What can Eastern Catholics reject / accept in terms of faith?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Magicsilence
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
James,

One cannot deny the implications of this statement:

We claim this also for our Patriarchal Melkite Church and for all our Eastern Catholic Churches.

Therefore, we must stand strong, as we do brother.
 
James,

One cannot deny the implications of this statement:

We claim this also for our Patriarchal Melkite Church and for all our Eastern Catholic Churches.

Therefore, we must stand strong, as we do brother.
That is one of the main things I love about the quote. It is a claim for us all.

And that is on the vatican website. I love it.
 
I have a problem with papal infallibility for several reasons but one of them is that it has a direct effect on our tradition. In the east there was never this understanding of the pope having this supreme rule over every other bishop. The east was always more conciliar.

You could ask any patristic theologian and he would agree with this. I specifically remember Yves Congar mentioning it in his book After Nine Hundred Years. The definition forces us in the east to change our whole view of the Church.

Further, who is the pope to define something that the east has absolutely refused to define? As I mentioned earlier, the eastern traditions follow a more apophatic way of theology. St. Ephrem and St. James of Sarug and consequently the rest of Syriac theology approached theology with symbolism and paradox. Definition is not something that is prized in our tradition.
Jimmy I have to respectfully disagree with your assesment of Eastern concilatory styles and the Papacy.

Just this week we celebrated the feast of Patriarch St. John of Constantinople who was exiled by arians not once but twice. Not once but twice he went to Rome (where he found St. Athanasius of Alexandria in the same predicament) and not once but twice both were reinstated after appeal to Rome.

This is just one case - I concede that - and we could open up a new thread, and talk about this for 1000 years.

History is replete with such examples of Roman authority or where conciliarism needed a good goosing.

(I am going to point out tongue-in-cheek that infailability was defined at a countil too, you know!🙂 )

But with due respect to Sayedna Zogby & company, theirs is not the singular distinctive voice of the east. As I pointed out earlier in this thread, there are many eastern voices, and the prevailing voice of some apologists in eastern circles - at this juncture in history - may nor represent the fullness of a perspective.

We may have to agree to disagree on our end conclusion, but I hope you can concede that it may in fact not be so plainly obvious to come to either conclusion.
 
Just this week we celebrated the feast of Patriarch St. John of Constantinople who was exiled by arians not once but twice. Not once but twice he went to Rome (where he found St. Athanasius of Alexandria in the same predicament) and not once but twice both were reinstated after appeal to Rome.
St. John died on his way into exile. The pope did not get him out of exile. The pope did not have supreme rule in the east. You can read Fr Congar’s book After Nine Hundred Years and see what the east thought. Fr Congar was a Catholic priest.
 
St. John died on his way into exile. The pope did not get him out of exile. The pope did not have supreme rule in the east. You can read Fr Congar’s book After Nine Hundred Years and see what the east thought. Fr Congar was a Catholic priest.
Pardon me, I meant Paul the Confessor, Patriarch of Constantinople
Saint Paul was from Thessalonica. He became the secretary of Alexander, Patriarch of Constantinople (see Aug. 30), a deacon, and then the successor of Saint Alexander in about 337. Because of his virtue, his eloquence in teaching, and his zeal for Orthodoxy, the Arians hated and feared him. When the Arian Emperor Constantius, who was in Antioch, learned of Paul’s election, he exiled Paul and proclaimed the Arian Eusebius Patriarch. Saint Paul went to Rome, where he found Saint Athanasius the Great also in exile. Provided with letters by Pope Julius, Paul returned to Constantinople, and after the death of Eusebius in 342, ascended again his rightful throne; the Arians meanwhile elected Macedonius, because he rejected the Son’s con-substantiality with the Father (and the divinity of the Holy Spirit besides). When Constantius, yet at Antioch, learned of Paul’s return, he sent troops to Constantinople to drive Paul out. The Saint returned to Rome, where Saint Athanasius also was again in exile. Constans, Emperor of the West, Constantius’ brother, but Orthodox, wrote to Constantius that if Athanasius and Paul were not allowed to return to their sees, he would come with troops to restore them him-self. So Paul again returned to his throne. After the death of Constans, however, Constantius had Paul deposed. Because of the love of the people for Saint Paul, Philip the Prefect, who was sent for him, was compelled to arrest him secretly to avoid a sedition. Paul was banished to Cucusus, on the borders of Cilicia and Armenia; a town through which his most illustrious successor, Saint John Chrysostom would also pass on his way to Comana in his last exile. In Cucusus, about the year 350, as Saint Paul was celebrating the Divine Liturgy in the little house where he was a prisoner, the Arians strangled him with his own omophorion, so much did they fear him even in exile. His holy relics were brought back to Constantinople with honour by the Emperor Theodosius the Great.
as to:
You can read Fr Congar’s book After Nine Hundred Years and see what the east thought.
Again, I beg consider one perspective or even a specific school of thought might not represent the embodiement of the eastern school of though.
 
St. John died on his way into exile. The pope did not get him out of exile. The pope did not have supreme rule in the east. You can read Fr Congar’s book After Nine Hundred Years and see what the east thought. Fr Congar was a Catholic priest.
Are you ignorant that the custom has been for word to be written first to us, and then for a just decision to be passed from this place? *

Pope St. Julius I, on the unjust deposition of Athanasius, as cited in the Apologia of St. Athanasius.
 
I am done with this thread and maybe with the forum for a while. This has taken a degree of peace from my life. I do not call anyone heretics in the Catholic Church. I don’t consider the west less Catholic. But I will hold to my tradition which is just as orthodox as that of the western church. Rome recognizes that there are various legitimate tradtions.

If I have offended or hurt anyone I apologize, that was not my intent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top