True or False Unity

[Mickey]

You’ll have to explain, dear brother.

Meditate on it a while, dear brother.

 

[dixibehr]

Wouldn’t the denial of Papal primacy, infallibility etc constitute a different faith? I can add more but let’s leave it at that.

BTW who is Patriarch Husar? i’m aware of Major Archbishop Husar but not the former

Patriarchs are called by their ordination or enthronement names. I assume you are talking about Patriarch Lubomir.

He was elevated to the Patriarchate on the authority of the Holy Synod of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, and is so commemorated in every Ukrainain Catholic church I’ve been in. He himself has not used the title.

Now you know.

 

[LumenGent]

Interesting. Does the UGCC belong to one of the original ancient patriachates? if so which one?

Is it Canonicaly recognised as a patriachate? if so where?

Did the Holy See or any Council recognise or elevate the Church to the dignity of a patriachate? if so when?

Does a Synod have the power to elevate it’s head to the level of a patriarch? if so then we must accept the the heads of all synodal Churches are Patriarchs.

 

[Formosus]

Wouldn’t the denial of Papal primacy, infallibility etc constitute a different faith? I can add more but let’s leave it at that.

If the faith of the Byzantine and Oriental churches is different then the Latin faith, then you have to ask is the Latin faith today different from that of the Apostles? The Latin Church developed the idea of “development of Doctrine” and by this method started proclaiming new Dogmas. The Oriental and Byzantine churches simply retained the traditional beliefs given to them by the Apostles and taught by the Fathers. So if there is a difference in faith between the two, then you have to ask who erred? The ones that have changed the least from their origins, or the one that has “developed” doctrine. I believe , just as my Patriarch believes, just as +Elias Zoghby believed, just as St. Maximos the Confessor believed, that the is no real difference between the Greeks and Latins in faith and merely just in expression of that same faith. If I believed otherwise, then I would be part of the Eastern Orthodox communion.

 

[malphono]

If the faith of the Byzantine and Oriental churches is different then the Latin faith, then you have to ask is the Latin faith today different from that of the Apostles? The Latin Church developed the idea of “development of Doctrine” and by this method started proclaiming new Dogmas. The Oriental and Byzantine churches simply retained the traditional beliefs given to them by the Apostles and taught by the Fathers. So if there is a difference in faith between the two, then you have to ask who erred? The ones that have changed the least from their origins, or the one that has “developed” doctrine. I believe , just as my Patriarch believes, just as +Elias Zoghby believed, just as St. Maximos the Confessor believed, that the is no real difference between the Greeks and Latins in faith and merely just in expression of that same faith. If I believed otherwise, then I would be part of the Eastern Orthodox communion.

Well put. Actually, very well put. The only change in text I would make (for me) would be the word “Oriental” before Orthodox.

 

[mardukm]

Wouldn’t the denial of Papal primacy, infallibility etc constitute a different faith? I can add more but let’s leave it at that.

I basically agree with brother Formosus’ insightful explanation, except that I wouldn’t bring in the question of “error.” I personally wouldnt’ call a development within the Latin Church an “error” any more than I would call a development within the Eastern Church (as distinct from the Oriental Church) an “error.” There are simply different focuses of certain elements of the ONE FAITH we share in common in the individual Churches. as well as different theological language to express that same Faith (IOW, they are merely distinctions, not actual differences that can or should divide us).

On papal infallibility, for instance, I view that as merely an extension of the infallibility of the Church. No big deal. One either admits that the head bishop shares in the infallibility that God endowed his Church, or one has to admit that the Church was never endowed infallibility by God. Interestingly, BOTH opponents AND extreme proponents of papal infallibility often work off of the same premise - that papal infallibility is separate from the infallibility of the Church, something the dogma NEVER ONCE claims. And I don’t think ANYONE has ever denied the notion of papal/petrine primacy (HOW it’s been practiced is a different matter, IMO).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Addai]

I basically agree with brother Formosus’ insightful explanation, except that I wouldn’t bring in the question of “error.” I personally wouldnt’ call a development within the Latin Church an “error” any more than I would call a development within the Eastern Church (as distinct from the Oriental Church) an “error.” There are simply different focuses of certain elements of the ONE FAITH we share in common in the individual Churches. as well as different theological language to express that same Faith (IOW, they are merely distinctions, not actual differences that can or should divide us).

On papal infallibility, for instance, I view that as merely an extension of the infallibility of the Church. No big deal. One either admits that the head bishop shares in the infallibility that God endowed his Church, or one has to admit that the Church was never endowed infallibility by God. Interestingly, BOTH opponents AND extreme proponents of papal infallibility often work off of the same premise - that papal infallibility is separate from the infallibility of the Church, something the dogma NEVER ONCE claims. And I don’t think ANYONE has ever denied the notion of papal/petrine primacy (HOW it’s been practiced is a different matter, IMO).

Blessings,
Marduk

I’ve read quite a few Catholic articles on this the last few years (In the last year reading James Likoudis books vs. the EO, articles from “This Rock” etc.). Peter, the Throne of Peter, the keys of Peter etc. are what is almost always focused on. The backdrop of them is the Church, but most Catholic articles I’ve read and explanations I’ve listened to on Catholic radio over the last few years seem to focus on Peter, his office and not the role of the Church overall. So I would say most of the time Catholics themselves frame the topic in individual terms (the Pope’s specific Charism, keys of binding and loosening and so on).

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Addai,

I’ve read quite a few Catholic articles on this the last few years (In the last year reading James Likoudis books vs. the EO, articles from “This Rock” etc.). Peter, the Throne of Peter, the keys of Peter etc. are what is almost always focused on. The backdrop of them is the Church, but most Catholic articles I’ve read and explanations I’ve listened to on Catholic radio over the last few years seem to focus on Peter, his office and not the role of the Church overall. So I would say most of the time Catholics themselves frame the topic in individual terms (the Pope’s specific Charism, keys of binding and loosening and so on).

I would agree. I have noticed several times in the Apologetics or Non-Catholic Sections of CAF that challenges to the Catholic Faith are often met with affirmations of the extremely opposite view (by some, not all participants). For instance, when a non-Catholic challenges the idea of fire in Purgatory, Latins immediately meet this challenge by affirming the notion to the point of making it a dogma - when the truth of the matter is that it is not dogmatic, but is a theologoumenon restricted for the most part to the faithful of the Latin Church. Likewise, on the matter of papal infallibility, a denial of it is most often met with an affirmation that makes it seem like papal infallibility is wholly separated from the context of the Church in which it is to be found and exercised. In this, I think we can see a distinction between apologetics, on the one hand, and mere exposition or pedagogy, on the other. Apologetics inherently focuses on matters that are debated, so it is not surprising that articles that are apologetic in nature might seem to lose sight of “the big picture.”

However, if one looks at documents such as those produced at Vatican II, which are not geared towards apologetics, but merely expository and pedagogic, one gets the larger context of the particular matters on which apologetics might inadvertantly focus myopically.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Aramis]

The problem is compounded by the extremely poor catechesis of Roman Catholics. While there are issues with the Baltimore Catechism, the biggest is the apparent authoritativeness of it, and the lack of distinction between theologumenon, teaching, doctrine and dogma.

Many older Roman Catholics were surprised at the need for the dogmatic declarations, not realizing that the Baltimore Catechism wasn’t a delineation of Dogma.

Heck, the current CCC is strongly latin in approach. And while it is better about distinguising dogmas, it is no better at distinguising Roman Doctrine from Roman Theologumenia, and not good at presenting the Byzantine comparative theologumenia.

Roman Catholics are all to often totally unaware of the Eastern Churches in Union, and often are even unaware of the ranks of hierarchs… and the meaning of Cardinal (or that it isn’t a rank of hierarch, but a special office outside the hierarchy, but reserved generally to clerics…)

The Eastern Catholics, simply by exposure, often know a good deal about the Roman church, but most romans remain blissfully unaware of the hidden treasures of the Church: the Eastern Churches in Union.

 

[mardukm]

I agree! I was just reading a thread in the Non-Catholic Forum where a very faithful Latin Catholic asserted that Mary was preserved from original sin and therefore she could not have died. The very misinterpretations of Catholic teaching that I have been struggling to correct among our EO brethren is just as present among Latin Catholics! Lord, have mercy! Where is the catechesis?!

The problem is compounded by the extremely poor catechesis of Roman Catholics. While there are issues with the Baltimore Catechism, the biggest is the apparent authoritativeness of it, and the lack of distinction between theologumenon, teaching, doctrine and dogma.

Many older Roman Catholics were surprised at the need for the dogmatic declarations, not realizing that the Baltimore Catechism wasn’t a delineation of Dogma.

Heck, the current CCC is strongly latin in approach. And while it is better about distinguising dogmas, it is no better at distinguising Roman Doctrine from Roman Theologumenia, and not good at presenting the Byzantine comparative theologumenia.

Roman Catholics are all to often totally unaware of the Eastern Churches in Union, and often are even unaware of the ranks of hierarchs… and the meaning of Cardinal (or that it isn’t a rank of hierarch, but a special office outside the hierarchy, but reserved generally to clerics…)

The Eastern Catholics, simply by exposure, often know a good deal about the Roman church, but most romans remain blissfully unaware of the hidden treasures of the Church: the Eastern Churches in Union.

 

[antgaria]

I find that there are very many Roman Catholics who know about our traditions, or are excited to be exposed to it. In my own tradition, I find many who have not the slightest idea about Roman Catholicism and its practices, and many who have less than a clue about our own in comparison to some of the Romans that I have met.

Some of the priests that I have met have known so much about Eastern Churches, that I have to admit that some of our priests are more Roman than they are in the understanding of the traditions.

I think the issue is not so much the population itself, but the population of those that we are exposed to. I mean for the most part, the “Easterners” coming here are more in tune with their tradition and have a love for sharing their Catholic heritage with people. While we all fall into the temptation to be proud and we all often turn polemical, the underlying purpose for many of us is to share the rich traditions with others.

For the “Westerners,” you surely have many who are aware of the richness of traditions, but you also have a more practical issue that we don’t deal about too much in the Eastern Catholic forums. Let’s face it, in the other forums, there is a much much higher presence of protestants and non-Christians… and things tend to be more polemical therefor. And many of the posters who come here, it is the real issue to them to be able to carry out the defense of the faith against the polemical attacks.

I mean, let’s face it… among us in the West in a diaspora, we really don’t have an awareness of what many protestants are doing to us. We come from areas were the fact that the church was ours, meant that we were going there. But we live in these areas now, where we try to hold on to our culture, and that alienates the second and third generation kids who don’t understand the language and culture and allows them to be exposed to and be taken away by protestant polemical attacks. The ones who have priests and other ministers who are aware of this, and try to cater to the younger ones and protect them… those ones you can call lucky and blessed, because most of the families and people don’t understand that threat.

Honestly, that is why I think you see many more people on here who want to protect the Catholic faith from the protestant and atheist diatribes against it. And these people are facing a local issue that doesn’t necessarily need to be more complicated by trying to understand the Eastern mentality/approach. That is our job. Too pitch in with our Eastern language and show the universality of the Catholic faith, across borders… national, language, theological expressions, otherwise.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Meditate on it a while, dear brother.

Doing just that for these few days I have come full circle to the same conclusion: it is patently ironic that you would be feeling compelled to chime in with one of your patented one-word rejoinders in response to the comment:

But what drives people away in discussion is stating that your one particular Catholic experience and knowledge is the tell all, and suddenly those who disagree with you become no less than “Non-Catholic polemicists.”

Ironic to me because as often as not you seem to unconditionally present your understandings of Orthodoxy as definative. Voicing support for someone who seems to be calling Mardukm out on this matter…

Therein lies the irony.

 

[mardukm]

Ironic to me because as often as not you seem to unconditionally present your understandings of Orthodoxy as definative. Voicing support for someone who seems to be calling Mardukm out on this matter…

Therein lies the irony.

Naturally he supports brother Yeshua’s opinion. From what I have understood from his posts, brother Yeshua believes that if you are no longer Oriental or Eastern Orthodox, you have no right to speak for the Oriental or Eastern Tradition altogether. Any attempt to do so would be regarded as “disrespectful.” Since brother Mickey is Eastern Orthodox, then he can say anything he very well pleases. If you even attempt to offer proof otherwise, that is also to be regarded as “disrespectful.”

So brother Mickey would not be a hypocrite according to brother Yeshua’s point of view.

I’m not exactly sure how that paradigm is going to promote true unity, but I guess anything is possible.

Blessings

 

[JohnVIII]

Dear brother JohnVIII

I respect your opinion, and I will only comment on this portion:
JohnVIII;5079820:

I don’t think the Coptic Church is in agreement with Rome in regard to the issue of the filioque.

As far as I’m aware the CO’s main disagreement with the CC on the matter only concerns the addition of filioque to the Creed. The theological arguments, if any, have been borrowed from the EO, which I think is very dangerous. The CC should be allowed to speak for themselves on the matter, not through the filter of EO polemics. I would point out to you that during the Middle Ages, it was the CO who approached the CC for formal unity THREE TIMES (not exactly sure of the number of times, but it was not more than three - two other times, I believe it was the CC who approached the CO). There was not found to be any divisive theological differences from the CO side of the matter. The efforts did not bear its proper fruit primarily because of the issue of what was perceived to be unacceptable (and overbearing) claims of submission to papal authority. Like I said, if there seems to be any theological basis for the CO’s rejection of the doctrine behind filioque, it’s my sincere belief that it is not by virtue of any Tradition from the CO, but by virtue of infection by EO polemics on the matter.

Blessings,
Marduk

As I’m sure you know, there were a series of agreements made between the OO and the EO that have been referred to as “The Chambesy Union”. A Joint Commission of the Theological Dialogue which has held four meetings : Chambesy, Geneva (December 1985), Anba Bishoy monastery, Egypt (June 1989), Chambesy II (September 1990) and Chambesy III (November 1993). Here’s a quote from the First Agreed Statement (1989):

The four adverbs used to qualify the mystery of the hypostatic union belong to our common tradition - without commingling (or confusion) (asyngchytos), without change (atreptos), without separation (achoristos) and without division (adiairetos). Those among us who speak of two natures in Christ, do not thereby deny their inseparable, indivisible union; those among us who speak of one united divine-human nature in Christ do not thereby deny the continuing dynamic presence in Christ of the divine and the human, without change, without confusion.
Our mutual agreement is not limited to Christology, but encompasses the whole faith of the one undivided church of the early centuries. We are agreed also in our understanding of the Person and Work of God the Holy Spirit, Who proceeds from the Father alone, and is always adored with the Father and the Son.

(Sobornost, incorporating Eastern Churches Review, Volume 12:1 (1990) carried the full English text of this statement on pages 78-80)

There seems to be a greater willingness for the CC and the OO to follow through with the agreements they made, then for the EO to follow through with their joint agreements, perhaps because the EO are not ready to correct the error in the 4th Ecumenical, or more specifically, The Tome of Pope Leo. Correcting the error would be the best way, in my view, to bring about true re-union between the OO and the EO. Redefining terminology will only bring about false union.

-JohnVIII

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother John VIII,

There is no theological discrepancy between the statement “Proceeds from the Father alone” and the statement “proceeds from the Father through the Son.” Latins would agree that the term “proceeds FROM” is characteristic of the Father ALONE, Numerous statements from Catholic general Councils explicitly affirm that the Father is the Arche or Source of the Trinity. No doubt about it.

Proceeding THROUGH, on the other hand, is another matter entirely. The agreed statements between OO and EO don’t even touch upon that issue. So what makes you think the statement you quoted is a rejection of the theological and patristic foundation of filioque?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[JohnVIII]

So what makes you think the statement you quoted is a rejection of the theological and patristic foundation of filioque?

It’s not necessarily a rejection, I merely wish to show that the EO and OO are naturally more closer to union than the CC and the OO, in spite of the agreements. It wasn’t too long ago that the CC called procession from the Father alone the “Photian heresy”. It seems the OO have the same “Photian heresy”, even though St. Photius was after the OO/EO split!

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother John VIII,

It’s not necessarily a rejection, I merely wish to show that the EO and OO are naturally more closer to union than the CC and the OO, in spite of the agreements. It wasn’t too long ago that the CC called procession from the Father alone the “Photian heresy”. It seems the OO have the same “Photian heresy”, even though St. Photius was after the OO/EO split!

I think we both know why it was called a “Photian heresy” back then. It was merely because of the language barrier, not by virtue of any foundational difference on the doctrinal matter. The fact is, it seems no one until the 20th century (and VERY late into the 20th century) has ever given thought to the actual difference between ekporuesai and procedit. Sure, St. Maximos took the time to inquire to the Latins and discovered that they did not intend to MEAN that there are two sources of the Holy Spirit or that they did not intend to deny that the Father is the SOLE source of the Trinity. But it does not seem that the actual terminology used was ever investigated - which is probably why even the Fathers at Florence seemed content at equating procedit with ekporeusai - a linguistic error which caused a WHOLE lot of problems, to say the least.

I think the reason that the OO has historically not had a problem with filioque (aside from the canonical propriety of its addition) is the fact that the word proienai (which is a more transliteral equivalent of procedit than ekporuesai) is used so commonly in the language of the ancient Oriental Fathers when describing the relationship of the Holy Spirit to the Son.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

I think we both know why it was called a “Photian heresy” back then. It was merely because of the language barrier, not by virtue of any foundational difference on the doctrinal matter. The fact is, it seems no one until the 20th century (and VERY late into the 20th century) has ever given thought to the actual difference between ekporuesai and procedit. Sure, St. Maximos took the time to inquire to the Latins and discovered that they did not intend to MEAN that there are two sources of the Holy Spirit or that they did not intend to deny that the Father is the SOLE source of the Trinity. But it does not seem that the actual terminology used was ever investigated - which is probably why even the Fathers at Florence seemed content at equating procedit with ekporeusai - a linguistic error which caused a WHOLE lot of problems, to say the least.

I think the reason that the OO has historically not had a problem with filioque (aside from the canonical propriety of its addition) is the fact that the word proienai (which is a more transliteral equivalent of procedit than ekporuesai) is used so commonly in the language of the ancient Oriental Fathers when describing the relationship of the Holy Spirit to the Son.

I would like to add that the issue of filioque, as far as I am aware, has not even made it to the agenda in any of the colloquies between OOC (collectively or individually) and CC, official and unofficial. There are much more important matters to discuss than the canonical propriety of the addition. If there was any basic theological disagreement over the matter between the OOC and CC, then it would have surely been at the forefront of discussions.

In distinction, it is of great concern to the EOC, so it has in fact been the subject of several official and unofficial colloquies between the EOC and CC.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[JohnVIII]

Christ is Risen!

It was merely because of the language barrier, not by virtue of any foundational difference on the doctrinal matter.

The language barrier helps to show that the differences are very minor, but it doesn’t show that there are no differences. You believe there are no doctrinal differences, and I respect your opinion, however I see a minor doctrinal difference. If it wasn’t for the fact that this difference caused a split in the Church and some martyrs it would be of no concern to me whatsoever.

Christ is Risen!

St. Maximos took the time to inquire to the Latins and discovered that they did not intend to MEAN that there are two sources of the Holy Spirit or that they did not intend to deny that the Father is the SOLE source of the Trinity.

I read in one place that this never happened. A document in relation to this was forged. I’m not sure what I believe about this matter. Besides, if you except the miaphysite view you must also except the view that Christ has one composite will as well. And I see no difference between this “one composite will” and the so-called heresy that St. Maximos fought so hard to renounce. So, I don’t know what I should think about St. Maximos.

Christ is Risen!

-JohnVIII

 

[NoWings]

And I see no difference between this “one composite will” and the so-called heresy that St. Maximos fought so hard to renounce. So, I don’t know what I should think about St. Maximos.

Christ is Risen!

-JohnVIII

Are you familiar with Miaphysis? I would assume that one who holds to miaphysite beliefs wouldn’t combine wills while keeping man and God separate.

Here is a short summary of miaphysis:
His Holiness Pope Shenouda III:

Union without Mingling, Confusion, Alteration, or Transmutation:

By “one nature,” we mean a real union. This does not involve mingling as of wheat and barley, nor confusion as of wine and water or milk and tea. Moreover, no change occured as a result of chemical reaction. For example, carbon dioxide consists of carbon and oxygen, and the nature of both changes when combined; each loses its properties which distinguished it before the unity. In contrast, no change occurred in the Divine or Human nature as a result of their unity.

Furthermore, unity between the two natures occurred without transmutation.

Thus, neither did the Divine nature transmute into the human nature, nor did the human nature transmute into the Divine nature. The Divine nature did not mix with the human nature nor mingle with it, but it was a unity that led to the Oneness of Nature.

It wouldn’t make any sense to believe that about nature, but not about will.

Then again, I’m just an agnostic, so what do I know?