Papacy and Eastern Catholics

[Aelred_Minor]

I don’t think one can equate the two. In the case at hand, no one is saying that the Councils are false. They are perfectly valid and acceptable as General Synods (“Councils” if one prefers) and their canons are absolutely binding on the Church(es) that called them and accepted them. That said, whether they do, in fact, bind any other Church, even one “in union with Rome” and/or even one that may have had a presence at said Council(s) is, however, questionable.

If even the Ecumenical Councils are up for debate among lay Catholics, what is left of Magisterial authority? Or is that the point?

 

[malphono]

If even the Ecumenical Councils are up for debate among lay Catholics, what is left of Magisterial authority? Or is that the point?

The Magisterial Authority still binds the Church that called the Council. The problem comes when making such “binding” universal. Most, if not all, of the post-Nicean Councils are, as has already been said in this thread, and for various reasons, flawed. But in particular, those after the First Millennium are even more flawed, in that the concerns of, and the matters dealt with in, those Councils are of concern to one Church and one Church only: the Western (aka Latin) Church. How can one say that the canons of such Councils can bind other Churches, the matter of token “representation” at any such Council notwithstanding?

 

[Zekariya]

If someone is in communion with the Pope, how do you reconcile picking and choosing what you want to follow? Yes, Latins do need to be more respectful of the East, but at the same time, I see a lot of disrespect toward the West coming from some in the East who profess union with the West.

The Church in an Ecumenical Council recognizes that each sui iuris Church is to retain their own traditions whole and entire:

“…for it is the mind of the Catholic Church that each individual Church or Rite should retain its traditions whole and entire and likewise that it should adapt its way of life to the different needs of time and place.” - The Second Vatican Council, Pope Paul VI, Orientalium Ecclesiarum

Source: vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_orientalium-ecclesiarum_en.html

We do not pick and choose. We obey our Eastern Fathers and look at things through their eyes.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

The Magisterial Authority still binds the Church that called the Council. The problem comes when making such binding universal. Most, if not all, of the post-Nicean Councils are, as has already been said in this thread, and for various reasons, flawed. But in particular, those after the First Millennium are even more flawed, in that the concerns of, and the matters dealt with in, those Councils are of concern to one Church and one Church only: the Western (aka Latin) Church. How can one say that the canons of such Councils can bind other Churches, the matter of token “representation” at any such Council notwithstanding?

The Church that called (or held, to keep things simple) all 21 ecumenical councils was the Catholic Church. Not the East. Not the West. The Catholic Church.

That is why I care about this issue. Theological diversity is great (or can be), but we need to have a common orthodoxy that transcends all divisions within the Catholic Church, including East/West. The teachings of the ecumenical councils and the most formal teachings of the Popes are two parts of that Catholic orthodoxy which is shared, or ought to be shared, by the whole Church.

Now it is true that some of the later ecumenical councils were held with little or no Eastern representation (though surely the East must take some share of the responsibility, along with the West, for entering into a status in which Eastern participation in Catholic ecumenical councils would be negligible) and addressed distinctly Western issues using distinctly Western language. You would perhaps be justified in saying that those councils have little relevance to the East. But there is a huge gulf between saying a council is not relevant to Eastern Catholics and denying that it is an ecumenical council at all.

Also some of the later councils undeniably have at least some relevance for Eastern Catholics as well as Western, such as the Council of Florence and both Vatican Councils. And then there are dogmas like the Immaculate Conception, which were pronounced not by a council but by the Pope and made binding on all Catholics.

Now you might say, as I thought someone would, that Eastern Christians have more of a bottom-up rather than top-down approach to orthodoxy, focusing more on the faith as it has been transmitted through every generation than on formal Magisterial teachings which confirm that faith, or something along those lines. I’m not going to argue against that. Indeed it could be one of those subjects in which we can both learn and develop a more well-rounded faith by growing in understanding of the other.

But when things reach the point of actually denying the ecumenical nature of ecumenical councils, or of saying Papal infallibility and the things taught by it are only binding on Latin Catholics (as I’ve seen on other threads) then a line has been crossed which no Catholic has a right to cross. My interest in insisting on this point is more directed to my fellow Latin Catholics who might be scandalized by such a relativistic approach to Church doctrine than to Eastern Catholics specifically, but ultimately the point is that the need for faithfulness applies across the board.

 

[jimmy]

One of the problems I have with the papal dogmas is that they have bastardized or ghettoized our eastern traditions. Through the continual increase of centralzation around Rome, the west has made all diversity superfluous, or even divisive. The conversation has changed for us in the east from living the orthodox Christian faith, to preserving our traditions (with a small t of course because there is no longer any connection between big T and small t.) at one tine being orthodox and preserving tradition were synonymous. now orthodoxy is attached to rome, and tradition is eccentricity. Rome ammends the faith without consulting our churches, and we have to focus on being faithful to Rome. We have to assume the new dogmas into our understanding. Then they patronize us by saying ‘maintain and preserve your traditions.’ The question is though, what is our tradition if we have to continually ammend it according to roman thinking?

 

[malphono]

The Church that called (or held, to keep things simple) all 21 ecumenical councils was the Catholic Church. Not the East. Not the West. The Catholic Church.

Yes, I think that’s the usual reckoning of Rome, although I’m not sure that’s actually officially specified anywhere.

In any case, it’s not “relativism” or anything of the like. It is, as Denho & Jimmy both said earlier, just the truth. Beyond that, (and saying that the most egregious example is Vatican I), I’ve said what I’ve said, and won’t comment further.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Yes, I think that’s the usual reckoning of Rome, although I’m not sure that’s actually officially specified anywhere.

In any case, it’s not “relativism” or anything of the like. It is, as Denho & Jimmy both said earlier, just the truth. Beyond that, (and saying that the most egregious example is Vatican I), I’ve said what I’ve said, and won’t comment further.

The relativism, or at least relativistic thinking, comes in when one says that a dogma is morally binding (and therefore true unless the Church has diabolically bound Christians to error by the authority of Christ) for some Catholics but rightly rejected by others.

 

[jimmy]

The relativism, or at least relativistic thinking, comes in when one says that a dogma is morally binding (and therefore true unless the Church has diabolically bound Christians to error by the authority of Christ) for some Catholics but rightly rejected by others.

That is an erroneous argument because it is based solely on the fact that Rome declares, and some disagree. But is roman assertion equivalent to truth?

 

[Aelred_Minor]

That is an erroneous argument because it is based solely on the fact that Rome declares, and some disagree. But is roman assertion equivalent to truth?

The argument applies to the idea that Western Catholics are bound by certain dogmas that are optional for or ought to be rejected by Eastern Catholics. If that is not your own position obviously it does not apply to you.

If you want to say that Catholic doctrines are simply wrong go ahead. Taking such a position has consequences if you are a Catholic of course, but it would bring some clarity. The relativism comes in when the assertion becomes, “yes, that is what you must believe to be a faithful Catholic, but I can reject that belief and still be a faithful Catholic.”

 

[malphono]

All this “relativism” business brings to mind a very holy Maronite priest, who passed away some 25 years ago, and who is still oh ever so close to my heart. To this day I miss him greatly. I always will.

Anyway … he was **very **“Catholic” and **very **orthodox. Some called him rigidly so. However, as an example, (and I could list other things. too, but it doesn’t matter), and while he never in a million years would have said this in public, he personally held that the the Orthodox position on canonical divorce was correct. I bring this up because I suppose just for believing the truth, he’d be unfairly and unjustly accused of “relativism” too. The very thought that someone would make such an accusation saddens me greatly.

 

[jimmy]

The argument applies to the idea that Western Catholics are bound by certain dogmas that are optional for or ought to be rejected by Eastern Catholics. If that is not your own position obviously it does not apply to you.

If you want to say that Catholic doctrines are simply wrong go ahead. Taking such a position has consequences if you are a Catholic of course, but it would bring some clarity. The relativism comes in when the assertion becomes, “yes, that is what you must believe to be a faithful Catholic, but I can reject that belief and still be a faithful Catholic.”

As I said above, you associate truth and orthodoxy with Rome and its assertions. So when we disagree you call us relativists. We on the other hand associate orthodoxy with tradition. We live by that which was jaded down. As st Vincent said, we believe that which was believed always, everywhere, and by all. If you guys want to break communion because you are so proud of your superfluous and novel ideas, that is your choice. So while you call us relativists, we could call you progressives.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

All this “relativism” business brings to mind a very holy Maronite priest, who passed away some 25 years ago, and who is still oh ever so close to my heart. To this day I miss him greatly. I always will.

Anyway … he was **very **“Catholic” and **very **orthodox. Some called him rigidly so. However, as an example, (and I could list other things. too, but it doesn’t matter), and while he never in a million years would have said this in public, he personally held that the the Orthodox position on canonical divorce was correct. I bring this up because I suppose just for believing the truth, he’d be unfairly and unjustly accused of “relativism” too. The very thought that someone would make such an accusation saddens me greatly.

I don’t see what would be relativistic in this priest’s views. Wrong yes, but relativist? That is, unless he said something like “the Latin doctrine concerning marriage is true for them but not for us.” But even then he could be giving a (wrong) opinion on canon law rather than the actual doctrine concerning marriage, though it presupposes a doctrinal error (the possibility of divorce in a sacramental marriage).

My concern about relativism is the idea, which some of you here may not hold at all, that there are “Latin doctrines” which are true and binding for us but which from an Eastern perspective are false and ought to be rejected. This idea has come up in other threads, and in this one was suggested by the idea that Latin Catholics are bound by the teachings of the later ecumenical councils but Eastern Catholics are not. Since these teachings include not just disciplinary directives but also doctrinal matters this position leads logically to relativism regarding revealed truth.

 

[malphono]

I don’t see what would be relativistic in this priest’s views. Wrong yes, but relativist? That is, unless he said something like “the Latin doctrine concerning marriage is true for them but not for us.” But even then he could be giving a (wrong) opinion on canon law rather than the actual doctrine concerning marriage, though it presupposes a doctrinal error (the possibility of divorce in a sacramental marriage).

Excuse me??? Wrong??? Before I say something uncharitable, I have to reiterate that I am out of this discussion. I will not be responding further.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

As I said above, you associate truth and orthodoxy with Rome and its assertions. So when we disagree you call us relativists. We on the other hand associate orthodoxy with tradition. We live by that which was jaded down. As st Vincent said, we believe that which was believed always, everywhere, and by all. If you guys want to break communion because you are so proud of your superfluous and novel ideas, that is your choice. So while you call us relativists, we could call you progressives.

When you disagree I’ll call you wrong. When (if) you say “that is right for you to believe but not for me” that is when I’ll call it relativistic.

Regarding Church teaching, the Holy Spirit guides the Church so that her doctrine always remains pure. The teachings of the Church are not superfluous or novel, certainly not in their substance at least. They are confirmations and clarifications of this very Tradition which we both strive to share. When a lay Catholic’s private opinion on what Tradition is, or even that of a priest or bishop, conflicts with the teaching of the Church as a whole we can be sure that it is the Church teaching that is correct and it is the divergent opinion that is wrong. At the very least this is true of the most binding Magisterial teachings, and a minimalist approach to Church authority that would reduce its significance to a handful of the most formal documents would not be right.

That is the whole point of having a Magisterium, that there would be a living, active interpreter of Apostolic Tradition in every generation so that none of us have to go simply by old books and our own judgement. In the West also there are those who take a go-it-alone, self-appointed guardian of Tradition attitude. It is not a position conducive to ecclesial unity.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Excuse me??? Wrong??? Before I say something uncharitable, I have to reiterate that I am out of this discussion. I will not be responding further.

Ok, but if you read this please understand that I am not trying to take this to the level of judging anyone’s personal holiness. The priest in question may have been a much holier man than I ever will be. But if he rejected a teaching of the Catholic Church (the indissolubility of sacramental marriage, in this case) then he was indeed wrong on that particular issue.

 

[jimmy]

When you disagree I’ll call you wrong. When (if) you say “that is right for you to believe but not for me” that is when I’ll call it relativistic.

Regarding Church teaching, the Holy Spirit guides the Church so that her doctrine always remains pure. The teachings of the Church are not superfluous or novel, certainly not in their substance at least. They are confirmations and clarifications of this very Tradition which we both strive to share. When a lay Catholic’s private opinion on what Tradition is, or even that of a priest or bishop, conflicts with the teaching of the Church as a whole we can be sure that it is the Church teaching that is correct and it is the divergent opinion that is wrong. At the very least this is true of the most binding Magisterial teachings, and a minimalist approach to Church authority that would reduce its significance to a handful of the most formal documents would not be right.

That is the whole point of having a Magisterium, that there would be a living, active interpreter of Apostolic Tradition in every generation so that none of us have to go simply by old books and our own judgement. In the West also there are those who take a go-it-alone, self-appointed guardian of Tradition attitude. It is not a position conducive to ecclesial unity.

No argument from me on any of that.

 

[MorEphrem]

This is the second and last post I shall make in this seemingly pointless thread: we do not hold Latins to our sui iuris Church synods, so neither the Latins should to us (while still being in union). There are many issues with the way Latins operate; for example, it seems most try to force their theologoumena down people’s throats as rigid orthodoxy. If we eastern catholic Churches had a large “council” amongst themselves we would never profess something that we expect Latins to adhere to; the same should be likewise to the Latins.

Paul was empowered to exhort or chastise a local church, which is where legal Papal authority comes from… likewise, Peter dealt with problems of the local church. There was no dictation downwards nor were either irreproachable.

That’s the last I’ll say.

Shlomo kulkhoon.

 

[AdvanceAlways]

I do understand where you’re coming from, and maybe it’s my Latin background speaking, but when the Code of Canon Law (both East and West) reasserts the infallibility of the Pope, there does not seem to be room to pick and choose. I ask again, what is the purpose of being in communion with the Pope if one feels they don’t need to listen to the dogmas of the Church or listen to the Pope?

 

[Thomas48]

One of the problems I have with the papal dogmas is that they have bastardized or ghettoized our eastern traditions. Through the continual increase of centralzation around Rome, the west has made all diversity superfluous, or even divisive. The conversation has changed for us in the east from living the orthodox Christian faith, to preserving our traditions (with a small t of course because there is no longer any connection between big T and small t.) at one tine being orthodox and preserving tradition were synonymous. now orthodoxy is attached to rome, and tradition is eccentricity. Rome ammends the faith without consulting our churches, and we have to focus on being faithful to Rome. We have to assume the new dogmas into our understanding. Then they patronize us by saying ‘maintain and preserve your traditions.’ The question is though, what is our tradition if we have to continually ammend it according to roman thinking?

This is a wonderful statement.

 

[AdvanceAlways]

The Church in an Ecumenical Council recognizes that each sui iuris Church is to retain their own traditions whole and entire:

“…for it is the mind of the Catholic Church that each individual Church or Rite should retain its traditions whole and entire and likewise that it should adapt its way of life to the different needs of time and place.” - The Second Vatican Council, Pope Paul VI, Orientalium Ecclesiarum

Source: vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_orientalium-ecclesiarum_en.html

We do not pick and choose. We obey our Eastern Fathers and look at things through their eyes.

So when Vatican II says what you want, it’s an ecumenical council, but when it doesn’t say what you want, it’s just a local council? Again, I mean no disrespect, I’m just seriously confused. I don’t get how reading Orientalium Ecclesirarum leads to the belief that the Eastern Churches are simply free to disregard Catholic dogma. I understand about obeying your Eastern Fathers, I really am not trying to come across as some Latin triumphalist who is trying to force his way on the East, I just don’t get what the purpose of communion with Rome is, if one is going to say that Rome is wrong. How can we have a united Church, where all the Latins believe in universal jurisdiction of the Pope, but the Eastern Catholics don’t believe so. That seems to violate the marks of the Church.