The Eastern bishops submitted to Rome only because Rome was very orthodox?

[MonsterOfThomas]

St. Jerome
“But you say that the Church is founded on Peter, although the same thing is done in another place upon all the Apostles, and all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the solidity of the Church is established equally upon all.” [see: S. Hieron., Adv. Jovin. i. cap. xxvi.; P.L. xxiii. 247].

That quotation IS DOWNRIGHT DECEPTIVE and INCOMPLETE.

The sentence cited does not end there. This is the full sentence of that citation:

“But you say that the Church is founded on Peter, although the same thing is done in another place upon all the Apostles, and all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the solidity of the Church is established equally upon all, NEVERTHELESS ONE AMONG THE TWELVE IS CHOSEN SO THAT WHEN A HEAD HAS BEEN APPOINTED, THERE MAY BE NO OCCASION FOR SCHISM.” (Ad Jov. I.26, NPNF, II.6.366).

Your source flagrantly omitted this critical condition on St. Jerome’s teaching. An honest citation of that text should end " . . . " because Jerome was LITERALLY CUT OFF MID-SENTENCE!

In full, we see that St. Jerome clearly says that the power of the keys is nevertheless principally vested in Peter (one chosen among the 12) such that Peter is the “head” and that NONE may exercise authority in schism with Peter. The power of the Keys, per St. Jerome, is still principally Peter’s.

The cite to St. Augustine does not say otherwise.

The Fathers never teach that the ecclesial authority of the Keys is exercised by all Apostles equally or by all Bishops equally. The Fathers (including St. Jerome and St. Augustine) teach that ecclesial authority is ultimately exercised under one Head, Peter. That others also have a lower authority is completely irrelevant to that fundamental teaching.

 

[dochawk]

Being an Eastern Catholic is tough. Spend half my time defending the Orthodox and half my time defending Rome

Ain’t that the truth . . .

I’ve never understood why Eastern Catholics take it upon themselves to defend the errors of the EO

Largely force to but statements like this

Especially on matter like the filioque,

And this (and for which latins tend to directly contradict papal teaching son the subject)

original sin,

And this, where latins get the curious idea that all of Augustine’s writings are dogmatic . . .

divorce and remarriage

And this, where the Orthodox practice was present for centuries before schism



hawk

 

[Wandile]

Largely force to but statements like this

Yeah because it’s really odd. They literllay call you heretics and you defend them?

And this (and for which latins tend to directly contradict papal teaching son the subject)

How so? Lastly it was decreed in ecumenical councils (Nicaee II, Lyons II, Lateran V and Florence) not by papal decree although St Leo did confess it quite dogmatically ina letter to the east. The EO literally deny it . Eatsern Catholics are supposed to adhere to it. To defend their (EO) rejection of the filioque is tantamount to heresy. There is no getting around this. This is very different to not being required to recite it in the creed.

And this, where latins get the curious idea that all of Augustine’s writings are dogmatic . . .

Umm no. Actually it’s just adehering to the council of Carthage which was accepted as the de fide teaching on original sin by the church at the 3rd ecumenical council and was accepted even by the EO council of Trullo (Which EO hold as ecumenical). So theoretically, even they are supposed to hold to Orginal sin, which they deny.

And this, where the Orthodox practice was present for centuries before schism

Oh I’m well aware. The west were quite unaware of this for the most part. Even as late a study Trent the west were not to acquainted with the Byzantine easts practice on this. However it was an always will be an innovation during the reign of Justinian based on imperial pressure and the Constantinopolitan clerics succumbed to the pressure. It’s telling that councils amen fathers that taught on this matter all the affirmed the scriptural teaching. The fact that they even contradict Our Lord, The God they claim to worship and obey, makes it scandalous enough.

 

[ziapueblo]

It seems you are one of those “Orthodox in communion with Rome” types. Bishop John Eliya already wrote about how incorrect such a notion is.

Bishop Elya was a very Latinized bishop and all that he did has had to be fixed by the current Bishop. Bishop Elya was one of the two bishops who voted against the Zoghby statement of faith. The other 25 Melkite Bishops voted in favor of it.

From the Melkite Eparchy of Newton website. The Eparchy of Newton is headed by Bishop Nicholas Samra. He is Bishop of the entire US, part of Canada and Mexico.

https://melkite.org/faith/faith-worship/does-it-matter-that-we-are-melkite

What do you suppose the Vatican II Document ORIENtALIUM ECCLESIARUM meant when it stated that, “The Catholic Church holds in high esteem the institutions, liturgical rites, ecclesiastical traditions and the established standards of the Christian life of the Eastern Churches, for in them, distinguished as they are for their venerable antiquity, there remains conspicuous the tradition that has been handed down from the Apostles through the Fathers (1) and that forms part of the divinely revealed and undivided heritage of the universal Church.”

You must know what ecclesiastical traditions are?

Sure you don’t recite filioque in the creed but you are required to believe in it as correct. Immaculate conception is something you are required to believe too.

Yes, we acknowledge Latin theology but are not obligated to believe them. A quote from Pope Saint John Paul II from his Apostolic Letter Euntes In Mundum, “From the Decree there clearly emerges the characteristic disciplinary autonomy, which the Eastern Churches enjoy; this is not the result of privileges granted by the Church of Rome, but of the law itself which those Churches have possessed since Apostolic times.”

ZP

 

[Wandile]

Bishop Elya was a very Latinized bishop and all that he did has had to be fixed by the current Bishop.

Bishop John’s statement was simply catholic plain and simple. How he ran his dioces is another issue.

Bishop Elya was one of the two bishops who voted against the Zoghby statement of faith. The other 25 Melkite Bishops voted in favor of it.

Don’t forget that Rome rejected it and so did the Antiochan Orthodox.

What do you suppose the Vatican II Document ORIENtALIUM ECCLESIARUM meant when it stated that, “The Catholic Church holds in high esteem the institutions, liturgical rites, ecclesiastical traditions and the established standards of the Christian life of the Eastern Churches, for in them, distinguished as they are for their venerable antiquity, there remains conspicuous the tradition that has been handed down from the Apostles through the Fathers (1) and that forms part of the divinely revealed and undivided heritage of the universal Church.”

It means embrace being Byzantine… Byzantine does not equal Eastern Orthodox. The Italo-Albanian Catholic Church Which never ever went into schism is testament to this.

You must know what ecclesiastical traditions are?

Yes, it means a church’s particular expression of the same faith.

Yes, we acknowledge Latin theology but are not obligated to believe them.

You actually are, under the pin of anathema.

A quote from Pope Saint John Paul II from his Apostolic Letter Euntes In Mundum, “From the Decree there clearly emerges the characteristic disciplinary autonomy, which the Eastern Churches enjoy; this is not the result of privileges granted by the Church of Rome, but of the law itself which those Churches have possessed since Apostolic times.”

Yes that’s a totally differently matter to dogma. Nobody here has denied your disciplinary autonomy at all. Dogmatic autonomy however has never anywhere been taught. That is literally relativism which the church has condemned time and time again. All you keep quoting are sources citing independence of tradition and discipline. It’s absurd to think dogmas can be believed some and not believed by others in the same communion. A dogma by definition is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. It literally violates the catholicity of the church which we confess to in the creed if you say Eastern Catholics aren’t obliged to believe in the filioque. What next, is The Trinity going to be up for debate? One baptism, one faith, one Christ, one God.

 

[ziapueblo]

Here is Melkite Greek Catholic Bishop Nicholas Samra speaking about Orientallium Ecclesiarium and he shows how we see ourselves despite what Rome says:

 

[Wandile]

I’ll watch the video when I get time probably tomorrow.

However as to “despite what Rome says”…So in other words despite agreeing to reunion terms you guys are simply making up the rules as you are going on? Such an attitude harms catholicity. This attitude is the reason why Constantinople and Moscow just went into schism. Same with Jerusalem and Antioch. People did not honour the canons of the church.

 

[Wandile]

Quick question: Do you belive that in the same communion it’s possible to hold different/contradictory faiths?

 

[tafan2]

I am reminded what CS Lewishas said : . ‘In essentials unity, non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity"

Just popped into my mind reading this thread.

 

[ziapueblo]

However as to “despite what Rome says”…So in other words despite agreeing to reunion terms you guys are simply making up the rules as you are going on?

We are not making up our own rules. We Eastern Catholics are actually following what Rome has asked of us and that is, we live as Eastern Christians in communion with Rome.

Again, from Orientalium Ecclesiarium, “1. The Catholic Church holds in high esteem the institutions, liturgical rites, ecclesiastical traditions and the established standards of the Christian life of the Eastern Churches, for in them, distinguished as they are for their venerable antiquity, there remains conspicuous the tradition that has been handed down from the Apostles through the Fathers (1) and that forms part of the divinely revealed and undivided heritage of the universal Church.”

Ecclesiastical traditions are our Churches discipline, liturgy, theology and devotions.

“5. History, tradition and abundant ecclesiastical institutions bear outstanding witness to the great merit owing to the Eastern Churches by the universal Church.(5) The Sacred Council, therefore, not only accords to this ecclesiastical and spiritual heritage the high regard which is its due and rightful praise, but also unhesitatingly looks on it as the heritage of the universal Church. For this reason it solemnly declares that the Churches of the East, as much as those of the West, have a full right and are in duty bound to rule themselves, each in accordance with its own established disciplines, since all these are praiseworthy by reason of their venerable antiquity, more harmonious with the character of their faithful and more suited to the promotion of the good of souls.”

The Catholic Church views the ecclesiastical traditions of the Eastern Church as a special possession of the universal Church! So not that of the Latin Church alone!

“24. The Eastern Churches in communion with the Apostolic See of Rome have a special duty of promoting the unity of all Christians, especially Eastern Christians, in accordance with the principles of the decree, “About Ecumenism,” of this Sacred Council, by prayer in the first place, and by the example of their lives, by religious fidelity to the ancient Eastern traditions, by a greater knowledge of each other, by collaboration and a brotherly regard for objects and feelings.(29)”

Again, we as Eastern Catholics are called, by Rome, to live in “fidelity” to our “ancient Eastern traditions,” which are part of the “heritage of the universal Church.”

Such an attitude harms catholicity.

The harmful attitude is that of some Roman Catholics not letting their Eastern Catholic brethren function the way Rome wants us to functions.

Quick question: Do you belive that in the same communion it’s possible to hold different/contradictory faiths?

The theology of the East and the West are complimentary, not contradictory. We are in communion with Rome, not united to Rome and that is what Rome wants.

ZP

 

[MonsterOfThomas]

I am reminded what CS Lewishas said : . ‘In essentials unity, non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity"

Just popped into my mind reading this thread.

In all things charity. This reminds me that I should not have typed in all caps a few days prior. I also see now that I too easily forgot how wonderful it is that we all celebrate the same Eucharistic communion. Russia and Constantinople tragically do not do the same.

 

[Wandile]

I definitely don’t disagree with anything you quoted. All that you quoted coresponds to what I’ve said earlier. Same faith but different expression. Yet you claimed you don’t belive in the filioque. That’s is not different theology… that’s different faith. Unless you made a mistake in saying you don’t belive in it?

United to Rome = communion.

 

[ziapueblo]

Same faith but different expression.

Exactly! Differing theology is a different expression of the faith and that’s ok.

For the first millennium we had a Church, east and west, that lived in communion with one another, sharing the same faith yet expressed differently. There are writings of Russians in Jerusalem from the 13th century or so and in these writings Latins and Byzantines were worshipping together. I’ll try to find that source.

ZP

 

[MonsterOfThomas]

Exactly! Differing theology is a different expression of the faith and that’s ok.

For the first millennium we had a Church, east and west, that lived in communion with one another, sharing the same faith yet expressed differently. There are writings of Russians in Jerusalem from the 13th century or so and in these writings Latins and Byzantines were worshipping together. I’ll try to find that source.

ZP

That would make for an interesting read! I hope you can find it!

 

[ziapueblo]

It’s from the text “The Pilgrimage of the Russian Abbot Daniel in the Holy Land 1106-1107.” I saw the quote in Bishop Kallistos Ware’s book about the Orthodox Church. He’s on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land for Easter and writes about the Latin and Greek churches having a good relationship with one another. As if the problem between Rome and Constantinople were between brothers and the local churches were not really affected.

ZP

 

[MonsterOfThomas]

Here is some patristic context on the sense in which others use Peter’s Keys:

St. John Cassian [A.D. 362] :

“O Peter, Prince of Apostles, it is just that you should teach us, since you were yourself taught by the Lord; and also that you should open to us the gate of which you have received the Key. Keep out all those who are undermining the heavenly House; turn away those who are trying to enter through false caverns and unlawful gates since it is certain that no one can enter in at the gate of the Kingdom except the one unto whom the Key, placed by you in the churches, shall open it. ” (Contra Nestorium , Bk. 3, 12).

St. Optatus of Milevis [A.D. 367] :

“And though this has been thus written, nevertheless, for the sake of unity, blessed Peter (for whom it would have been enough if after his denial he had obtained pardon only) both deserved to be placed over all the Apostles, and alone received the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, which he was to communicate to the rest .” (De schismate Donatistarum , Bk. 7, 3).

St. Gregory of Nyssa [c. A.D. 370] :

“Consider that if absolved you will be released, and if bound you will be tied with invisible fetters, because through Peter Christ conferred [on his Church] the keys of heavenly honors .” (Adversus eos qui castigations aegre ferunt ) (S. Jaki, Keys of the Kingdom, p.85).

St. Basil the Great [A.D. 371] :

“What a hardened heart would not be induced to fear God’s judgment if even that great exactor of so great a judgment as Peter, who was preferred before all the disciples, who alone received a greater testimony and blessing than the rest, to whom were entrusted the keys of the kingdom of heaven , also has to hear: ‘If I do not wash you, you will have no part in me’.” (Proemium de Judicio Dei , n.7).

[1 of 2]

 

[MonsterOfThomas]

[2 of 2]

St. John Chrysostom [c. A.D. 387 A.D] :

“‘Have we no right to lead about a wife that is a believer, even as the rest of the Apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?’ [1 Cor. 9] Observe his skillfulness. The leader of the choir [Peter, Cephas] stands last in his arrangement: since that is the time for laying down the strongest of all one’s topics. Nor was it so wonderful for one to be able to point out examples of this conduct in the rest, as in the foremost champion and in him who was entrusted with the keys of heaven.” (Hom 21 in 1 Cor. ).

St. Leo the Great [c. A.D. 450] :

“Wherefore it is said to most blessed Peter: [. . . Mt. 16:19 . . .] The privilege of this power did indeed pass on to the other Apostles, and the order of this decree spread out to all the rulers of the Church, but not without purpose what is intended for all is put into the hands of one . For therefore is this entrusted to Peter singularly, because all the rulers of the Church are invested with the figure of Peter. The privilege, therefore, of Peter remains, wheresoever judgment is passed according to his equity .” (Sermon 4 ).

St. Eulogius of Alexandria [c. A.D. 581] :

“Neither to John, nor to any other of the disciples, did our Savior say, ‘I will give to thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven,’ but only to Peter ." (Contra Novatian , 2).

St. Bede the Venerable [c. A.D. 700] :

“Blessed Peter in a special manner received the keys of the kingdom of heaven and the headship of judiciary power , that all believers throughout the world might understand that all those who in any way separate themselves from the unity of this faith and communion, - such can neither be absolved from the bonds of their sins, nor enter the gate of the heavenly kingdom.” (Hom. In die S.S. Pet. et. Paul. )

St. John Damascene [c. A.D. 720] :

“[Peter,] [t]he regulator responsible for the power of the keys .” (Hom. on Holy Saturday , 6).

 

[steve-b]

I am reminded what CS Lewishas said : . ‘In essentials unity, non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity"

Just popped into my mind reading this thread.

As to the origin of that phrase (said in various ways) , It has an interesting history http://faculty.georgetown.edu/jod/augustine/quote.htm

 

[tafan2]

That is interesting, thanks.

 

[steve-b]

We are not making up our own rules. We Eastern Catholics are actually following what Rome has asked of us and that is, we live as Eastern Christians in communion with Rome.

Again, from Orientalium Ecclesiarium, “1. The Catholic Church holds in high esteem the institutions, liturgical rites, ecclesiastical traditions and the established standards of the Christian life of the Eastern Churches, for in them, distinguished as they are for their venerable antiquity, there remains conspicuous the tradition that has been handed down from the Apostles through the Fathers (1) and that forms part of the divinely revealed and undivided heritage of the universal Church.”

Ecclesiastical traditions are our Churches discipline, liturgy, theology and devotions.

“5. History, tradition and abundant ecclesiastical institutions bear outstanding witness to the great merit owing to the Eastern Churches by the universal Church.(5) The Sacred Council, therefore, not only accords to this ecclesiastical and spiritual heritage the high regard which is its due and rightful praise, but also unhesitatingly looks on it as the heritage of the universal Church. For this reason it solemnly declares that the Churches of the East, as much as those of the West, have a full right and are in duty bound to rule themselves, each in accordance with its own established disciplines, since all these are praiseworthy by reason of their venerable antiquity, more harmonious with the character of their faithful and more suited to the promotion of the good of souls.”

The Catholic Church views the ecclesiastical traditions of the Eastern Church as a special possession of the universal Church! So not that of the Latin Church alone!

“24. The Eastern Churches in communion with the Apostolic See of Rome have a special duty of promoting the unity of all Christians, especially Eastern Christians, in accordance with the principles of the decree, “About Ecumenism,” of this Sacred Council, by prayer in the first place, and by the example of their lives, by religious fidelity to the ancient Eastern traditions, by a greater knowledge of each other, by collaboration and a brotherly regard for objects and feelings.(29)”

Again, we as Eastern Catholics are called, by Rome, to live in “fidelity” to our “ancient Eastern traditions,” which are part of the “heritage of the universal Church.”

The harmful attitude is that of some Roman Catholics not letting their Eastern Catholic brethren function the way Rome wants us to functions.

The theology of the East and the West are complimentary, not contradictory. We are in communion with Rome, not united to Rome and that is what Rome wants.

ZP

ziapueblo, for historical context,

Re: Sacred Council… on the subject being discussed … (filioque)

From Florence,

go to session 6 Sessions 5-8 (1439) for the explanation of what was agreed to in an ecumenical council regarding "proceeds" with reference to the HS…

cutting to the chase. said as simply as I can
Dual procession ≠ dual source