The Pope in the eyes of Eastern Catholics

[LoyalViews]

A problem is that most lists of “ex cathdra” statements from the Pope don’t match up to one another. That’s not really a concern for Eastern Catholics per se, but primarily a concern for those who attempt to defend papal infallibility.

Ah, right. But, still, Catholics must believe in Papal Infallability. In order to be fully Catholic.

Wait-if you’re incommunion with Rome, don’t you HAVE to believe in Papal infallibility?

YES!

No, the Pope is not authorized to teach ex cathedra regarding pizza, as pizza is not a matter of faith and morals (though teenagers may disagree).

Well, we know that. It’s just an example

Yes, all Catholics are bound to accept the Church’s teaching on infallibility, correctly understood.

Yep!

 

[Aramis]

Actually, to be in communion with the pope, no. To be in full visible communion, yes.

The Syrian Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East both have a limited communion in place, but clearly do not accept papal infallibility.

 

[diggerdomer]

Both Pope Paul VI and our current Holy Father would disagree with you here. As I’ve said before, Paul VI referred to the 14 post-Schism councils as “general synods of the West.” And if Benedict XVI can affirm that the Orthodox would not be bound by any of the “dogmas” defined by the Roman Chuch since the Schism, then that relegates the 14 post-Schism councils to the realm of (gasp) “general synods of the West.” That also relegates any other “dogmas” define by Rome since the Schism to the realm of theological opinion (theologoumenon). That being said, however, it is the theological opinion of the West, and as such must be embraced by Western Christians as the authentic patrimonial heritage (i.e. tradition) of the West. But that tradition cannot be binding on Easterners. To make it such would be to supplant our own ancient and venerable tradition. To paraphrase St. Augustine: In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, diversity. In all things, charity.

What, precisely, would they disagree with?

Would they disagree with Pope John XXIII’s opening address at Vatican II?

christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/v2.html

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

What, precisely, would they disagree with?

Would they disagree with Pope John XXIII’s opening address at Vatican II?

christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/v2.html

Perhaps… All I know is that there is a growing consensus among ecumenists, and acknowledged by the past few Popes, that it is nearly impossible to consider the 14 post-Schism Western synods as Ecumenical Councils. Pope Benedict’s statements regarding the reunion of Orthodoxy and Catholicism are a clear example of that.

Please remember that we Eastern Catholics are not Roman Catholics. We have to be understood and accepted on our own terms, not judged according to the standard of Roman Catholicism. If we are to by judged by any standard, it should be that of Orthodoxy. We are, after all, much more like our Orthodox brethren than our Roman Catholic brethren; and rightfully so because Orthodoxy is our Mother Church. I recommend that you read anything written by well-educated Eastern Catholics if you genuinely want to get a sense of who we are. Check out the Pontifical Oriental Institute and their publications, or check out ecpubs.com .

 

[crazzeto]

Perhaps… All I know is that there is a growing consensus among ecumenists, and acknowledged by the past few Popes, that it is nearly impossible to consider the 14 post-Schism Western synods as Ecumenical Councils. Pope Benedict’s statements regarding the reunion of Orthodoxy and Catholicism are a clear example of that.

Please remember that we Eastern Catholics are not Roman Catholics. We have to be understood and accepted on our own terms, not judged according to the standard of Roman Catholicism. If we are to by judged by any standard, it should be that of Orthodoxy. We are, after all, much more like our Orthodox brethren than our Roman Catholic brethren; and rightfully so because Orthodoxy is our Mother Church. I recommend that you read anything written by well-educated Eastern Catholics if you genuinely want to get a sense of who we are. Check out the Pontifical Oriental Institute and their publications, or check out ecpubs.com .

So who do you pay attention too more? The Eccumenical Patriarch? Or the Pontiff?

 

[crazzeto]

Perhaps… All I know is that there is a growing consensus among ecumenists, and acknowledged by the past few Popes, that it is nearly impossible to consider the 14 post-Schism Western synods as Ecumenical Councils. Pope Benedict’s statements regarding the reunion of Orthodoxy and Catholicism are a clear example of that.

Please remember that we Eastern Catholics are not Roman Catholics. We have to be understood and accepted on our own terms, not judged according to the standard of Roman Catholicism. If we are to by judged by any standard, it should be that of Orthodoxy. We are, after all, much more like our Orthodox brethren than our Roman Catholic brethren; and rightfully so because Orthodoxy is our Mother Church. I recommend that you read anything written by well-educated Eastern Catholics if you genuinely want to get a sense of who we are. Check out the Pontifical Oriental Institute and their publications, or check out ecpubs.com .

You know, on a certain level I sort of understand this… However for some reason or another your particular Rite choose to abandon the Orthodox “communion” in favor of being in communion with Rome. There certainly must have been some reason for this, and it certainly must have been a good one.

Listen I’m not trying to say Eastern Catholics should pretend there is no difference at all from being a Roman Rite Catholic certainly there are many. But as a Catholic (and I would feel this way regardless or Rite) I find the attitude here bordering on unhealthy. It’s border line “well see we’re really actually not Catholic at all, we just call our selves that”.

Please understand, I’m not trying to disparage or trying to start an argument for the sake of starting one. But ultimately if your rite did decide upon communion, there needs to be more commonality than your posting, at least on the surface, would put forth.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

You know, on a certain level I sort of understand this… However for some reason or another your particular Rite choose to abandon the Orthodox “communion” in favor of being in communion with Rome. There certainly must have been some reason for this, and it certainly must have been a good one.

Listen I’m not trying to say Eastern Catholics should pretend there is no difference at all from being a Roman Rite Catholic certainly there are many. But as a Catholic (and I would feel this way regardless or Rite) I find the attitude here bordering on unhealthy. It’s border line “well see we’re really actually not Catholic at all, we just call our selves that”.

Please understand, I’m not trying to disparage or trying to start an argument for the sake of starting one. But ultimately if your rite did decide upon communion, there needs to be more commonality than your posting, at least on the surface, would put forth.

Hi Crazzeto
I appreciate your honesty. These are concerns that I’ve been struggling to reconcile as well. What I’ve posted in the past have been the “fruits” of my research and discussions with various Eastern Catholics (laity, scholars, priests, and even bishops).

The first thing I would say is that Eastern Catholics do NOT belong to a Rite within the (Roman) Catholic Church. I know this has been repeated over and over on these fora, but the distinction is extremely important, if subtle. To say that Eastern Catholics belong to a Rite within the (Roman) Catholic Church is equivalent to saying that Eastern Catholics are simply Roman Catholics who celebrate a different Mass; much the same way as the Ambrosian Rite or the Mozarabic Rite. This, however, is not true. Eastern Catholics belong to various particular (sui juris) Churches that in turn are in communion with the Church of Rome. Here we’re getting into the idea of the Catholic Church being a communion of particular Churches, the largest of which happens to be the Church of Rome; whereas in the past the Catholic Church was equated to the Roman Catholic Church with various ritual appendages. The various Eastern Rites are celebrated by, and belong to, the various particular Churches. So the distinction becomes, the Rite belongs to us, as members of a particular (sui juris) Church, not us to it. It is our heritage which we have the responsibility to defend and uphold “to the point of schism,” as a Russian Catholic priest friend of mine has said.

Rite, here, embraces more than just our Liturgical tradition. If we apply the principle of “lex orandi est lex credendi” to this situation, then Rite refers to the entire historical, spiritual, theological, and disciplinary heritage, not just the ritual heritage, that belongs to the various Eastern sui juris Churches. Tinkering with the Rite, in this fuller sense, therefore, is to tinker with the entire tradition of a particular Church, and to attempt to supplant it with the tradition of another particular Church. A prime example of this would be the issue of the Immaculate Conception of the Theotokos. Fr. John Myendorff best summed up the issue when he said, “the Mariological piety of the Byzantines would probably have led them to accept the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary as it was defined in 1854 if only they had shared the Western doctrine of original sin.” If Eastern (in this case “Byzantine”) Catholics follow their full Eastern heritage, they cannot accept the dogma of the Immaculate Conception as it is defined simply because the definition is completely steeped in the Latin understanding of Original Sin, and is, therefore, totally foreign to the Byzantine tradition (yes, I’m aware of Gregory Palamas; but he lived in a time which Fr. Alexander Schmemann has termed the "Western Captivity of Orthodoxy.).

Now, the hierarchs of the various Eastern Churches in union with Rome had various reasons for entering that communion. Often the reasons were simply political. In the case of the Melkites there was never a real sense of separation from Rome, even in the centuries after the 1054 Schism. The problem came when union was declared on the official level. Parts of the Patriarchate of Antioch were in favor, and other parts weren’t. This caused a split in that Patriarchate in 1724. On the Catholic side of that split, very little changed. And the Melkite hierarchy has been more-or-less adamant about maintaining the purity of the Byzantine tradition, to the point that they walked out of Vatican I, and nearly controlled Vatican II in the hopes of keeping it from being another purely “Roman” council.

These are just a few examples. Send me an e-mail some time if you want to talk about this further.

 

[Seamus_L]

I think there is still a fairly high pct of Eastern Catholics who believe in Papal Infallibility, though I wouldn’t want to attempt a guess at actual numbers. My personal experience has been that it’s mainly over the top converts who are denying it.
Sorry if it sounds like I'm beating a dead horse, but to be fully Orthodox in all things means an eventual acceptance of divorce and contraception.

 

[crazzeto]

@Philip,

But that’s actually not the way it’s really supposed to work. Certainly I would say that Eastern Rite Catholics shouldn’t just consider them selves “Romans who celebrate mass funny”… But honestly your belief system tends to take one into Schism, this is not a healthy understanding of “incommunion with Rome”. You your self said it, you view the Orthodox Community as your “mother Church”, do you see a problem with that when you are supposed to be in communion with Rome?

My exhortation is this, please reconsider what it really should mean to be Eastern Catholic in communion with Rome. I realize you’ve done a lot of reasearch in this matter, but you’ll forgive me for feeling like some of what you’ve read to this point may have lead you astray.

Again, no one is saying that Eastern traditions are to be dumped, quite the contrary. But rather, when it comes to certain doctrinal matters you should give your full assent, otherwise you are lieing when you take communion. Does that sit right with you?

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

I think there is still a fairly high pct of Eastern Catholics who believe in Papal Infallibility, though I wouldn’t want to attempt a guess at actual numbers. My personal experience has been that it’s mainly over the top converts who are denying it.

                               Sorry if it sounds like I'm beating a dead horse, but **to be fully Orthodox in all things means an eventual acceptance of divorce and contraception.**

This betrays a complete misunderstanding of what Orthodoxy teaches with regards to divorce and contraception. From what I’ve gathered, there actually is no unified Orthodox teaching on contraception because no one has spoken out definitively about it. But I do think that it’s generally frowned upon. You do realize that even Rome permits a woman to take contraceptives as a treatment for certain medical conditions?

Divorce, within Orthodoxy, functions much the same way as annulments within Catholicism, and is much more frowned upon than annulments are. Also, there is a cap on how many times one is permitted to remarry, unlike in Catholicism where one can pretty much remarry as many times as one wants, as long as one can continue obtaining annulments.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

@Philip,

But that’s actually not the way it’s really supposed to work. Certainly I would say that Eastern Rite Catholics shouldn’t just consider them selves “Romans who celebrate mass funny”… But honestly your belief system tends to take one into Schism, this is not a healthy understanding of “incommunion with Rome”. You your self said it, you view the Orthodox Community as your “mother Church”, do you see a problem with that when you are supposed to be in communion with Rome?

My exhortation is this, please reconsider what it really should mean to be Eastern Catholic in communion with Rome. I realize you’ve done a lot of reasearch in this matter, but you’ll forgive me for feeling like some of what you’ve read to this point may have lead you astray.

Again, no one is saying that Eastern traditions are to be dumped, quite the contrary. But rather, when it comes to certain doctrinal matters you should give your full assent, otherwise you are lieing when you take communion. Does that sit right with you?

I am constantly re-examining my opinions. I do, however, follow the teachings of bishops and scholars who have been held in the highest esteem by Rome. So I’m not afraid of being led astray. I am, likewise, following the teachings of my own Patriarch and Synod of Bishops, which hold the highest authority in my particular Church.

As far as me saying that the Orthodox Church is the Mother Church of the Eastern Catholic Churches (in this case “Byzantine,” but most Eastern and Oriental Churches would fall in this category), I am not the one who came up with this “idea.” It’s simply a historical fact and has been repeated many times by theologians, historians, Rome, etc.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

I think there is still a fairly high pct of Eastern Catholics who believe in Papal Infallibility, though I wouldn’t want to attempt a guess at actual numbers. My personal experience has been that it’s mainly over the top converts who are denying it.

                               Sorry if it sounds like I'm beating a dead horse, but to be fully Orthodox in all things means an eventual acceptance of divorce and contraception.

I would remind you that it is often the “converts” who know the Faith better than the “cradles.” Take people like Scott Hahn, Tim Staples, Fr. John Corapi (a “revert” I know, but still a good example), etc. I’m often ashamed at how much more they as converts know about the Faith that I was born into than I know.

Also, forgive me, but the plague of ignorance applies just as much to Eastern Catholicism as it does to Roman Catholicism. Many Eastern Catholics are just as ignorant of their Eastern tradition as Roman Catholics are of their Roman tradition. This is reinforced when they are sent to Catholic schools, learn Roman theology, catechesis, discipline, etc., and then aren’t educated at home about their own heritage. I wouldn’t, therefore, be too quick to uphold cradle Eastern Catholics as the bastion of Eastern Catholicism.

 

[Sadeer]

I am Syriac of Antioch Catholic and I have been taught the Pope has primacy, which Eastern Catholics deny this?

My Chaldean Catholic friends will also agree that the Pope has primacy, go and email their Churches and I am pretty sure they will tell you the same. chaldeancatholics.com

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

I am Syriac of Antioch Catholic and I have been taught the Pope has primacy, which Eastern Catholics deny this?

My Chaldean Catholic friends will also agree that the Pope has primacy, go and email their Churches and I am pretty sure they will tell you the same. chaldeancatholics.com

Primacy isn’t really the issue. Even most Orthodox will admit the Primacy of the Pope of Rome. How Easterners and Westerners interpret primacy is a different story, however.

The real issues are “supremacy” and Papal “infallibility.” Most Byzantine Catholics won’t learn anything about Papal “infallibility” if they look at the official catechetical material put out by the hierarchs of the various Byzantine Catholic Churches. One can only presume, therefore, that they are learning it from Roman catechisms and theology classes. It certainly isn’t an Eastern thing.

As I’ve said in the past, the only way I can envision an Eastern understanding of Papal “infallibility” is as follows: The pope is infallible when what he says agrees with Scripture and the Tradition of the Universal Church (not just the theological tradition of one particular Church). Another way I’ve heard it said is: “The pope is infallible when what he says is true.” This pretty much renders the dogma absurd, however, because it means that any bishop or lay person can also speak infallibly, so long as what he says agrees with Scripture and Tradition. As a Greek Orthodox friend of mine pointed out to me, “Then I’m infallible too!”

 

[boatbearer]

I am going by Church teaching, not by this forum.

Excellent!

 

[mardukm]

I am Syriac of Antioch Catholic and I have been taught the Pope has primacy, which Eastern Catholics deny this?

My Chaldean Catholic friends will also agree that the Pope has primacy, go and email their Churches and I am pretty sure they will tell you the same. chaldeancatholics.com

A hearty welcome, my Oriental Catholic brother!

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[diggerdomer]

Perhaps… All I know is that there is a growing consensus among ecumenists, and acknowledged by the past few Popes, that it is nearly impossible to consider the 14 post-Schism Western synods as Ecumenical Councils. Pope Benedict’s statements regarding the reunion of Orthodoxy and Catholicism are a clear example of that.

Please remember that we Eastern Catholics are not Roman Catholics. We have to be understood and accepted on our own terms, not judged according to the standard of Roman Catholicism. If we are to by judged by any standard, it should be that of Orthodoxy. We are, after all, much more like our Orthodox brethren than our Roman Catholic brethren; and rightfully so because Orthodoxy is our Mother Church. I recommend that you read anything written by well-educated Eastern Catholics if you genuinely want to get a sense of who we are. Check out the Pontifical Oriental Institute and their publications, or check out ecpubs.com .

I completely understand that Roman Catholics are not Eastern Catholics, and vice versa. We are all Catholics. One of my favorite priests at a local parish is a Syro-Malabar priest who had faculties to celebrate the Roman Rite.

I disagree that Eastern Catholics are more like Orthodox, fundamentally. Catholics and Orthodox share the same faith and sacraments, but not church governance. Catholics (Eastern and Western) share the same faith, sacraments, and governance.

 

[Aramis]

I completely understand that Roman Catholics are not Eastern Catholics, and vice versa. We are all Catholics. One of my favorite priests at a local parish is a Syro-Malabar priest who had faculties to celebrate the Roman Rite.

I disagree that Eastern Catholics are more like Orthodox, fundamentally. Catholics and Orthodox share the same faith and sacraments, but not church governance. Catholics (Eastern and Western) share the same faith, sacraments, and governance.

You will find many Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic who vehemently disagree. Some Orthodox even chide their bishops for sitting in choir at a Catholic service for a special reason (like a new chapel being consecrated), rather than simply declining the invitation.

Likewise, a number of Catholics think the Eastern Churches are “in grave error”… some in simple ignorance, others in abject denial of VII’s Orientale Lumen.

In general, however, most of the EC laity fall within the range that constitutes acceptance of the items dogmatized since 1066… and many of the Eastern Orthodox have problems not with those beliefs, but with them being dogmatic. (One can, if one searches, find Eastern Orthodox Theologians advocating almost every dogmatized theologumenon and doctrine, except papal infallibility… And up until the Dogmatic Declarations, Roman theologians opposing them.)

 

[Sadeer]

I am saying that many Catholics here do not agree with your interpretation. It is my observation that they are all over the place.

My earliest comment here was: “I realize that there is a variety of opinion among Eastern Catholics on the subject …”. And as a non-Catholic I don’t know who’s interpretation to believe, yours or that of so many others.

On first guess I would accept yours over the others, and I have posted that position much many times here but the simple fact is a lot of bandwidth has been squandered on the subject because there is no consensus among the faithful Catholics who regularly post in this section.

Well an official Church position on it is clear I think, all Catholics have to submit to the authority of the Pope. If there are unfaithful Catholics, it doesn’t change the Truth of the teachings, kinda like there are some “catholics” that pretend that they have a choice on abortion but they do NOT of course. The Truth is NOT defined by a majority vote.

 

[gmcbroom]

Here is my personal opinion of the matter. Some may like it and some may not. The Pope is the head of the church. Now, that makes what he says binding on heaven and on earth. However, all the Catholic churches ie the 22 suri iriuses have legitament apostolic lines thus valid sacraments so a Roman Catholic can get 7 sacraments at those churches and vice versa. The Pope is ultimately the head of those churches too, even though the Patriarchs are the heads as well. Think of it like this the Pope is the first among equals. He doesn’t like to interfer in the governance of the other suri iriuses, but he can when he is asked or when he sees a problem. Can this be abused yes and sadly has been in the past ie the Latinizations of various churches. However, if you are Catholic then he is the first among equals and the head of the Catholic Church. Now, the interesting thing is that Eastern catholics should accept the dogmas of the Catholic Church , however, they view those dogmas through the lens of their distinct Patrimony. The Roman Patrimony is diferent than the others in various ways and vice versa. Thus, a Roman Catholic will see the Eastern churches through a Roman Lens. I hope that makes sense.

However, to answer the question. To be Catholic is to accept the Pope. Some may not like his decisions or actions but they should accept them in charity.

I am now a full member in the Maronite Catholic Church. I was baptized, confirmed, and received the Eucharist on Pentacost. I still feel so clean! I always thought my friend was being dramatic when she would say that but now, I understand. I yearn for the day that the schism is healed and, even the acceptance of the reformation churches. Christs’ church shouldn’t be so fractured.