Roman Curia allows Bishop Fellay FSSPX, to bring into full communion an Orthodox priest.

[1AugustSon7]

Do you see the problem?

Yes.

 

[mattkubes]

Pope John Paul relieved them of this burden stating that the canon only applies to a Catholic not to a person who is born outside of the Catholic Church. Those born outside of the Catholic Church are not schismatic. They are not even materially schismatic, because the Church recognizes that they are in union with us in what is most important, which is the faith and the sacraments.

Pope John Paul II may have made some grand gestures attempting to create greater union, but that has nothing to do with them being at least materially schismatic. Papal primacy is a matter of faith as laid out in Scripture and infallible Church councils. They may be united to us on a lot of points, but they are separated from us on the issue of submission to the Roman Pontiff (which is the definition of schism). We cannot speak to their culpability, but there is an objective reality here that is impossible to deny.

The issue of the Bishop of Rome is more about jurisdiction than about faith.

…Except it is a matter of faith, much more so than mere jurisdiction. In his private writings, Pope John Paul II did not, and could not, undo Pastor Aeternus.

 

[JReducation]

Pope John Paul II may have made some grand gestures attempting to create greater union, but that has nothing to do with them being at least materially schismatic. Papal primacy is a matter of faith as laid out in Scripture and infallible Church councils. They may be united to us on a lot of points, but they are separated from us on the issue of submission to the Roman Pontiff (which is the definition of schism). We cannot speak to their culpability, but there is an objective reality here that is impossible to deny.

…Except it is a matter of faith, much more so than mere jurisdiction. In his private writings, Pope John Paul II did not, and could not, undo Pastor Aeternus.

I believe that we’re missing the point here, which only reinforces the Vatican’s “complaint” tha the faithful on both sides are a hinderance to unity and that we need to think with them. As long as we don’t think with them, we keep focussing on the “schism” and not on the unity.

Popes Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI have repeated stated in talks, speaches, and letters that this language is to be set aside. Pastor Aetmus is not the issue here. The issue is that the popes do not want to use the language of Pastor Aetemus. They have the right and authority to set it aside.

What a pope cannot do is to created new dogma or deny dogma. He can choose the language that he uses or that he avoids and he can direct the Church to do the same. This is called, “Thinking with the Church.”

At this point, five (maybe six) consecutive popes have chosen to drop the label. The have even taken it out of Canon Law when speaking of the Orthodox and out of every document written from Pope John XXIII to today that refers to the Orthodox.

Even the term Orthodox is usd very rarely. The preferred term is The Separated Eastern Churches. This describes the situation perfectly. They are separated. They are Eastern and they are true Churches in every sense of the word. You don’t need assent to the office of the Pontiff to be a true Church in communion with the Catholic Church, even if that communion is not complete.

What makes it incomplete are the issues of papal infallibility, Immaculate Conception, purgatory (which seems to be more semantics) and the filioque. But none of those are considered part of the sacred. That’s why the two sides agree that we have a communion in sacris or in the sacred.

The best way that you and I can help to prmote the unity is to read documents like the Decree on Ecumenism, the Eastern Churchs not in communion with us, and Ut Unum Sint and adopt what their thinking. They’re actually very good. They surrender nothing, yet they point to many faults that both sides have in this division and they point to solutions as well as things that have yet to be addressed. So the focus is on the future, not on some canonical definition. At the end of the day, the popes can and have bypassed Canon Law in many situations.

We have to decide what’s more important to us, the labels or to support the work of the Churches toward unification.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[TrueLight]

What makes it incomplete are the issues of papal infallibility, Immaculate Conception, purgatory (which seems to be more semantics) and the filioque.

Br. JR, OSF

Isn’t the immaculate conception considered dogma? And I know you have tried to explain it to me Br. Jr, along with others, but how can it be mortally sinful to not believe in the Immaculate Conception as stated in the Latin church but not be mortally sinful for an Orthodox or Eastern Catholic?

What if the Eastern way of thinking about it makes more sense for even a Latin Catholic?

Am I free to say, well, I more follow the Eastern way of thinking about purgatory.

This acceptance of different theology is hard for me to comprehend.

And I know some will say it’s not a different theology but a different understanding that leads to the same conclusion (2+2 and 3+1 both = 4). Okay, then why is the Immaculate Conception dogma for the Latin Church?

 

[jam070406]

Isn’t the immaculate conception considered dogma? And I know you have tried to explain it to me Br. Jr, along with others, but how can it be mortally sinful to not believe in the Immaculate Conception as stated in the Latin church but not be mortally sinful for an Orthodox or Eastern Catholic?

What if the Eastern way of thinking about it makes more sense for even a Latin Catholic?

Am I free to say, well, I more follow the Eastern way of thinking about purgatory.

This acceptance of different theology is hard for me to comprehend.

And I know some will say it’s not a different theology but a different understanding that leads to the same conclusion (2+2 and 3+1 both = 4). Okay, then why is the Immaculate Conception dogma for the Latin Church?

I struggle with this as well.

 

[bkovacs]

This is good news!.

 

[bkovacs]

I believe that we’re missing the point here, which only reinforces the Vatican’s “complaint” tha the faithful on both sides are a hinderance to unity and that we need to think with them. As long as we don’t think with them, we keep focussing on the “schism” and not on the unity.

Popes Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI have repeated stated in talks, speaches, and letters that this language is to be set aside. Pastor Aetmus is not the issue here. The issue is that the popes do not want to use the language of Pastor Aetemus. They have the right and authority to set it aside.

What a pope cannot do is to created new dogma or deny dogma. He can choose the language that he uses or that he avoids and he can direct the Church to do the same. This is called, “Thinking with the Church.”

At this point, five (maybe six) consecutive popes have chosen to drop the label. The have even taken it out of Canon Law when speaking of the Orthodox and out of every document written from Pope John XXIII to today that refers to the Orthodox.

Even the term Orthodox is usd very rarely. The preferred term is The Separated Eastern Churches. This describes the situation perfectly. They are separated. They are Eastern and they are true Churches in every sense of the word. You don’t need assent to the office of the Pontiff to be a true Church in communion with the Catholic Church, even if that communion is not complete.

What makes it incomplete are the issues of papal infallibility, Immaculate Conception, purgatory (which seems to be more semantics) and the filioque. But none of those are considered part of the sacred. That’s why the two sides agree that we have a communion in sacris or in the sacred.

The best way that you and I can help to prmote the unity is to read documents like the Decree on Ecumenism, the Eastern Churchs not in communion with us, and Ut Unum Sint and adopt what their thinking. They’re actually very good. They surrender nothing, yet they point to many faults that both sides have in this division and they point to solutions as well as things that have yet to be addressed. So the focus is on the future, not on some canonical definition. At the end of the day, the popes can and have bypassed Canon Law in many situations.

We have to decide what’s more important to us, the labels or to support the work of the Churches toward unification.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

JR. Greek Catholics, especially the Melkites, like to be referred to as Orthodox (with the big O) Christians in communion with Rome.

 

[Big_Feet]

This thread should probably be moved to “Eastern Catholicisim” group…it has gotten way off base from the initial question, I believe.

 

[bkovacs]

Sirach, I understand Rorate Caeli may not be your cup of tea, but it is actually a GREAT blog - very well written and thought out. It’s one of the best traditional blogs out there. I don’t know how you feel about Father Z, but Father Z is a pretty balanced traditional type of priest, who doesn’t always side with traditionalists, and he quotes often from it.

Rorate Caeli is a traditional blog, but that doesn’t make it bad.

And it is not an SSPX blog.

Rorate Caeli is an awesome blog. Rorate Caeli and Byzantine, Texas are two of my frequent blogs.

 

[TrueLight]

This thread should probably be moved to “Eastern Catholicisim” group…it has gotten way off base from the initial question, I believe.

True. Or maybe split, but this is a common question. We should go back to the original question.

 

[TrueLight]

Rorate Caeli is an awesome blog. Rorate Caeli and Byzantine, Texas are two of my frequent blogs.

Byzantine, Texas?

 

[ConstantineTG]

And I know some will say it’s not a different theology but a different understanding that leads to the same conclusion (2+2 and 3+1 both = 4).

Theology is the understanding of the truths of our faith. A different understanding is a different theology.

 

[TrueLight]

Theology is the understanding of the truths of our faith. A different understanding is a different theology.

Okay so then Eastern Catholics have a different theology in some things correct?

Well then why is the Eastern Theology not considered sinful for you, but sinful for me.

So I am flat out asking, can I choose to believe that God kept Mary from sin, but not that she was conceived without sin?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Okay so then Eastern Catholics have a different theology in some things correct?

Well then why is the Eastern Theology not considered sinful for you, but sinful for me.

So I am flat out asking, can I choose to believe that God kept Mary from sin, but not that she was conceived without sin?

Because to live out a certain spirituality, you have to live accordingly to that spirituality. The biggest different really between East and West is how the Fall of Man in understood, its effects and salvation. From there all these dogmas and understanding of the other things fall on these two basic things. For example, purgatory falls into how the West views how salvation is attained. Immaculate Conception falls into how Original Sin is understood, which is the Fall of Man. If you subscribe to the definitions of the other side on some things, then it won’t fit with the rest of what you believe in. I don’t think its a mortal sin in the sense that its a bad thing, but its bad for your spirituality as it will confuse you as you try to fit the pieces together. Remember, the understanding of these beliefs are not independent from the other beliefs within each theology. Its good to compare to appreciate more, but to completely subscribe to one that is totally foreign to the rest of your beliefs will confuse you.

 

[TrueLight]

Because to live out a certain spirituality, you have to live accordingly to that spirituality. The biggest different really between East and West is how the Fall of Man in understood, its effects and salvation. From there all these dogmas and understanding of the other things fall on these two basic things. For example, purgatory falls into how the West views how salvation is attained. Immaculate Conception falls into how Original Sin is understood, which is the Fall of Man. If you subscribe to the definitions of the other side on some things, then it won’t fit with the rest of what you believe in. I don’t think its a mortal sin in the sense that its a bad thing, but its bad for your spirituality as it will confuse you as you try to fit the pieces together. Remember, the understanding of these beliefs are not independent from the other beliefs within each theology. Its good to compare to appreciate more, but to completely subscribe to one that is totally foreign to the rest of your beliefs will confuse you.

I’m a mix and match kind of person.

It’s not a problem for me, but I’m saying if something is dogma, then why does the Church make an exception for a particular group? It’s either sin or it’s not.

And with that, I’m bowing out. This thread is way off course.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I’m a mix and match kind of person.

Well, I tried that and its really hard to fit them in together as you learn more and more about it. But it is worth your time to learn about all traditions, as Blessed Pope John Paul II has urged all Catholics, because it does put a lot of things in perspective and increases knowledge and appreciation of the faith. But focus your faith in the tradition you follow because all of it is interdependent on one another and as you learn more about the faith in one tradition, you will appreciate how it is presented better.

 

[TrueLight]

Well, I tried that and its really hard to fit them in together as you learn more and more about it. But it is worth your time to learn about all traditions, as Blessed Pope John Paul II has urged all Catholics, because it does put a lot of things in perspective and increases knowledge and appreciation of the faith. But focus your faith in the tradition you follow because all of it is interdependent on one another and as you learn more about the faith in one tradition, you will appreciate how it is presented better.

I edited a bit.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I’m a mix and match kind of person.

It’s not a problem for me, but I’m saying if something is dogma, then why does the Church make an exception for a particular group? It’s either sin or it’s not.

And with that, I’m bowing out. This thread is way off course.

Its not an exception. Again, you cannot force Eastern Christians to accept the faith defined in the Western praxis. Its like asking a Japanese man an aspect of the way of life of an American. Its not that the American way of living is wrong or the Japanese way of living is wrong, but its wrong for a Japanese man in Japan to live like an American. Especially that it might violate certain social norms.

 

[TrueLight]

Its not an exception. Again, you cannot force Eastern Christians to accept the faith defined in the Western praxis. Its like asking a Japanese man an aspect of the way of life of an American. Its not that the American way of living is wrong or the Japanese way of living is wrong, but its wrong for a Japanese man in Japan to live like an American. Especially that it might violate certain social norms.

We are speaking of matters of faith. I’m not saying Eastern Catholics or Orthodox should wear Roman albs, or set up the altar a certain way or pray the Latin Rosary, do the stations of the cross, or adoration.

Anyway, any news on this Orthodox bishop?

 

[MarkThompson]

We are speaking of matters of faith. I’m not saying Eastern Catholics or Orthodox should wear Roman albs, or set up the altar a certain way or pray the Latin Rosary, do the stations of the cross, or adoration.

You’re right, there is only one definition, universal and equally valid for Roman and Eastern Catholics:
Declaramus, pronuntiamus et definimus doctrinam quae tenet beatissimam Virginem Mariam in primo instanti suae conceptionis fuisse singulari Omnipotentis Dei gratia et privilegio, intuitu meritorum Christi Jesu Salvatoris humani generis, ab omni originalis culpae labe praeservatam immunem, esse a Deo revelatam, atque idcirco ab omnibus fidelibus firmiter constanterque credendam.

We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.
There is no “opt-out” clause for people who would like to “go native” with the Orthodox!