Roman Catholic looking into Orthodoxy

[Irish_Melkite]

Maccabees:

Its a mystery to me why Catholics leave for Orthodoxy when they can have the best of both worlds the Eastern traditions and liturgy. …
And they can also take daily communion in the latin rite. .

Mac,

Why would an Eastern Catholic want to commune daily in the Latin Church, when he could do so in his own Church. Our Churches are not mere appendages of Rome, we are Churches onto ourselves, which are in union with Rome, and have a full panoply of liturgical services, prayer, and tradition, which is not dependent on our Latin Sister Church.

Many years,

Neil

 

[Maccabees]

Irish Melkite:

Mac,

Why would an Eastern Catholic want to commune daily in the Latin Church, when he could do so in his own Church. Our Churches are not mere appendages of Rome, we are Churches onto ourselves, which are in union with Rome, and have a full panoply of liturgical services, prayer, and tradition, which is not dependent on our Latin Sister Church.

Many years,

Neil

Some Eastern catholic churches only have the Divine Liturgy on Sunday and on Feast Days. For those that don’t have daily communion the latin mass is a nice option for those who choose to commune daily. I know some Eastern Catholic churches have daily communion but this is not always the case.
Hey don’t blame me talk to EC chures which have only Sunday Divine Liturgy. I am well aware of the independant status of the Eastern Church in fact it is so independant some choose to have Sunday only Divine Liturgy.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Maccabees:

For those that don’t have daily communion the latin mass is a nice option for those who choose to commune daily. I know some Eastern Catholic churches have daily communion but this is not always the case.

Wouldn’t they start to fade away from starvation?

Hey don’t blame me talk to EC chures which have only Sunday Divine Liturgy. I am well aware of the independant status of the Eastern Church in fact it is so independant some choose to have Sunday only Divine Liturgy.

The Liturgy is very much focused as a resurrection service in the East and is celebrated on the day of the Resurrection. I would imagine that this was also the ancient custom of the Roman Church?

Some monasteries and some large city churches and cathedrals may have daily Liturgy but it is not the norm. The norm is to serve daily Vespers and Matins, etc.

Speaking of the Mass the Encyclopedia says:

The custom of the intention of the Mass further led to Mass being said every day by each priest. But this has by no means been uniformly carried out… Again, many most pious priests did not celebrate daily. Bossuet (d. 1704), for instance, said Mass only on Sundays, Feasts, every day in Lent, and at other times when a special ferial Mass is provided in the Missal. There is still no obligation for a priest to celebrate daily, though the custom is now very common. The Council of Trent desired that priests should celebrate at least on Sundays and solemn feasts (Sess. XXIII, cap. xiv).

newadvent.org/cathen/09790b.htm _______________
“We are unchanged; we are still the same as we were in the eighth century… Oh that you could only consent to be again what you were once, when we were both united in faith and communion!” -Alexis Khomiakov

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

GAssisi:

And you certainly have no evidence for your claim that papal infallibility is a heresy except for a mere argument from silence.

If we concede, for the sake of your argument, that the early Church Fathers taught papal infallibilty we would have to say that by the time we get to the year 1826 the bishops of Ireland had forgotten all about it and it had been lost in silence

In 1826, in the time of Pope Leo XII, the Bishops of Ireland wrote a “Declaration of the Archbishops and Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland” to the faithful Catholics of Ireland:

**“The Catholics of Ireland declare their belief that it is not an article of the Catholic faith, neither are they required to believe, that the Pope is infallible.” **

Of course a few years later in 1870 when the Pope was declared infallible, the poor Irish bishops, probably now in some sort of material heresy, poor dears, had to hastily backtrack and try to forget that they had ever taught their people that he was not.

---

“We are unchanged; we are still the same as we were in the eighth century… Oh that you could only consent to be again what you were once, when we were both united in faith and communion!” -Alexis Khomiakov

 

[GAssisi]

Dear Father,

Thank you for those links to the Filioque by Fr. John Romanides. They are definitely informative. I have read about 50% of it, and my previous statements so far have been justified. Principally, 1) Photius was the innovator in attempting to insert the word “alone” into the theology of the Procession. All Fathers East and West understood that the Son had some role in the Procession. 2) The patristic literary evidence supports the Catholic position, while the Orthodox position is based merely on fancy theological/philosophical speculations and interpretations.

From my readings so far, there are two serious deficiencies in Fr. Romanides articles. First, Fr Romanides claims that the Catholic notion of the Filioque makes the Son a co-cause of the Holy Spirit. But he does not bother to explain the Catholic position (the statement just presented is about as far as it goes), much less give any primary references for investigation. What is he afraid of? It may simply be for want of language, but Catholic doctrine since Augustine regarding the Filioque definitely regards the Father the “First Cause” (principaliter) of the Holy Spirit, not Jesus – thus not confusing the Persons – but Fr. Romanides does not even mention this.

Second, Fr. Romanides fails miserably to provide primary sources for his interpretations of the historical dimension of the Filioque controversy. The reader is left to wonder, “is this what really happened, or is this a polemical interpretation?” A wary, impartial reader will notice that especially in those instances where the objective occurrence lends itself to more than one interpretation, the author fails to give any supporting references.

Fr. Romanides’ failure in these two respects is unforgivable, and mars his otherwise exceptional scholarship.

God bless,

Greg

P.S. I knew the papal infallibility reply would give you a good giggle, but it’s the truth. The Catholic Church has positive, patristic literary evidence that lends itself to an interpretation of infallibility (what you call “implicit”; e.g., statements – not just from Popes – to the effect that in this Apostolic See, the Faith has always been kept undefiled). That is not an argument from silence, and at least we have such implicit literary evidence. On the other hand, Orthodox and Protestants do not have this at all for their (your) position.

 

[GAssisi]

Dear Father,

We had discussed this very quote from the Irish bishops before, but you seem to have forgotten it. Let me refresh your memory.

In Catholic parlance, the term “article” denotes A DEFINED DOGMA OF THE FAITH. The Irish Bishops were not at all betraying their very Catholic identity by admitting to this, because the infallibility of the Pope was in fact NOT A DEFINED DOGMA when they made that statement. NO Catholic is REQUIRED to believe what is not an established dogma of the Faith.

Father, you (and other Orthodox here) seem to have an uncanny ability for bringing up irrelevant data.

God bless,

Greg

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

GAssisi:

Dear Father,

We had discussed this very quote from the Irish bishops before, but you seem to have forgotten it. Let me refresh your memory.

In Catholic parlance, the term “article” denotes A DEFINED DOGMA OF THE FAITH. The Irish Bishops were not at all betraying their very Catholic identity by admitting to this, because the infallibility of the Pope was in fact NOT A DEFINED DOGMA when they made that statement. NO Catholic is REQUIRED to believe what is not an established dogma of the Faith.

Father, you (and other Orthodox here) seem to have an uncanny ability for bringing up irrelevant data.

God bless,

Greg

Dear GAssisi, you have an absolute genius for turning black into white and day into night, but I am not sure how convincing it is.

Sometimes words simply mean what they mean.

Sometimes, as Jung said, a cloud is just a cloud.

---

“We are unchanged; we are still the same as we were in the eighth century… Oh that you could only consent to be again what you were once, when we were both united in faith and communion!” -Alexis Khomiakov

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

GAssisi:

In Catholic parlance, the term “article” denotes A DEFINED DOGMA OF THE FAITH. The Irish Bishops were not at all betraying their very Catholic identity by admitting to this, because the infallibility of the Pope was in fact NOT A DEFINED DOGMA when they made that statement. NO Catholic is REQUIRED to believe what is not an established dogma of the Faith

Off the top of my head this means that Catholics are not required to believe a few things. Baptism of blood and baptism of desire may be denied since they have never been defined dogma. Although it may even be in such a respectable book as the modern Catechism it is still not defined dogma and hence not a de fide belief.

I suspect that the teaching on contraception could be challenged and not believed. Is it defined dogma? Doubtful. The debate on whether Humanae Vitae is infallible continues. Since Catholics are not obliged to believe what is not a defined dogma they may exercise their right to follow their conscience.

---

“We are unchanged; we are still the same as we were in the eighth century… Oh that you could only consent to be again what you were once, when we were both united in faith and communion!” -Alexis Khomiakov

 

[Theodred]

Fr Ambrose:

Theodred, you judge me a little too hastily. I wrote what I did because I have participated in probably 8 to 10 threads on this Forum which deal with the Orthodox understanding on authority in the Church. Each of them runs into several hundred messages, and in all of them, the Catholic participants find it impossible to comprehend the Orthodox mindset on this matter.

So when you asked your question, all this past correspondence came flooding into my mind and I was kind of overwhelmed by the immensity of the task.

If you like to find these threads, use the search engine and type in authority orthodox in the Non-Catholic Religions section.

I understand how the Eastern Orthodox Church practices authority. My point is, is that you can not deny the presence of authority in your Church, not matter how undeveloped or ineffective it may be.

Likewise, I am fully aware of the Eastern Orthodox perspective of the Christological and the pneumatological aspects of the Church. However, the simple fact of the matter is that you have not proven that these aspects are any less present to the Catholic Church on account of her more advanced ecclesiological understanding and practice of authority.

You are attempting to do so by conjecturing that the Catholic Church’s more advanced understanding and full practice of her ecclesiological life somehow negates the sensus fidelium (pleroma) of the Church. This more advanced understanding and practice of ecclesiolgical life, on the other hand, completes and makes more effective the sensus fidelium than in the Eastern Orthodox Churches, and there is an easily recognizable material sign of this enriched sensus fidelium in comparison to Eastern Orthodoxy’s. One only has to look to the ethnically insular nature of the Eastern Orthodox Churches to see clearly how limited the sensus fidelium of the Eastern Orthodox Churches is. The cultural diversity of the Catholic Church demonstrates that the sensus fidelium of the Catholic Church is charged with a vibriant evangelical spirit that does not collapse upon itself in constant introspection. Clearly defined authority provides freedom, not constraint. What you consider a weakness of the Catholic Church (Authority) is percisely that which allows the Catholic Church to go and make disciples of all the nations.

 

[Matt25]

Fr Ambrose:

Augustine wrote several passages which deal with the question of whether Peter was the Rock. His mature conclusion was that the Rock is Christ.

“In one place I said… that the Church had been built on Peter as the Rock… but in fact it was not said to Peter, “Thou art the Rock,” but rather “Thou art Peter.” The Rock was Jesus Christ, Peter having confessed Him as all the Church confesses Him, He was then called Peter, “the Rock”… (ed, for his faith) …Between these two sentiments let the reader choose the most probable.”

St. Augustine, Retractions - 13th Sermon; Contra Julianum 1:13

St. Augustine adds:

"Peter had not a primacy over the apostles, but among the apostles, and Christ said to them “I will build upon Myself, I will not be built upon thee.”

**These comments by Augustine are highly significant. ** They are the fruits of his mature reflection and belong to his work of “Retractions” in which he corrects the former doctrinal errors of his earlier years. These comments totally demolish the Roman Catholic claim that the early Church Fathers taught what is now the modern Catholic teaching as regards the papal office.

Here we have the greatest theologian of the West writing**, after 400 years of the Church’s existence, that Peter is not the rock. ** Augustine allows such an interpretation, but he himself denies it. Would he have been in a position to deny it if the Church had believed it during the preceding 400 years??!

How does one explain this?

I happened to be reading The Confessions today and came across this bit from Book 12 Chapter 31 where Augustine seems to allow multiple meanings for a single passage of Scripture. If the words “in the beginning” are as difficult to understand as he makes them seem then “your are Kephas” probably means a good deal more than this thread has even begun to touch on.

“So when one says, “Moses meant as I do”; and another, “Nay, but as I do,” I suppose that I speak more reverently, “Why not rather as both, if both be true?” And if there be a third, or a fourth, yea if any other seeth any other truth in those words, why may not he be believed to have seen all these, through whom the One God hath tempered the holy Scriptures to the senses of many, who should see therein things true but divers? For I certainly (and fearlessly I speak it from my heart), that were I to indite any thing to have supreme authority, I should prefer so to write, that whatever truth any could apprehend on those matters, might he conveyed in my words, rather than set down my own meaning so clearly as to exclude the rest, which not being false, could not offend me. I will not therefore, O my God, be so rash, as not to believe, that Thou vouchsafedst as much to that great man. He without doubt, when he wrote those words, perceived and thought on what truth soever we have been able to find, yea and whatsoever we have not been able, nor yet are, but which may be found in them.”

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Théodred:

I understand how the Eastern Orthodox Church practices authority.

If you truly understand the Orthodox concept of authority, many of us would be truly grateful if you would put it down on paper and send it to the Forum.

The Orthodox have written masses and masses of explanation in quite a few threads on this Forum —and the Catholics have never grasped it.

Maybe, if you as a Catholic can explain it to other Catholics then they will understand? Really, you would be doing both sides a favour if you helped us with this.

---

“We are unchanged; we are still the same as we were in the eighth century… Oh that you could only consent to be again what you were once, when we were both united in faith and communion!” -Alexis Khomiakov

 

[Maccabees]

I didn’t know the Orthodox church now think Augustine is infalliable perhaps they are now subsciribing to the doctrine of Original Sin.

OF course there are Eastern Fathers who think Peter was the Rock so we end up in a stalement by this type of game.

What is the bigger question we should be addressing is how did the church function when unified the first one thousand years. What role did the Bishop of Rome play.

Play Bible tennis or quotation of the fathers tennis it doesn’t matter nothing will be solved. We know the Bishop of Rome played a unifying and authoratative force in Christianity for the first one thousand years lets look back on to what degree this was done in doctrinal controversies and church councils.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Théodred:

the simple fact of the matter is that you have not proven that these aspects are any less present to the Catholic Church on account of her more advanced ecclesiological understanding and practice of authority.

…One only has to look to the ethnically insular nature of the Eastern Orthodox Churches to see clearly how limited the sensus fidelium of the Eastern Orthodox Churches is. The cultural diversity of the Catholic Church demonstrates that the sensus fidelium of the Catholic Church is charged with a vibriant evangelical spirit that does not collapse upon itself in constant introspection. Clearly defined authority provides freedom, not constraint. What you consider a weakness of the Catholic Church (Authority) is percisely that which allows the Catholic Church to go and make disciples of all the nations.

Good grief, this message made me think that I was reading something from the anti-Orthodox theologian Harnack. One phrase stands out: “collapse upon itself in constant introspection.” Now that is worthy of Harnack himself and I shall treasure it along with his many gems of anti-Orthodox spite:

**“The Orthodox Church is in her entire structure alien to the Gospel and a perversion of the Christian religion, its reduction to the level of pagan antiquity.” **

I always treasure that quote and take a great pride in it, perhaps even a sinful pride… mea culpa! But are we not doing something right if Western theologians speak so highly of us

But, to be more serious, does it not show how far the West has travelled from Orthodox Christianity since the Schism? Harnack bumps up against the purest form of Christianity and he condemns it and delivers such a harsh judgement! Theodred echoes his sentiments.

---

“We are unchanged; we are still the same as we were in the eighth century… Oh that you could only consent to be again what you were once, when we were both united in faith and communion!” -Alexis Khomiakov

 

[Theodred]

Fr Ambrose:

Good grief, this message made me think that I was reading something from the anti-Orthodox theologian Harnack. One phrase stands out: “collapse upon itself in constant introspection.” Now that is worthy of Harnack himself and I shall treasure it along with his many gems of anti-Orthodox spite.

Actually, I was thinking of Congars, not Harnack. I’m sorry if you took my post as “anti-Orthodox”; I’m far from being such, as I’m sure my Eastern Orthodox friends would be quick to tell you.

My post was a simple criticism of Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology, and in type, it was no different from your criticisms of Catholicism. “Good Grief” if I accused you of anti-Catholicism every time you criticized the Catholic Church I would have no time or strength to write anything else.

 

[petra]

Very interesting discussion…
Théodred:

Saint Augustine was wrong about Christ being the rock, just as he was wrong about double predestination. Augustine, admittedly, did not know as much about language as say a Saint Jerome. It is possible that a great theologian could be wrong, even on more than one point.

The retraction by Augustine is relevant because it is part of tradition. Many of the articles in the Catholic Answers web sites use extensive quotations of Church fathers to establish a doctrine as being part of Sacred Tradition from the time of the early Church. If the existence of supporting opinions is relevant to verify this fact, the existence of dissenting opinions is relevant to bring the issue into question. It cuts both ways.

Interestingly, there is a CA page with quotations from Augustine to support the primacy of Peter (catholic.com/library/Peter_Primacy.asp). (Doesn’t CA know about the retractions?) If the Church discounts Augustine’s later retractions on the subject with the disclaimer that individuals do not have the charism of infallibility and that Augustine “fell into serious errors”, then the supporting statements cannot be used either. The quotation of any church father to support the antiquity of a doctrine is, therefore, meaningless.

 

[GAssisi]

Dear Father,

Yes, a cloud is a cloud, and an article of faith is a DEFINED dogma of faith, and is not what you make it out to be (I assume you suspected I would offer this rebuttal, which is why you followed up with apparent examples to support your notion of “article”).

Before refuting your subsequent post, let me remind you that a dogma of faith may be defined not only explicitly by the Pope or an Ecumenical Council, but by the universal witness of faith. If you feel I am just making this up, I suggest you read Lumen Gentium 25. It states that particular teachings are to be held “with the loyal and obedient assent of faith” when such teachings are either pronounced 1) ex cathedra by the Pope, 2) by an ecumenical Council, or 3) by individual bishops provided that “even though dispersed throughout the world, but preserving for all that amongst themselves and with Peter’s successor the bond of communion, in their authoritative teaching concerning matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement that a particular teaching is to be held definitely and absolutely.” Keeping this in mind:

Baptism of desire was defined by Trent at its Sixth Session when it declared that men can obtain the grace of original justice either by “the washing of regeneration or its desire.”

Baptism of blood was defined by the universal consensus of the undivided Church, not to mention Scripture (unless you wish to claim that the Orthodox do not accept the Baptism of martyrdom).

With regards to contraception and Humanae Vitae, I guess you have never read Gaudium et Spes, the Vatican II pronouncement on “The Church and the Modern World.” Please take the time to read it before making any more assumptions about the dogmatic status of Church statements on contraception and other matters concerning sexual morality.

God bless,

Greg

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

petra:

If the Church discounts Augustine’s later retractions on the subject with the disclaimer that individuals do not have the charism of infallibility and that Augustine “fell into serious errors”, then the supporting statements cannot be used either. The quotation of any church father to support the antiquity of a doctrine is, therefore, meaningless.

Hello Petra, and welcome to the discussion.

Do you really mean the conclusion which you draw in that last sentence?

Are you saying that:

If one Father is wrong on a single issue,
then no Father can be right on anything
and, thus, the patristic witness crumbles.

If so, then that does not follow. One Father being wrong on one issue does not mean the patristic consensus cannot be right on many others and considerable confidence can be placed in Tradition.

Now… where have we seen these thoughts before? :yup:

---

God is the one loveable who is always rejoicing without end in infinite happiness.
~St.Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa, died 395

 

[GAssisi]

Dear Father,

I believe Petra was supporting your view. She made her statement as a reductio ad absurdum argument. It was pretty obvious to me. Why was it not obvious to you?

In fact, I myself do not agree with David that Augustine was wrong in proclaiming Jesus as the Rock, not only because it is a biblical and patristic fact, but also because Augustine was not claiming it to the exclusion of Peter being the Rock.

And I assume by your statement that you admit that “consensus” does not translate to absolute agreement, that if the very great majority of Fathers can be shown to hold a certain belief, then the opposition of one or two does not invalidate that consensus? If so, your own argument that Augustine indicates a refutation of the Catholic claim to consensus seems to fall like a house of straw – or you simply do not understand what the Catholic Church teaches (pretty evident up to this point).

God bless,

Greg

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

GAssisi:

Before refuting your subsequent post, let me remind you that a dogma of faith may be defined not only explicitly by the Pope or an Ecumenical Council, but by the universal witness of faith

…With regards to contraception…

With regard to the consensus fidelium of which Theodred says:

“The sensus fidelium is, in and of itself, part of Tradition, and can not, under any circumstances, be ignored by the teaching office of the bishops. You need to study your Catholicism a bit more.”

Here is the sensus fidelium of the Catholic faithful as regards contraception:

96% of all Catholic women who have ever had sex have used
modern contraceptive methods at some point in their lives.

75% of Catholic women of childbearing age who are currently sexually active use a contraceptive method forbidden by the church.

Sexually active Catholic women who attend church once a week or more use contraception at about the same rate as Catholic women who attend church less frequently (monthly)—73.5% vs. 75%

 

[hlgomez]

Here is the sensus fidelium of the Catholic faithful as regards contraception:
96% of all Catholic women who have ever had sex have used
modern contraceptive methods at some point in their lives.

75% of Catholic women of childbearing age who are currently sexually active use a contraceptive method forbidden by the church.

Sexually active Catholic women who attend church once a week or more use contraception at about the same rate as Catholic women who attend church less frequently (monthly)—73.5% vs. 75%

Fr. Ambrose,

Are you saying that in the Orthodox world no one commits sin at all because they are orthodox? Father, we live in a world of reality–that is, we are given total freedom by God. Each and everyone of us has the freedom to choose between good and evil and you know it very well.

It’s funny that sometimes, if not, most of the time, the Catholic Chruch is being regarded as tyrant. And that everyone should believe and do what the Catholic Church teaches… or else… So if that were true, how come there are still catholics who do such things you mentioned?

But even if they so wish to do such things, the Church will continue to preach that which is moral truth–unstained teaching. We don’t allow contraception and divorce, etc. and we will continue to preach that. We don’t give in to the earthly desires of men.

Pio

Again Father, the Church teaches us what to do which is morally right. If anyone wishes to disagree and continue with what they want to do, then it’s is their problem. The Church just don’t want to stop reminding the faithful, even to the point that the faithful doesn’t want to listen. It is her duty, it is her call.