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

[ASimpleSinner]

I think that the Eastern Catholic Churches are part of Gods plan to reunite Christianity. What ever happens Gods providence is guiding us.

On this point, we most heartily agree.

 

[Magicsilence]

On this point, we most heartily agree.

Meanwhile, Eastern Catholics are finding it hard knowing what to believe, and Yeshua has raised this issue before.

Where do Eastern tradition and Latin tradition diverge, and what should take preference?

Has the CCC dogmatized a purely Latin theological view?

Or is the claim that (for example) ‘the Eastern Catholics understanding of original sin is different to the Latins’ merely a novelty that is being introduced by the Orthodox? (and likewise for many other areas of contention).

And hence, are the Orthodox really not quite the same as they were 400 yrs back, and Eastern Catholics taking teachings from them are not in union with their true patristic heritage?

Peace and God Bless!

 

[jimmy]

On this point, we most heartily agree.

That should give us great comfort. As long as we know that Gods providence guides us then we can be sure that even though we might be disagreeing now about what communion entails, all things will be solved.

 

[Ghosty]

To be clear. Most of the Melkite bishops at Vatican I opposed the decree on infallibility. In fact there were over a hundred bishops who opposed it. Most of the bishops who opposed the decree did not show up at the council for the vote I assume because they did not want to vote on it because they knew they had no chance of coming out on top in the vote.

Your point comes from a western perspective on councils. I can foresee the eastern Catholics rejecting it for the same reason the EO rejected the council of Florence.

Eastern Catholics were insignificant at the Vatican I council. Probably less than 50 bishops compared with 600 Latin bishops. Of course their opinion is not going to mean anything, expecially in an atmosphere that distains everything eastern. The Councils tend to be latins legislating and easterns being forced to agree. Vatican II was a little different.

Vatican II stated the same things and was ratified by the Eastern Churches with much less distress than Vatican I was. I’m not supportive of how Vatican I was carried out, but I can’t argue against Vatican II when even the Orthodox were invited to attend and did so as observers.

This isn’t a matter of a “Western” perspective, it’s about whether or not a ) the Eastern Catholic Churches participated (they did) and b ) the Eastern Catholic Churches ratified the decisions and/or abide by them (they did and do, especially Vatican II). While it could be argued that Vatican II is a local council in the sense of being “Catholics only”, i.e. not including the Orthodox, it can’t be said to be a strictly Latin Council. If the decisions and definitions of Vatican II are binding on Latins, they are most certainly binding on the other Catholics regardless of the dissent over Vatican I.

As for “Latin domination”, while that case could be made for Vatican I, it can hardly be made for Vatican II. While the Eastern Churches were certainly the minority, and they would have been even if the Orthodox were reunited with the Catholic Church, they had unprecedented voice and (name removed by moderator)ut far outweighing their small numbers. The Melkites in particular were instrumental in shaping the course of the Council, from its Liturgical decrees to its definition of the Church. Their voice was heard far more loudly than their numbers would indicate.

My point is simply that the decisions of Vatican I were ratified by Vatican II (in fact Vatican II was simply the finishing of the job of Vatican I) and that Council was widely accepted in the Eastern Churches, and had significant (name removed by moderator)ut by them. So even if Vatican I is abandoned, Vatican II covers the same bases and was broadly accepted.

Ironically, the only schism that Vatican II produced was of ultra-traditionalist Latins, the same kind who so typically put down and dominated Easterners before.

Peace and God bless!

 

[jimmy]

Yes, Vatican II was different and that is why I mentioned that before. The patriarch was a big influence at the council. Easterners will gladly support Vatican II because it opened up the relationship with the eastern Catholics. We now have a little respect.

 

[mgy100]

I hope no one got offended by my posts above. I scanned and saw thankfully no one thought I was arguing or starting a riot! Believe it or not, I have a background in this situation. Catholic Schooled as well.

 

[Ghosty]

Or is the claim that (for example) ‘the Eastern Catholics understanding of original sin is different to the Latins’ merely a novelty that is being introduced by the Orthodox? (and likewise for many other areas of contention).

And hence, are the Orthodox really not quite the same as they were 400 yrs back, and Eastern Catholics taking teachings from them are not in union with their true patristic heritage?

Well I think it’s a little of both. The different traditions have produced very different theological approaches that are equally valid, and those traditions which are Catholic are to be accepted equally. Sometimes a teaching will be defined in a “Latin” manner, but that doesn’t mean the non-Latins must suddenly adopt a Latin mindset. If anything it is up to the Latin Church to make the teaching understandable and acceptable to the non-Latin traditions, as up to this point the burden has been entirely on them.

On the other hand there has definitely been some changes on the non-Catholic side, and this can be easily seen by reading the official documents and teachings from a few centuries ago versus now. It’s possible that the changes are merely ones of semantics and approach rather than substance, on par with what has occurred in the West, but it’s difficult to say. Things like the Immaculate Conception come from the East, with Eastern Fathers being very explicit about it. Likewise the understanding of Original Sin seems to have been a bit more nuanced in the past, as we’ve seen in discussions here.

That being said it’s inappropriate to not take the various traditions, East and West, at their word on what they believe. Whatever has changed or not changed it’s usually clear what is believed now, and we must go from there in any dialog. In some cases, such as between the Catholic Church and the Oriental Orthodox, this has actually led to a breaking down of prejudices and barriers, so even when it’s difficult it is the appropriate course to take.

What must NOT happen is for Latins to insist on a Latin understanding of things, even when the matter is “defined” in a Latin manner. The belief must be the same, obviously, but that doesn’t mean that the teaching is approached from the same angle and theology.

The main reason that Papal Infallibility is a bit unique is because it’s a teaching that has direct ecclesialogical dimensions, and affects how we operate as Catholics. Just as we can’t have Councils that are infallible for some, and not for others, we can’t have a Pope who is infallible for some and not for others. Of course this doesn’t mean that the Papacy is currently operating as it should, but merely means that the underlying fact of Papal Infallibility, as the hub of unity of doctrine, can’t be denied.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

Yes, Vatican II was different and that is why I mentioned that before. The patriarch was a big influence at the council. Easterners will gladly support Vatican II because it opened up the relationship with the eastern Catholics. We now have a little respect.

Yeah, and that’s all I’m trying to point out.

For all the evils that occurred at Vatican I, the major points of it were upheld strongly by Vatican II, albeit with a more appropriate understanding of the Pope’s relationship with the Bishops (which, incidentally, was always intended by Vatican I, and was next on the agenda, but was cut short due to the war). Since Vatican II ratified the decisions of Vatican I, and Vatican II was roundly supported in the East, it’s a bit of a stretch to deny Papal Infallibility now without losing a LOT of credibility.

Of course this doesn’t mean that the understanding of Papal Infallibility can’t be expressed and exercised in a much more appropriate manner. The language of Vatican I (and to a certain extent Vatican II) was very monarchical, which is not befitting the actual role of the Pope that was understood by the fathers of either Council.

Peace and God bless!

 

[jimmy]

Well I think it’s a little of both. The different traditions have produced very different theological approaches that are equally valid, and those traditions which are Catholic are to be accepted equally. Sometimes a teaching will be defined in a “Latin” manner, but that doesn’t mean the non-Latins must suddenly adopt a Latin mindset. If anything it is up to the Latin Church to make the teaching understandable and acceptable to the non-Latin traditions, as up to this point the burden has been entirely on them.

On the other hand there has definitely been some changes on the non-Catholic side, and this can be easily seen by reading the official documents and teachings from a few centuries ago versus now. It’s possible that the changes are merely ones of semantics and approach rather than substance, on par with what has occurred in the West, but it’s difficult to say. Things like the Immaculate Conception come from the East, with Eastern Fathers being very explicit about it. Likewise the understanding of Original Sin seems to have been a bit more nuanced in the past, as we’ve seen in discussions here.

That being said it’s inappropriate to not take the various traditions, East and West, at their word on what they believe. Whatever has changed or not changed it’s usually clear what is believed now, and we must go from there in any dialog. In some cases, such as between the Catholic Church and the Oriental Orthodox, this has actually led to a breaking down of prejudices and barriers, so even when it’s difficult it is the appropriate course to take.

What must NOT happen is for Latins to insist on a Latin understanding of things, even when the matter is “defined” in a Latin manner. The belief must be the same, obviously, but that doesn’t mean that the teaching is approached from the same angle and theology.

Ghosty, you are one of the few Latins on here that seems to understand that there can be differences. Most on here simply expect us to simply submit to Latin theology. You are the first one who I have seen realize that it is the Latins job to make any definitions in a way that will fit our theology. They can’t expect us to change our tradition.

The main reason that Papal Infallibility is a bit unique is because it’s a teaching that has direct ecclesialogical dimensions, and affects how we operate as Catholics. Just as we can’t have Councils that are infallible for some, and not for others, we can’t have a Pope who is infallible for some and not for others. Of course this doesn’t mean that the Papacy is currently operating as it should, but merely means that the underlying fact of Papal Infallibility, as the hub of unity of doctrine, can’t be denied.

Peace and God bless!

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.

 

[Ghosty]

Ghosty, you are one of the few Latins on here that seems to understand that there can be differences. Most on here simply expect us to simply submit to Latin theology. You are the first one who I have seen realize that it is the Latins job to make any definitions in a way that will fit our theology. They can’t expect us to change our tradition.

Well, to be fair I’m one of the few Latins who lives primarily in an “Eastern” context, primarily celebrating with Melkites and Maronites. I do this even though there is an extremely good Dominican Latin parish near me, of which I’m an official member. I prefer to live in both worlds, and I try to learn from both sides.

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.

Papal Infallibility has nothing to do with the Pope having supreme rule over other Bishops. It’s purely about the Pope speaking with the voice of the Church when defining doctrines. The Pope’s position as “supreme ruler” has more to do with non-dogmatic developments, and is one of the things I think needs to change.

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.

The Pope is still the “hub” of the Church unity and teaching authority, and therefore may, and sometimes must, define certain elements of orthodoxy. This should always be with (name removed by moderator)ut from the rest of the Church, however, and historically it always has been. Eastern traditions may not be as comfortable with definitions but that doesn’t mean that definitions haven’t been made in the past, nor that they shouldn’t be made. Just because the East refuses to define something doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be defined. On the flip side, just because someone thinks something SHOULD be defined doesn’t mean it should be.

Papal Infallibility, and the Infallibility of the Church in general (and the Pope’s infallibility is just part of the Church’s), doesn’t tell us when something should or shouldn’t be defined, only that when it is it won’t be in error. For example, I’m personally not in favor of the hardline definition that came out of Chalcedon, but I recognize that it wasn’t erroneous because the Church does not err. Had I been at the Council I would have voted against such a decision, but I would have accepted the decision once it was handed down.

I believe in the infallibility of the Church that defined Papal Infallibility in two Councils now, just as I believe in the infallibility of the same Church when it defined at Chalcedon and all the other Ecumenical Councils. The Pope’s part in that infallibility simply grows from his unique role as the hub of unity and teaching authority in the Church, and since I recognize that Rome has a special place as the guardian of orthodoxy, and not just because of historical-political reasons, I recognize that the head of Rome speaks with a unique voice in the Church. That doesn’t undermine other traditions, however, it just means that ALL traditions are united as one Body of Faith around a single Earthly center who protects that deposit in a special way along with all the Bishops.

Peace and God bless!

 

[jj2011]

Ironically, the only schism that Vatican II produced was of ultra-traditionalist Latins, the same kind who so typically put down and dominated Easterners before.

Peace and God bless!

You are usually more judicious than this, Ghosty. Traditionalists can be highly respectful of eastern tradition. Unless you have specific information to bring, these stereotypes are unseemly.

 

[ronyodish]

I do not know how things should proceed with the churches of the Syrian tradition. My friend(a Chaldean) thinks we should base our ecumenical efforts with the Assyrians on the first two councils and our efforts with the Syrian Orthodox on the first three. There must be a mutual respect for traditions and the experience of Gods Grace. How things are going to workout I do not know. It seems impossible for Christianity to reunite but we can only depend on the providence of God.

I think that the Eastern Catholic Churches are part of Gods plan to reunite Christianity. What ever happens Gods providence is guiding us.

Hi everyone,

I am the Chaldean friend that jimmy is mentioning here. By the way, HailMary is also a good Chaldean friend of mine. I find it rather amusing that two of my friends who do not know each other, but have me as a common friend, have been going at each others’ throats in some of the posts here

Actually, it’s not that amusing cause I’m finding that each is approaching the other with different definitions/expressions in mind, especially with regards OS and its relation to the IC, while in essence, both are affirming the holiness of Mary, unlike many Protestants who reject her holiness.

Now with regards the info. in quotes above, I’ve recently written an 8+ page paper for a Vatican II class on article 14 of Unitatis Redintegratio, the Decree on Ecumenism. There is no need to copy here the entire paper, but here is the relevant section with regards the above quote, including additional info. on the Eastern Orthodox.

Article 14.4 states:​

For this reason the Holy Council urges all, but especially those who intend to devote themselves to the restoration of full communion hoped for between the Churches of the East and the Catholic Church, to give due consideration to this special feature of the origin and growth of the Eastern Churches, and to the character of the relations which obtained between them and the Roman See before separation. They must take full account of all these factors and, where this is done, it will greatly contribute to the dialogue that is looked for.​

Now, my commentary:​

Article 14 ends by saying how due consideration must be given to the origin and growth of the separated Churches of the East, as well as, the character of the full communion that existed between them and the Apostolic See of Rome prior to the schisms. I think that in order for a future hoped-for occurrence of full communion between the Catholic Church and all the separated Eastern Churches, these following basic points will most likely have to be considered, though keeping in mind, of course, that everyone must hold to the essentials, that is, what St. Paul says in that there is “one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all” (Eph. 4:4-6):

1. With the Assyrian Church of the East, the See of Rome ought to consider a model of full communion based on the first two ecumenical councils. The Assyrians should not have to be required to officially accept Ephesus and beyond as long as they maintain the essentials. The Assyrians must accept the legitimacy of the patrimony of the See of Rome and the Latin Church, though they must never be required by Rome to adopt this patrimony in replacement of their own legitimate patrimony (Assyrian or East Syriac), or in other words, they must never be Latinized.

By patrimony (or rite), I am referring to the theology, liturgy, spirituality, and disciplines of a Church. Nothing essential, either on the side of Rome or on the side of the Assyrians, can be obliterated, but whatever non-essential causing an obstacle to full communion must be remedied, and if a certain non-essential is legitimate and is not actually causing any obstacle, then it must respected and allowed mutually on both sides.

1. With the Oriental Orthodox Churches, the See of Rome ought to consider a model of full communion based on the ecumenical councils prior to Chalcedon. The Oriental Orthodox should not have to be required to officially accept Chalcedon and beyond as long as they maintain the essentials. Whatever else I’ve stated in number 1 above applies also to the Oriental Orthodox, though they’ve inherited the Alexandrian, Antiochene or West Syriac, and Armenian patrimonies.

 

[ronyodish]

Continued…

1. With the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the See of Rome ought to consider a model of full communion based on the first millennium. The Eastern Orthodox should not have to be required to officially accept any ecumenical councils beyond Nicaea II, including the Fourth Council of Constantinople of 869 - 870, as well as, the councils held in the West, so long as they maintain the essentials. Whatever else I’ve stated in number 1 above applies also to the Eastern Orthodox, though they’ve inherited the Greek or Constantinopolitan or Byzantine patrimony.
2. I do not think that full communion can ever be reached with all the separated Eastern Churches until their Catholic counterparts, the Eastern Catholic Churches, are fully de-Latinized and have fully restored their authentic Eastern patrimonies. Currently the Eastern Catholics, with the encouragement of Rome, are working towards this full restoration, and the separated Easterners are watching them to see how they are being treated by Rome. The separated Easterners have a fear that if they were to establish full communion with their Catholic counterparts, and thereby full communion with Rome, then they will loose their authentic traditions and inherit this Latinization they see among the Eastern Catholics.

Rome must continue to encourage Eastern Catholics to fully restore their patrimonies, and must continue to assure the separated Easterners that their authentic theologies, liturgies, spiritualities, and disciplines are respected, venerated, and as worthy as the authentic Latin patrimony. Without this full and significant restoration, the separated Easterners will never accept the Latinized condition of the Eastern Catholic Churches, and will therefore continue to reject the hoped-for full communion.

1. If there is one thing that all the separated Eastern Churches have in common in their disagreement with Rome, it is the role of the Papacy of Rome. Having this in mind, the Holy Father Pope John Paul II wrote an Encyclical on Ecumenism in 1995 titled: Ut Unum Sint. In this document, he says the following in article 95:

[Read article 95 http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint_en.html”]here]

Therefore, the Primacy of the Pope of Rome must be presented to the separated Eastern Churches in a way that is both faithful to its essential role, as well as, open to a new circumstance, and with forms, acceptable to the East. The East must be able to be comfortable with the role of the Pope, a role that will not Latinize them or cause them to abandon their authentic traditions. Without this, the separated Easterners will continue to reject the hoped-for full communion.​

God bless,

Rony

P.S. By the way, I like and believe this statement:
In essentials - unity, in non-essentials - liberty, in all things - charity.

 

[HenryV]

Come now woodstock. Eastern CATHOLICS should know better than to reject CATHOLIC dogma. They are CATHOLIC. However, personally, i don’t think that there should be intercommunion with the EOs until full communion is re-established.

There is no inter-communion, only in exceptional circumstances at least according to the documents.

 

[Ghosty]

You are usually more judicious than this, Ghosty. Traditionalists can be highly respectful of eastern tradition. Unless you have specific information to bring, these stereotypes are unseemly.

Seeing as there is little in the way of official writings from such schismatic groups I can only speak from personal experience and the experience of others. I do know that the “Eastern” branch of SSPX is heavily Latinized, and promotes those Latinizations.

I can’t very well retract what I’ve said since I was merely relating my experience with schismatics, but I will refrain from commenting further if it upsets anyone.

God bless!

 

[richardwy]

oops

 

[jj2011]

Seeing as there is little in the way of official writings from such schismatic groups I can only speak from personal experience and the experience of others. I do know that the “Eastern” branch of SSPX is heavily Latinized, and promotes those Latinizations.

I can’t very well retract what I’ve said since I was merely relating my experience with schismatics, but I will refrain from commenting further if it upsets anyone.

God bless!

If you mean the Ukrainian priestly society of St. Josaphat, I can’t deny that it is heavily Latinized. However, it was the Ukies that sought out the SSPX bishops to ordain their priests; it’s not necessarily a sign of general disrespect among traditionalists for the Byzantine rite. Plenty of traditionalists have assisted at Liturgy in modern Ukrainian and respected this rite.

Pius XI wanted to Catholicize, not Latinize the east. He insisted that the Filioque not be recited when Divine Liturgy was offered in St. Peter’s. If this simple common sense had been respected, the whole brouhaha about the St. Josaphat society need never have happened.

 

[jimmy]

Rony, it is good to see you. Chelsea is here as well. Good commentary.

 

[LakaYaRabb]

H.B. Grégoire III LAHAM, B.S., Patriarch of Antioch for the Greek-Melchites, Syria

It is incorrect to include the Patriarchal Synod under the title of Episcopal Conferences. It is a completely distinct organism. The Patriarchal Synod is the supreme instance of the Eastern Church. It can legislate, elect bishops and Patriarchs, cut off those who differ.

In No. 75, a “particular honor” given to Patriarchs is mentioned. I would like to mention that this diminishes the traditional role of the Patriarch, as well as speaking about the honor and privileges of the Patriarchs in ecclesiastical documents.

It is not a question of honor, of privileges, of concessions. The patriarchal institution is a specific entity unique in Eastern ecclesiology.

With all respect due to the Petrine ministry, the Patriarchal ministry is equal to it, “servatis servandis”, in Eastern ecclesiology.

Until this is taken into consideration by the Roman ecclesiology, no progress will be made in ecumenical dialogue.

Furthermore, the Patriarchal ministry is not a Roman creation, it is not the fruit of privileges, conceded or granted by Rome.

Such a concept can but ruin any possible understanding with Orthodoxy.

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

We have waited too long to apply the decrees of Vatican Council II and the Encyclicals and letters by the Popes, and notably by Pope John Paul II.

Because of this the good will of the Church of Rome loses credibility regarding ecumenical dialogue.

We can see the opposite occurring: the CCEO has ratified uses absolutely contrary to Eastern tradition and ecclesiology!

vatican.va/news_services/press/sinodo/documents/bollettino_20_x-ordinaria-2001/02_inglese/b10_02.html

 

[jimmy]

vatican.va/news_services/press/sinodo/documents/bollettino_20_x-ordinaria-2001/02_inglese/b10_02.html

That is an awesome quote there. You have mentioned that to me before but this is the first time I have seen it.