Catholic teachings.”

Catholic#1 says, “You have no good reasons to reject it. You are just being hard-hearted.”

Catholic#2 says, “I’d like to understand your own reasons for believing the way you do about Catholicism. Let’s talk it out, and maybe we can come to a resolution.”

I assume you object to Catholic#1, but would be supportive of Catholic#2?

But would you say that there are Orthodox who would merit the criticism stated by Catholic#1?

Rome will not renounce its Absolute Petrine view any more readily than the Orthodox will accept it. So…what now?

Currently, not formally. But I think HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory and our current HH Pope Benedict have expressed their unofficial opposition to the Absolutist Petrine perspective. I understand that this is not enough. The Orthodox no doubt want something set in stone on the matter. And so would I! The Papal dogmas are unfortunately open to an Absolutist Petrine interpretation. It is the High Petrine interpretation of these dogmas that partly prompted my entry into the Catholic communion. I think the Commissions are doing a good job so far.

I find it interesting that Traditionalist Catholics seem to be the greatest supporters of the Absolutist Petrine view. I would think that their experience with the Liturgy would mollify their opinion on the matter.

This is a tricky question. Please define what you mean by “understanding” so that I can appropriately address it. My gut reaction is that if understanding means adopting or accepting Latin understandings or practices as a matter of course, none of the Orthodox will go for it. Those who see Catholic understandings and Orthodox understandings as complementary in all cases likely would not remain Orthodox, just as those who cease to support Rome’s view that the RC and the Orthodox Churches share the same faith but with different expressions would not likely remain Catholic…

“Understanding” means accepting what one side states about ITSELF. In other words, A should not base its understanding of B on A’s own perception, but rather on what B explains about itself. I gave an example earlier (I forget in which thread). HH Pope Shenoute has written that the doctrine of the IC should be rejected because it teaches that Mary did not have a natural birth like Jesus did. But I know that even you know that the Catholic Church does not teach that. In fact, that very opinion was formally condemned by Pope Benedict XIV back in the 17th century. The examples can be multiplied.

After listening to B’s explanation, then A can determine if it is valid to reject B’s teaching as heresy, or accept it as a theologoumenon, doctrine, or dogma (and I would hope A would be able to give good reasons for its decision).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

After listening to B’s explanation, then A can determine if it is valid to reject B’s teaching as heresy, or accept it as a theologoumenon, doctrine, or dogma (and I would hope A would be able to give good reasons for its decision).

Let me give an example (I won’t name names). I have been in a discussion on the Primacy with an Orthodox Christian. We have determined that the real matter of disagreement is the idea that the Primacy is of divine institution. I have given my reasons why it is (Scripture, unanimous teaching of the Fathers that St. Peter is the coryphaeus of the Apostles, and the principle of Apostolic Succession - if the Apostles had a corypheaus, then their successors must also have one). He still does not agree that the Primacy (hence, the papacy) is of divine institution, but he has given no refutations for my reasons, nor positive reasons for maintaining his position.

I confess, that is usually the final reaction I get from Orthodox on many theological issues - continued rejection with silence. It almost gives validation for Catholic#1’s position in the scenario above.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dzheremi]

Catholic#1 says, “You have no good reasons to reject it. You are just being hard-hearted.”

Catholic#2 says, “I’d like to understand your own reasons for believing the way you do about Catholicism. Let’s talk it out, and maybe we can come to a resolution.”

I assume you object to Catholic#1, but would be supportive of Catholic#2?

Yes, though Catholic#2 should not be under any illusion that a resolution will necessarily follow the talk. Certainly people of all faiths and creeds have listened to one another and still come away resolute in their positions regarding the truth of their own faith and, naturally, the untruth of the other.

But would you say that there are Orthodox who would merit the criticism stated by Catholic#1?

Yes, certainly. I do not hold any romantic notion of the Orthodox, either EO or OO. Plenty of people would rather condemn than listen, sure. It’s a human defect, not limited to any one communion.

Currently, not formally. But I think HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory and our current HH Pope Benedict have expressed their unofficial opposition to the Absolutist Petrine perspective. I understand that this is not enough. The Orthodox no doubt want something set in stone on the matter. And so would I!

Yes, me too. And more so than any declaration, I want actions that show that Rome has repudiated these views. Pretty words are not enough.

I find it interesting that Traditionalist Catholics seem to be the greatest supporters of the Absolutist Petrine view. I would think that their experience with the Liturgy would mollify their opinion on the matter.

Who knows. I do not travel in such circles, so many of their ideas seem incredibly strange to me. I avoid that sub-forum here on CAF.

“Understanding” means accepting what one side states about ITSELF. In other words, A should not base its understanding of B on A’s own perception, but rather on what B explains about itself. I gave an example earlier (I forget in which thread). HH Pope Shenoute has written that the doctrine of the IC should be rejected because it teaches that Mary did not have a natural birth like Jesus did. But I know that even you know that the Catholic Church does not teach that. In fact, that very opinion was formally condemned by Pope Benedict XIV back in the 17th century. The examples can be multiplied.

I would want to see the context from which you have taken the Pope’s words. I do not doubt that there are such misunderstandings of Catholic doctrine among both the OO and the EO. In fact, on a CO board I sometimes read, the topic of Marian devotion within Catholicism has come up under the title of “Do you think Catholics worship Mary?”. There are some who say no (these ones generally mention that they were educated in Catholic schools as children), some who say yes (even arguing that “Co-redemptrix” is an official title of Mary within the RCC! Yikes!), and various others who say “yes, but…” or “no, but…” It’s quite a mess, really! And really I don’t blame them. Even when I was obedient to Rome, I must admit I saw many things in this particular area that made me personally uncomfortable. Maybe with greater frequency than they occur in Catholicism overall due to the fact that I attended many Latino masses (Latinos, as you may know, generally have especially strong devotion to Our Lady which sometimes reaches quite frankly unsettling levels), but luckily I do recognize that such things are a minority overall. I can see why OO or EO might not be able to tell the difference, though.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Dzheremi,

Yes, though Catholic#2 should not be under any illusion that a resolution will necessarily follow the talk. Certainly people of all faiths and creeds have listened to one another and still come away resolute in their positions regarding the truth of their own faith and, naturally, the untruth of the other.

I understand that mentality perfectly. I use to have it. I realize that it is all in God’s time and by God’s grace (I’m not saying this on a one-sided note, I am speaking of understanding between the Churches in general). For me, I had argued with Catholics in the past when I was not yet Catholic. Their arguments did not really hit home to me, though now I understand and accept them. As I detailed in the thread “My Witness,” my journey started due to a self-initiated investigation into the headship of Sts. Peter and Paul in the early Church. In hindsight, I think I could not accept the arguments from Catholics because I felt that - regardless of the logic - their arguments was in a sense a sort of imposition that I did not welcome. I had to make an investigation on my own initiative in order to fully understand and accept (eventually) what Catholics had been explaining to me all along.

Yes, me too. And more so than any declaration, I want actions that show that Rome has repudiated these views. Pretty words are not enough.

On the issue of Latinization, priests from the UGCC and the Syro-Malankara (or Syro-Malabar, I can never remember which one) appealed to the Pope to permit them their Latinizations, in opposition to the decisions of their respective Synods. The Pope ignored their appeals for quite a long time, and eventually just rubber stamped the decision of the Synods. I think his long silence was a tacit admission that, “folks, you need to heed your own head bishop and synod, for they have the ordinary and proper authority to treat of this matter, not me.” Quite uniquely, the Latin Catholics in the Ethiopian Catholic Church are under the omophor of the Ethiopian hierarchy. That’s the way it should be, and that reality should spread throughout the Traditional territories of the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches. I can’t think of the specifics right now, but the Pope has at least on one occasion (possibly 3) in the past few years overturned decisions of the Curia contrary to the interests of the Eastern Catholic Churches (really, not a new thing, since the Pope has been siding with the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches against the Curia since the latter 19th century). There are probably other examples I can’t think of right now.

I would want to see the context from which you have taken the Pope’s words. I do not doubt that there are such misunderstandings of Catholic doctrine among both the OO and the EO. In fact, on a CO board I sometimes read, the topic of Marian devotion within Catholicism has come up under the title of “Do you think Catholics worship Mary?”. There are some who say no (these ones generally mention that they were educated in Catholic schools as children), some who say yes (even arguing that “Co-redemptrix” is an official title of Mary within the RCC! Yikes!), and various others who say “yes, but…” or “no, but…” It’s quite a mess, really! And really I don’t blame them. Even when I was obedient to Rome, I must admit I saw many things in this particular area that made me personally uncomfortable. Maybe with greater frequency than they occur in Catholicism overall due to the fact that I attended many Latino masses (Latinos, as you may know, generally have especially strong devotion to Our Lady which sometimes reaches quite frankly unsettling levels), but luckily I do recognize that such things are a minority overall. I can see why OO or EO might not be able to tell the difference, though.

But I would ask. Why are such distinctions so unacceptable, while distinctions within the Orthodox communions not so? Could it simply be a case of “the grass is greener on the other side?” For example, I’ve met EO who became Catholics because of frustrations with the messy jurisdictionalism within EO’xy. So it seems all is not perfect with EO’xy. I’ve been to more than one EO parish where there are pews, where groups come to pray at an icon in the middle of Liturgy, then leave, where the homily wasn’t very edifying, etc. Should I generalize this and say, “why does the EO Church allow such abberations?” The Coptic Orthodox Church has changed its Liturgy a few times in the past and currently don’t accept the validity of Catholic baptism, though the other OO Churches do; the Armenians use unleavened bread that some CO view as heretical, use a slightly different Creed, and lament the loss of regular private confession in that Church; the Syriac Orthodox give doctrinal importance to primacy, and have been branded (whether derogatorily or in jest) as “cross-worshippers.” How can the OO maintain communion in such circumstances?

Why should the Catholic Church be singled out as unacceptable for the differences that exist within her? But that’s really just a rhetorical question. You can’t help how you feel and you have your reasons. I’m just throwing things out there (and not in any detail) to help you balance your considerations.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dzheremi]

But I would ask. Why are such distinctions so unacceptable, while distinctions within the Orthodox communions not so?

What makes you think that I would think they are so? If there are similar things going on in the Orthodox communions, whereby genuinely faithful believers are overstepping the bounds of healthy devotion in one way or another, they ought to be dealt with by those overseeing the congregation in which they occur. They most certainly are not acceptable.

Could it simply be a case of “the grass is greener on the other side?”

No, it isn’t. I recognize that no communion is free from problems.

So it seems all is not perfect with EO’xy.

I’ve never claimed otherwise.

Should I generalize this and say, “why does the EO Church allow such abberations?”

This really depends. If you are under the impression that aberrations are deliberately systematically ignored or encouraged, then I think you’d be right to question the commitment of the Church leadership to its own stated principles. This is all that I’ve done in this thread with regard to the Latin Church, for no other reasons than what I have just stated. Of course, the only answers I ever received were “go to a different church”, which to me is a soft way of saying “we don’t see a problem with frivolity and indifference in our church”. If they don’t see it fine, but I know more than one ex-Catholic who became Orthodox who did.

The Coptic Orthodox Church has changed its Liturgy a few times in the past and currently don’t accept the validity of Catholic baptism, though the other OO Churches do; the Armenians use unleavened bread that some CO view as heretical, use a slightly different Creed, and lament the loss of regular private confession in that Church; the Syriac Orthodox give doctrinal importance to primacy, and have been branded (whether derogatorily or in jest) as “cross-worshippers.” How can the OO maintain communion in such circumstances?

You’ll have to ask an OO about that. As I am not one, I don’t know how I am supposed to answer these things. I will say that in the OO circles I have been observing lately, I have not come across any such divisions among the members of the different communions. Most of the arguments I have seen have been similar to arguments between the Catholic “traditionalists” and the N.O. Catholics: The intrusion of Protestant hymns, RC dogmas and art, etc. Some do not see the problem with these things, while some do. Oddly, while I waste no time with Roman Catholic traditionalists, when looking at the arguments between OO, I find myself agreeing with the more traditional people. When I listen to Coptic hymns, I want to hear “Thok te ti gom” or “Golgotha” or something like that, not a Protestant hymn with pianos and guitars and such (and I have seen at least video evidence of such things, so I know they do happen). I would likewise lament the loss of traditional Coptic iconography in favor of Roman Catholic/Western paintings, which are fine for Catholics but frankly seem a little odd hanging in the back window of an Eritrean’s car (there are tons of Eritrean Orthodox here, and since Catholics are a much larger community here and indeed are also a part of Eritrean society due to that country’s colonial past, perhaps it’s not as odd as it first seems).

Why should the Catholic Church be singled out as unacceptable for the differences that exist within her?

Because this is a Catholic message board, so such things are more likely to be argued here than elsewhere? Such arguments do come up among others about their own communions (see previous paragraph), as they should. That is healthy. It shows that people care about their religion.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Dear brother ConstantineG,

I accept what you are saying. It makes the Pope’s actions based on necessity, not mere will (which is what others have been promoting in another thread in the Traditional Catholicism Forum).

Still, I cannot get my head around the idea that the Pope has the inherent authority to do something he actually should not do in the first place (which some in the Traditional Catholicism Forum keep saying). I believe the Pope only has the actual authority to do what he needs to do for the Church, nothing more, nothing less. Anything beyond that is ideally despotism.

Blessings,
Marduk

But here’s the thing, how do we know how much he needs to do and when? Can we say exactly when he should be “meddling” with Eastern Churches affairs? There have been examples in the past where the Pope clearly put himself above Canon Law and did his own thing, but this is rare (as far as I know) and of course only out of necessity. And usually this cases happen for instances within the Roman Church. I think by definition itself of Papal Authority, that the Pope is above Canon Law, should indicate that he has absolute authority over the Church. But we just have to get over the idea that just because he has total authority, doesn’t mean he’s going around like a dictator. Remember, he would see himself as the lowest of servants, not the mightiest of rulers. He would conduct himself with extreme humility. Peter didn’t exactly bully the Apostles around just because he received the keys to heaven. I don’t see why the Popes should act any differently. The Pope always sees the Bishops as his brothers, not his subordinates. God values the traditions of the Church and has preserved it for 2000 years, why will the Holy Spirit allow a Pope that will destroy these traditions? All these fear about the Pope doing something we all agree he should not be doing goes against the basic faith we have in the office of the Pope. We believe the Pope is the successor of Peter, chosen by the Holy Spirit through the conclave, and is guided by the Holy Spirit through his pontificate. What should we be afraid of?

 

[ConstantineTG]

So the Pope has been given the authority to dispense with the Sacraments. The Pope has been given the authority to say priests and bishops can no longer forgive sins. The Pope has been given the authority to get rid of the Liturgy of St. James, handed down from the Apostles. The Pope has been given the authority to tear down the Church that Christ built.

But Absolutist Petrine advocates say, “Oh don’t worry. He CAN do it, but he won’t. Trust us.” It doesn’t make sense even on the most basic principles of reason. I don’t know why God would give the authority to do something that shouldn’t be done in the first place.

Blessings,
Marduk

Isn’t this kind of like the argument, “if there is nothing impossible with God, can he make a rock so heavy he can’t lift it?”