Papacy and Eastern Catholics

[Aelred_Minor]

Well I mean for an ecumenical council I haven’t ever really read much about the Eastern participation in Vatican I (specifically the Eastern Churches in union with Rome). As far as I’m concerned it might as well be an internal matter of obedience and discipline for the Latin Church.

Quite frankly I don’t think these issues will be resolved anytime soon for one reason,as I mentioned before. It seems Latins do not understand the difference between a theologoumena and divine truth. If one contests the average Latin on something as simple as In Persona Christi, the “consecration” (as opposed to ordination) of bishops, etc. it makes them a heretic. If such peripheral items are considered essential, how can we even approach a topic that Latins are not even willing to entertain the idea that it is wrong to dogmatize a theologoumenon? It’s essentially a false dialogue, “we’ll agree to talk to you about doctrinal differences between our equal Churches… the only condition is we’ll establish all the working definitions and our idea will be ultimately right. Why? Because we called ‘dibs’ in VI.”

A theologoumenon is, according to my understanding, a private theological opinion that has not been taught as formal doctrine. An example would be predestination ante prævisa merita. When something has been “dogmatized,” proclaimed as a dogma, then it is no longer a theologoumenon and quite frankly is no longer open for debate.

 

[Nine_Two]

There are OCA parishes with the same name. The understanding of the term differs.

There are? I just did a parish search on the OCA website and came up empty.

 

[Zekariya]

All that matters is that we teach the same one Truth. Some Latin terms are irrelevant or make no sense in the East. This does not mean that we contradict each other.

We both agree that the bread and wine are no longer present but Christ’s Body and Blood are present. We do not have to use accidents and substance to teach this doctrine.

We both agree that the Mother of God is without sin and full of grace. We do not need to explain the immaculate conception because we do not teach original sin to be a lack of sanctifying grace.

We both agree that a priest must absolve sins for them to be forgiven but we have different formulas of absolution that are used.

We both agree that Pope is the first amongst equals and is the shepherd of the Catholic Church. However, we disagree on the role that he plays in the sui iuris Churches. The Church of Antioch did not need permission of Rome to ordain its own bishops in the first millennium.

St Cyril of Alexandria taught that Christ has one nature made op of divinity and humanity without mixture or confusion. St Leo of Rome taught that Christ has two natures of divinity and humanity in perfect unity with no division or separation. The same dogma of the Church is expressed in two different ways.

 

[Aramis]

There are? I just did a parish search on the OCA website and came up empty.

It didn’t have all the Alaskan parishes, last I checked

 

[Aelred_Minor]

All that matters is that we teach the same one Truth. Some Latin terms are irrelevant or make no sense in the East. This does not mean that we contradict each other.

We both agree that the bread and wine are no longer present but Christ’s Body and Blood are present. We do not have to use accidents and substance to teach this doctrine.

We both agree that the Mother of God is without sin and full of grace. We do not need to explain the immaculate conception because we do not teach original sin to be a lack of sanctifying grace.

We both agree that a priest must absolve sins for them to be forgiven but we have different formulas of absolution that are used.

We both agree that Pope is the first amongst equals and is the shepherd of the Catholic Church. However, we disagree on the role that he plays in the sui iuris Churches. The Church of Antioch did not need permission of Rome to ordain its own bishops in the first millennium.

St Cyril of Alexandria taught that Christ has one nature made op of divinity and humanity without mixture or confusion. St Leo of Rome taught that Christ has two natures of divinity and humanity in perfect unity with no division or separation. The same dogma of the Church is expressed in two different ways.

That sounds like a pretty good approach. Or at least, it is entering into the area where I would not presume to judge whether it is right for you or not. I do hope your statement about the role of the Pope regards what authority ought to be exercised not what theoretically can be exercised and still be binding.

I assume you don’t mean that people have sanctifying grace before the work of redemption done by Christ, but just are referring to the different theological paradigms through which the Fall is approached.

One small clarification, in the West we believe that personal sins, even mortal sins, can be forgiven outside the sacraments if the person has perfect contrition, though the responsibility to confess those sins remains. I imagine you Eastern Catholics also do not rigidly and exclusively confine the possibility of forgiveness of sins committed after baptism to sacramental absolution.

The idea of Christ having one nature containing both full divinity and full humanity should not, in my opinion, be expressed by any Chalcedonian Christian, even if one takes the position that this can be interpreted in an orthodox way. I also have concerns about its implications for divine immutability and the unity of the Trinity in the single divine nature, but perhaps that is getting beyond defined Church doctrine.

 

[Zekariya]

That sounds like a pretty good approach. Or at least, it is entering into the area where I would not presume to judge whether it is right for you or not. I do hope your statement about the role of the Pope regards what authority ought to be exercised not what theoretically can be exercised and still be binding.

I certainly hold to the doctrine of papal infallibility and his extraordinary jurisdiction as such that the first millennium shows. The Pope extraordinary interferes in important matters but ordinarily allows the sui iuris Churches to work out their own problems.

I assume you don’t mean that people have sanctifying grace before the work of redemption done by Christ, but just are referring to the different theological paradigms through which the Fall is approached.

The Eastern understanding of original sin is that we have inherited the consequences (physical and spiritual) rather than actual guilt. Here is Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky’s explanation:

The foundation of the Roman Catholic teaching lies in (a) an understanding of the sin of Adam as an infinitely great offense against God; (b) after this offense there followed the wrath of God; (c) the wrath of God was expressed in the removal of the supernatural gifts of God’s grace; and (d) the removal of grace drew after itself the submission of the spiritual principle to the fleshly principle, and a falling deeper into sin and death. From this comes a particular view of the redemption performed by the Son of God: In order to restore the order which had been violated, it was necessary first of all to give satisfaction for the offense given to God, and by this means to remove the guilt of mankind and the punishment that weighs upon him.

The consequences of ancestral sin are accepted by Orthodox theology differently. After his first fall, man himself departed in soul from God and became unreceptive to the grace of God which was opened to him; he ceased to listen to the divine voice addressed to him, and this led to the further deepening of sin in him. However, God has never deprived mankind of His mercy, help, grace, and especially His chosen people; and from this people there came forth great righteous men such as Moses, Elijah, Elisha, and the later prophets.

In the above quote, you can see why the East does not need to define Mary’s cleansing from the guilt of original sin since the East teaches that we inherit the consequences of original sin and not the guilt.

Because we have different focuses on the fall, we explain the purity of the Mother of God differently.

One small clarification, in the West we believe that personal sins, even mortal sins, can be forgiven outside the sacraments if the person has perfect contrition, though the responsibility to confess those sins remains. I imagine you Eastern Catholics also do not rigidly and exclusively confine the possibility of forgiveness of sins committed after baptism to sacramental absolution.

You are correct.

The idea of Christ having one nature containing both full divinity and full humanity should not, in my opinion, be expressed by any Chalcedonian Christian, even if one takes the position that this can be interpreted in an orthodox way. I also have concerns about its implications for divine immutability and the unity of the Trinity in the single divine nature, but perhaps that is getting beyond defined Church doctrine.

My point here is that to orthodox Catholic saints taught the same doctrine in different word (that is, neither taught heresy). Certainly it would be an occasion of scandal if a Catholic taught the incarnation using the words of the Holy Doctor, St Cyril of Alexandria without first delving deeply into pre-Chacedonian theology.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I certainly hold to the doctrine of papal infallibility and his extraordinary jurisdiction as such that the first millennium shows. The Pope extraordinary interferes in important matters but ordinarily allows the sui iuris Churches to work out their own problems.

I’m afraid I still have a concern here. The First Vatican Council did pronounce:

“If anyone thus speaks, that the Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspection or direction, but not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church spread over the whole world; or, that he possesses only the more important parts, but not the whole plenitude of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate, or over the churches altogether and individually, and over the pastors and the faithful altogether and individually: let him be anathema.” (emphasis mine)

That said, when we in the West speak of Papal jurisdiction what we usually mean is “what is the absolute maximum power the Pope could wield in the Church if he insisted on it.” Since there is never an excuse for schism, that means that if the Pope insisted on telling another sui iuris Church, for instance, that from now on its members must brush their teeth with spearmint-flavored toothpaste every other Tuesday in June and if they don’t they will be cast out of the Church, then I’m afraid they would have to do it. But we will all agree the Pope should not do such a thing, that it would be a gross and arbitrary abuse of his authority. In the case of some Eastern Catholics I’ve discussed this with, and I hope it is the case with you, what strikes us Western Catholics as a denial of the Pope’s ordinary and immediate authority is really only the result of looking at Papal authority in a different way, in terms of what the Pope ought to do, what it is proper that he do, what would not be an offence and insult if he did, rather than the Latin preoccupation with the absolute maximum that the Pope could do if he wanted to and we would still have to obey.

The Eastern understanding of original sin is that we have inherited the consequences (physical and spiritual) rather than actual guilt.

In Western theology we also understand that Original Sin does not entail the passing on of personal guilt but rather of the other consequences of the sin of Adam. I am not always a fan of saying that East-West differences are not as great as commonly supposed, but I think that might be the case in this instance.

 

[Zekariya]

I’m afraid I still have a concern here. The First Vatican Council did pronounce:

“If anyone thus speaks, that the Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspection or direction, but not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church spread over the whole world; or, that he possesses only the more important parts, but not the whole plenitude of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate, or over the churches altogether and individually, and over the pastors and the faithful altogether and individually: let him be anathema.” (emphasis mine)

Patriarch Gregory II Youssef and the Melkite bishops subscribed to it adding the qualifying clause used at the Council of Florence: “except the rights and privileges of Eastern patriarchs.” They were not required to recant their reiteration of the decision of the Council of Florence. The pope has all of the above authority of the Church “except the rights and privileges of Eastern patriarchs.”

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Patriarch Gregory II Youssef and the Melkite bishops subscribed to it adding the qualifying clause used at the Council of Florence: “except the rights and privileges of Eastern patriarchs.” They were not required to recant their reiteration of the decision of the Council of Florence. The pope has all of the above authority of the Church “except the rights and privileges of Eastern patriarchs.”

I’m afraid that qualifying clause is not part of the actual Council’s teaching.

 

[Zekariya]

I’m afraid that qualifying clause is not part of the actual Council’s teaching.

It is the teaching of the Council of Florence. It does not get more official than that.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

It is the teaching of the Council of Florence. It does not get more official than that.

Well, let’s not pit one Ecumenical Council against another. Let’s see how they can be harmonized.

For convenience do you have the passage in question ready to quote? I could also see if I can find it online. I’d say this is still near enough the original topic not to be derailment.

Edit: This is the first thing I’ve found:

“We define that the Holy Apostolic See–and the Roman Pontiff–has primacy over the whole world, and that the same Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, prince of the apostles and true Vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church, and father and teacher of all Christians, and that upon him, in blessed Peter, our Lord Jesus Christ conferred the full power of shepherding, ruling and governing the universal Church, as is also stated in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons” (DS 1307)

I’m not seeing a conflict there.

 

[Zekariya]

Well, let’s not pit one Ecumenical Council against another. Let’s see how they can be harmonized.

For convenience do you have the passage in question ready to quote? I could also see if I can find it online. I’d say this is still near enough the original topic not to be derailment.

We also define that the holy apostolic see and the Roman pontiff holds the primacy over the whole world and the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter prince of the apostles, and that he is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians, and to him was committed in blessed Peter the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church, as is contained also in the acts of ecumenical councils and in the sacred canons.

Also, renewing the order of the other patriarchs which has been handed down in the canons, the patriarch of Constantinople should be second after the most holy Roman pontiff, third should be the patriarch of Alexandria, fourth the patriarch of Antioch, and fifth the patriarch of Jerusalem, without prejudice to all their privileges and rights.

• Council of Florence, Session 6 (July 6, 1439)
  Source: papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum17.htm

 

[Aelred_Minor]

We also define that the holy apostolic see and the Roman pontiff holds the primacy over the whole world and the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter prince of the apostles, and that he is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians, and to him was committed in blessed Peter the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church, as is contained also in the acts of ecumenical councils and in the sacred canons.

Also, renewing the order of the other patriarchs which has been handed down in the canons, the patriarch of Constantinople should be second after the most holy Roman pontiff, third should be the patriarch of Alexandria, fourth the patriarch of Antioch, and fifth the patriarch of Jerusalem, without prejudice to all their privileges and rights.

• Council of Florence, Session 6 (July 6, 1439)
  Source: papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum17.htm

Ok, so this traditional order of the patriarchs, all under the Pope, is restored and their traditional privileges and rights maintained. Where does that say that the Pope could not, if he nefariously decided to, revoke those ancient privileges and rights? Heck, we already know Constantinople jumped in line in front of Alexandria and Antioch at some point, so these things aren’t written in stone, unlike the Papacy itself.

Would such an action justify breaking communion with Rome? If not, then from the Latin perspective Papal jurisdiction trumps even this, though it is to be hoped such an action will never take place.

 

[Zekariya]

Ok, so this traditional order of the patriarchs, all under the Pope, is restored and their traditional privileges and rights maintained. Where does that say that the Pope could not, if he nefariously decided to, revoke those ancient privileges and rights? Would such an action justify breaking communion with Rome? If not, then from the Latin perspective Papal jurisdiction trumps even this, though it is to be hoped such an action will never take place.

It would be schism to break Communion with Rome. We would have to endure the sin of the pope and hope for such a time when a good pope restores our privileges and rights. Our rights are not “Church discipline” but, rather, our rights. The word, rights, signifies something that cannot be taken away or changed. The Seven Ecumenical Councils spell out our rights. The pope has in older times taken aways certain rights but we did not schism over that and eventually had them restored.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

It would be schism to break Communion with Rome. We would have to endure the sin of the pope and hope for such a time when a good pope restores our privileges and rights. Our rights are not “Church discipline” but, rather, our rights. The word, rights, signifies something that cannot be taken away or changed. The Seven Ecumenical Councils spell out our rights. The pope has in older times taken aways certain rights but we did not schism over that and eventually had them restored.

Without going into the philosophy of exactly what rights are, whether they are mutable or immutable in this case, or canon law questions regarding the First Seven Ecumenical Councils (all of that is beyond my ken), it sounds like we are really in agreement on this issue of what Papal jurisdiction is and is not.

 

[Zekariya]

Without going into the philosophy of exactly what rights are or canon law questions regarding the First Seven Ecumenical Councils (all of which is beyond my ken), it sounds like we are really in agreement on this issue.

Sounds like we are in agreement to me to me as well. I personally leave it up to the bishops hammer out issues of canon law.

Have a good night.

 

[tdgesq]

Ok, so this traditional order of the patriarchs, all under the Pope, is restored and their traditional privileges and rights maintained. Where does that say that the Pope could not, if he nefariously decided to, revoke those ancient privileges and rights? Heck, we already know Constantinople jumped in line in front of Alexandria and Antioch at some point, so these things aren’t written in stone, unlike the Papacy itself.

Would such an action justify breaking communion with Rome? If not, then from the Latin perspective Papal jurisdiction trumps even this, though it is to be hoped such an action will never take place.

Well, if those things aren’t written in stone (that is - the relative priority and extent of Patriarchal jurisdiction) then it is an administrative rather than a divine decree. Can the Pope change the administrative structure of the Church vis a vis the other Patriarchs per Vatican I? This is only true if the decree of Vatican I is in derogation of the Council of Florence. Assuming for argument that it is, and the the Pope could do such a thing unilaterally, then we have a Church administrative law.

Hypothetical: what if the Pope’s declares that the ancient privileges of the Patriarchates are dissolved. Further assume that this is a sinful and unjust proclamation of the Papacy. Certainly this is possible as we aren’t talking about infallibility on a matter of faith and morals. Now the Eastern Patriarchs have two choices: (1) adhere to the sinful and unjust proclamation of the papacy or (2) refuse to abide by the decision.

Now which of the two is the “more sinful” decision? This is why hypotheticals of the sort you offer aren’t very useful to understanding these issues. We seem to forget sometimes in the RCC that the Pope can be wrong.

 

[Nine_Two]

It didn’t have all the Alaskan parishes, last I checked

I have no idea how many Alaskan parishes there are. It lists a ton. Could you give me more information on this church?

 

[ronyodish]

The Church of the East utilizes a vocabulary in East Syriac (a language with a vocabulary far smaller than that of Greek, Latin, or even Coptic). The Greeks imposed the ousia-prosopon-hypostasis distinctions without any regard for how those terms would be understood and applied across the Churches. The Church of the East was accustomed to speaking of those distinctions as kyana-qnoma-parsopa. Some Greek theologians translated “qnoma” as a synonym for “person,” which is an acceptable translation in particular contexts. The East Syriacs maintained, as was their custom, in Christ there are two qnome, it seemed to say to the Greeks that there are two Persons in Christ, which is the textbook definition of Nestorianism that the Council of Ephesus anathematized. When you actually look at the Syriac, however, you will see that that “person” and qnoma are not exactly 1-to-1 synonyms. Qnoma was understood, in a Christological sense, to be “an instantiation of a nature.”

Here you have two completely separate traditions, with two completely valid vocabularies, but they are incomprehensible to one another because x in Syriac does not mean y in Greek - it just means x in Syriac. You have to find a way to respect the actual meaning when attempting to reconcile two divergent languages (theological and actual).

Denho,

Thanks for posting this.

God bless,

Rony

 

[Aramis]

I have no idea how many Alaskan parishes there are. It lists a ton. Could you give me more information on this church?

Dates back to the Russian Colonial era, may not be functioning anymore.