What does it mean to be "in communion with Rome?"

[IbnFiktur]

Hello ECs,

I have a deep interest in learning more about Eastern Catholicism (and Orthodoxy), but in lurking a little bit on this forum I feel like a lot of my assumptions about Eastern Catholicism were incorrect. I was hoping to learn a few things here:

Basically, in reading the “Marian theology” thread, it seems to me that ECs reject several dogmas that have been held true by the Latin Church for centuries. In my understanding of the term “dogma” in the Latin Church, it implies an infallible teaching of the Church. And yet several EC posters in aforementioned thread seemed to be saying that Catholic dogmas regarding the immaculate conception and the assumption are false.

My question is: what does it mean to be “in communion with Rome?” Can one be Catholic and hold the belief that certain dogmas held true by the Ronan pontiff are false? Can one be Catholic and not believe in Papal infallibility? What is the least common denominator for being “in communion with Rome?”

Thanks in advance for any responses

 

[ByzCathCantor]

We hope to encourage your study of the Eastern Catholic Churches (note the capital “C” in Churches).

First, to the ultimate point of the OP - the Catholic Church is actually a communion of 23 sui juris Churches of equal dignity, with the Latin Church being by far the largest and most recognizable. Each of these self-governing, or sui juris Churches are in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

There was some regrettable debate in the thread you mentioned, but to be Catholic does mean that you accept the teachings of the Church. Many of these teachings, particularly those formally developed before Vatican II, are decidedly written from the perspective of the dominant Latin Church. That said, and as is known and accepted today, the Eastern Catholic Churches are permitted to understand the dogmas, doctrines and ordinary magisterial teachings in their own context and from their own theological perspective.

We tend to emphasize the views of the Early (mostly Eastern) Church Fathers. You will note that the Sacred Tradition as upheld by East and West was well noted in the related dogmatic declarations being discussed in that thread. The declarations go so far as to say that they are affirmation, to the level of dogma, of that which has been long believed and accepted in both the East and West.

The confusion comes in when the Church sometimes intentionally leaves some elements open, so to speak (e.g. did Mary die?). In these cases, we must default to doctrine, magisterial teaching, Scripture and Sacred Tradition. The conflict comes when there is a lack of appreciation for the historical teachings of the Church, which remain unchanged but for the elements raised to the dogmatic level, particularly when the subject is largely understood from Sacred Tradition alone.

 

[Vico]

Hello ECs,

I have a deep interest in learning more about Eastern Catholicism (and Orthodoxy), but in lurking a little bit on this forum I feel like a lot of my assumptions about Eastern Catholicism were incorrect. I was hoping to learn a few things here:

Basically, in reading the “Marian theology” thread, it seems to me that ECs reject several dogmas that have been held true by the Latin Church for centuries. In my understanding of the term “dogma” in the Latin Church, it implies an infallible teaching of the Church. And yet several EC posters in aforementioned thread seemed to be saying that Catholic dogmas regarding the immaculate conception and the assumption are false.

My question is: what does it mean to be “in communion with Rome?” Can one be Catholic and hold the belief that certain dogmas held true by the Ronan pontiff are false? Can one be Catholic and not believe in Papal infallibility? What is the least common denominator for being “in communion with Rome?”

Thanks in advance for any responses

The 23 sui juris Catholic Churches are all in full communion.

Here is the canon law for the Latin Catholic Church and the eastern Catholic Churches, last updated by Moto Proprio AD TUENDAM FIDEM, 18 May, 1998:CIC

Canon 750
§ 1. Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal Magisterium, which in fact is manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium. All are therefore bound to avoid any contrary doctrines.
§ 2. Furthermore, each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held; namely, those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Canon 1371
The following are to be punished with a just penalty:
1° a person who, apart from the case mentioned in canon 1364 § 1, teaches a doctrine condemned by the Roman Pontiff, or by an Ecumenical Council, or obstinately rejects the teachings mentioned in canon 750 § 2 or in canon 752 and, when warned by the Apostolic See or by the Ordinary, does not retract;
2° a person who in any other way does not obey the lawful command or prohibition of the Apostolic See or the Ordinary or Superior and, after being warned, persists in disobedience.

CCEO

Canon 598
§ 1. Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal Magisterium, which in fact is manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium. All Christian faithful are therefore bound to avoid any contrary doctrines.
§ 2. Furthermore, each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held; namely, those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Canon 1436
§ 1. Whoever denies a truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or who calls into doubt, or who totally repudiates the Christian faith, and does not retract after having been legitimately warned, is to be punished as a heretic or an apostate with a major excommunication; a cleric moreover can be punished with other penalties, not excluding deposition.
§ 2. In addition to these cases, whoever obstinately rejects a teaching that the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising the authentic Magisterium, have set forth to be held definitively, or who affirms what they have condemned as erroneous, and does not retract after having been legitimately warned, is to be punished with an appropriate penalty.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_30061998_ad-tuendam-fidem_en.html

 

[Peter_J]

Hello ECs,

I have a deep interest in learning more about Eastern Catholicism (and Orthodoxy), but in lurking a little bit on this forum I feel like a lot of my assumptions about Eastern Catholicism were incorrect. I was hoping to learn a few things here:

Basically, in reading the “Marian theology” thread, it seems to me that ECs reject several dogmas that have been held true by the Latin Church for centuries. In my understanding of the term “dogma” in the Latin Church, it implies an infallible teaching of the Church. And yet several EC posters in aforementioned thread seemed to be saying that Catholic dogmas regarding the immaculate conception and the assumption are false.

My question is: what does it mean to be “in communion with Rome?” Can one be Catholic and hold the belief that certain dogmas held true by the Ronan pontiff are false? Can one be Catholic and not believe in Papal infallibility? What is the least common denominator for being “in communion with Rome?”

Thanks in advance for any responses

I think the best way I can answer that (briefly) is to say that those dogmas are normative for Eastern Catholics as well as Western Catholics.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Hello ECs,

I have a deep interest in learning more about Eastern Catholicism (and Orthodoxy), but in lurking a little bit on this forum I feel like a lot of my assumptions about Eastern Catholicism were incorrect. I was hoping to learn a few things here:

Basically, in reading the “Marian theology” thread, it seems to me that ECs reject several dogmas that have been held true by the Latin Church for centuries. In my understanding of the term “dogma” in the Latin Church, it implies an infallible teaching of the Church. And yet several EC posters in aforementioned thread seemed to be saying that Catholic dogmas regarding the immaculate conception and the assumption are false.

My question is: what does it mean to be “in communion with Rome?” Can one be Catholic and hold the belief that certain dogmas held true by the Ronan pontiff are false? Can one be Catholic and not believe in Papal infallibility? What is the least common denominator for being “in communion with Rome?”

Thanks in advance for any responses

The ECs do not reject Latin Marian dogmas. We agree that they are not wrong from a Latin perspective but we do not use them because they do not fit our own Eastern theology.

To be in communion means we do not reject each other’s dogmas and beliefs. We agree there are differences but we have reconciled the differences. As long as there are no rejection of beliefs, then we are in communion.

 

[IbnFiktur]

Thanks for the responses all. From what I gather, if a Latin is calling an EC’s belief a “heresy,” and the EC gets upset, then one of two things is at work:

1. The Latin simply doesn’t understand the difference between a “different perspective on theology” and an altogether different theological belief, OR
2. The EC actually holds a view that is directly contrary to a dogma held by the Roman Pontiff, and oversteps the bounds of what may be considered simply a “different perspective on theology.”

Does that sound about right?

 

[Peter_J]

IbnFiktur, in the OP you said,

Basically, in reading the “Marian theology” thread, it seems to me that ECs reject several dogmas that have been held true by the Latin Church for centuries.

However, I recently read the last 100 or so posts of that thread, and I really can’t see what gave you that idea. So could you clarify: were you referring to old posts (from 2011) in that thread?

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Thanks for the responses all. From what I gather, if a Latin is calling an EC’s belief a “heresy,” and the EC gets upset, then one of two things is at work:

1. The Latin simply doesn’t understand the difference between a “different perspective on theology” and an altogether different theological belief, OR
2. The EC actually holds a view that is directly contrary to a dogma held by the Roman Pontiff, and oversteps the bounds of what may be considered simply a “different perspective on theology.”

Does that sound about right?

I’d try to explain it similarly while hopefully being a little more “forgiving”, if you will.

Westerners and Easterners are wired differently. Its hard for one starting from a Latin mindset to comprehend that those of Eastern orientation do not look at things legalistically. This is the first challenge, and the “differences in theology” defense often provokes a stronger, negative response. However, there are those who believe us to be Orthodox, or who defend every word from Rome as Gospel who would resort to the cry of “heresy”. This is utterly counterproductive in addressing Eastern Christians, Catholic and Orthodox.

Despite what you might read here, ECs cannot reject dogma. That is simply not logical, as we would no lnger be Catholic. That said, the modern Catholic Church does consider the Eastern perspective quite regularly and thoughtfully. The same happens to be true in the context of the Marian dogmas being discussed elsewhere.

There is one more aspect of the dynamic, if you will, from observation - the dogmatic statement is accepted in the West at face value, discounting all of the teaching around it that largely affirms the shared beliefs of East and West as relates to Marian dogma. This is a more critical observation, but can be readily seen in the most recent thread.

 

[ClemtheCatholic]

I had a question…

If the Catholic Church is a group of 23 Churches why do we say in the Creed “…I believe in ONE, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church…”?

Thanks.
ClemtheCatholic

 

[WingsOfEagles]

I had a question…

If the Catholic Church is a group of 23 Churches why do we say in the Creed “…I believe in ONE, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church…”?

Thanks.
ClemtheCatholic

23 rites, not Churches would be more technical.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

23 rites, not Churches would be more technical.

No, they are not 23 rites, nor are there 23 rites in total.

There are twenty three (23) sui juris Churches comprising the ONE (meaning, united in Christ) Catholic Church. The Latin, or Roman Catholic Church is the largest and most identifiable, but by itself is not the ONE Church which is professed.

CCC813 - The Church is one because of her source: “the highest exemplar and source of this mystery is the unity, in the Trinity of Persons, of one God, the Father and the Son in the Holy Spirit.” The Church is one because of her founder: for “the Word made flesh, the prince of peace, reconciled all men to God by the cross, . . . restoring the unity of all in one people and one body.” The Church is one because of her “soul”: “It is the Holy Spirit, dwelling in those who believe and pervading and ruling over the entire Church, who brings about that wonderful communion of the faithful and joins them together so intimately in Christ that he is the principle of the Church’s unity.” Unity is of the essence of the Church:

The Orthodox of course recite the same in their profession of faith. Surely they are not referring to the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[yorepaw]

I am Eastern Catholic and I frequently use a website www.east2west.org to refer people to with questions like yours (on differences in interpretation of doctrine, supremacy vs primacy within the church, etc).

If you will select the FAQ tab and then the Doctrine tab, it will address the issues of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption/Dormition of the Theotokos.

I hope this helps. There is a lot of misunderstanding on both sides.

 

[IbnFiktur]

I am Eastern Catholic and I frequently use a website www.east2west.org to refer people to with questions like yours (on differences in interpretation of doctrine, supremacy vs primacy within the church, etc).

If you will select the FAQ tab and then the Doctrine tab, it will address the issues of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption/Dormition of the Theotokos.

I hope this helps. There is a lot of misunderstanding on both sides.

Gave their FAQ page a glance, and it looks very helpful. Many thanks

 

[Vico]

23 rites, not Churches would be more technical.

The Latin canon law certainly does use the term rite. For example:

Can. 214 Christ’s faithful have the right to worship God according to the provisions of their own rite approved by the lawful Pastors of the Church; they also have the right to follow their own form of spiritual life, provided it is in accord with Church teaching.

Can. 282 §2 If he has faithful of a different rite in his diocese, he is to provide for their spiritual needs either by means of priests or parishes of the same rite, or by an episcopal Vicar.

Can. 991 All Christ’s faithful are free to confess their sins to lawfully approved confessors of their own choice, even to one of another rite.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

The Latin canon law certainly does use the term rite. For example:

Can. 214 Christ’s faithful have the right to worship God according to the provisions of their own rite approved by the lawful Pastors of the Church; they also have the right to follow their own form of spiritual life, provided it is in accord with Church teaching.

Can. 282 §2 If he has faithful of a different rite in his diocese, he is to provide for their spiritual needs either by means of priests or parishes of the same rite, or by an episcopal Vicar.

Can. 991 All Christ’s faithful are free to confess their sins to lawfully approved confessors of their own choice, even to one of another rite.

That’s what I thought. Thank you for clarifying.

 

[Contarini]

I’d try to explain it similarly while hopefully being a little more “forgiving”, if you will.

Westerners and Easterners are wired differently. Its hard for one starting from a Latin mindset to comprehend that those of Eastern orientation do not look at things legalistically.

I don’t like the “wiring” language. It sounds almost racial (I’m not calling you a racist–I’m simply saying that the language of “wiring” sounds as if you’re saying that there are deeprooted differences that are beyond our control), as if Westerners and Easterners were different subspecies.

I think the Eastern orientation is quite simply *better. *That’s not to say that the Western approach lacks value or that the Church should simply reject it–which is one reason I don’t become Orthodox. But I’m frustrated by the segregation of rites in the Catholic Church. I know why it exists, but it seems to diminish the unity of the Church, and it allows Westerners and Easterners to go their own separate ways, much as Protestant denominations do.

I think Westerners badly need to be “Easternized.” Our historic legalism is not heretical, but it is deeply unhealthy. But the current language of “breathing with both lungs” and maintaining a kind of separate-but-equal status seems to work against this.

However, since I’m not actually Catholic but an outsider who has long desired to be an insider and thus often pretends to be one (not literally in a deceptive sense but in the sense of saying things that outsiders really have no right to say), perhaps I just don’t get how it works.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

I don’t like the “wiring” language. It sounds almost racial (I’m not calling you a racist–I’m simply saying that the language of “wiring” sounds as if you’re saying that there are deeprooted differences that are beyond our control), as if Westerners and Easterners were different subspecies.

I think the Eastern orientation is quite simply *better. *That’s not to say that the Western approach lacks value or that the Church should simply reject it–which is one reason I don’t become Orthodox. But I’m frustrated by the segregation of rites in the Catholic Church. I know why it exists, but it seems to diminish the unity of the Church, and it allows Westerners and Easterners to go their own separate ways, much as Protestant denominations do.

I think Westerners badly need to be “Easternized.” Our historic legalism is not heretical, but it is deeply unhealthy. But the current language of “breathing with both lungs” and maintaining a kind of separate-but-equal status seems to work against this.

However, since I’m not actually Catholic but an outsider who has long desired to be an insider and thus often pretends to be one (not literally in a deceptive sense but in the sense of saying things that outsiders really have no right to say), perhaps I just don’t get how it works.

There is key theology that all rites must uphold in order to be considered part of the Catholic Church. These are the key issues that make them one.

Married priests are not a key issue to salvation. Standing or sitting during certain sections of the Mass are not key issues. A kiss of peace vs. a handshake of peace vs. a head nod of peace is not a key issue.

 

[Contarini]

The Latin canon law certainly does use the term rite. For example:

Can. 214 Christ’s faithful have the right to worship God according to the provisions of their own rite approved by the lawful Pastors of the Church; they also have the right to follow their own form of spiritual life, provided it is in accord with Church teaching.

Can. 282 §2 If he has faithful of a different rite in his diocese, he is to provide for their spiritual needs either by means of priests or parishes of the same rite, or by an episcopal Vicar.

Can. 991 All Christ’s faithful are free to confess their sins to lawfully approved confessors of their own choice, even to one of another rite.

Rites and sui juris churches are two distinct things. There are five eastern rites and 22 sui juris churches. 14 of the sui juris churches belong to the Byzantine Rite.

I dislike the sui juris concept–it seems to compromise the unity of the Church. Ideally, there would be a way of safeguarding diversity of rite without having different Catholics in the same place be under different bishops, which is radically opposed to the teachings of the Fathers.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

There is key theology that all rites must uphold in order to be considered part of the Catholic Church. These are the key issues that make them one.

Married priests are not a key issue to salvation. Standing or sitting during certain sections of the Mass are not key issues. A kiss of peace vs. a handshake of peace vs. a head nod of peace is not a key issue.

I get that. Those aren’t the sorts of things I’m talking about.

Edwin

 

[TEPO]

I don’t like the “wiring” language. It sounds almost racial (I’m not calling you a racist–I’m simply saying that the language of “wiring” sounds as if you’re saying that there are deeprooted differences that are beyond our control), as if Westerners and Easterners were different subspecies.

I think the Eastern orientation is quite simply *better. *That’s not to say that the Western approach lacks value or that the Church should simply reject it–which is one reason I don’t become Orthodox. But I’m frustrated by the segregation of rites in the Catholic Church. I know why it exists, but it seems to diminish the unity of the Church, and it allows Westerners and Easterners to go their own separate ways, much as Protestant denominations do.

I think Westerners badly need to be “Easternized.” Our historic legalism is not heretical, but it is deeply unhealthy. But the current language of “breathing with both lungs” and maintaining a kind of separate-but-equal status seems to work against this.

However, since I’m not actually Catholic but an outsider who has long desired to be an insider and thus often pretends to be one (not literally in a deceptive sense but in the sense of saying things that outsiders really have no right to say), perhaps I just don’t get how it works.

I hope this can be answered without breaking it up into quoted sections!

It’s a good perspective altogether in my opinion…:sad_yes: Like a painting.