Why Catholic and not Orthodox?

[mardukm]

Not really sure what Ignatios and Mickey’s quotes are supposed to get at.

The Pope today “yields” authority to local Bishop’s Conferences - that doesn’t mean he has lost any authority.

All the bishops together in union with one another are in charge of the Church in the world.

Very well put, brother!

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Hesychios,

Apparently though, the rights and privileges of the Eastern Patriarchs is subject to interpretation, and the Supreme Pontiff is the final arbiter in any such questions.

I disagree. The Supreme authority of the Church is the final arbiter, not the Pope by himself. The Supreme authority of the Church is a collegial authority, not a monarchical authority. It may be hard to notice, but the Canons of the Eastern Churches is more discerning than the Latin Code between the term “the Supreme authority of the Church” and the term “Roman Pontiff.”

After Vatican II the curia prevented the Melkite synod of having any possibility of erecting it’s own dioceses in the ‘diaspora’, or naming the bishops (before Vat II it was apparently not considered at all as the Melkite ‘diaspora’ parishes were generally under the Latin bishops). This remains the prerogative of the Pope, and it was (as I recall) two bishops named by the Pope who voted against the Zoghby Initiative in 1995.

That is because the diaspora territories have traditionally been considered to be part of the Western Patriarchate. It has only been much more recently that the Pope gave up the title “Patriarch of the West.” I feel this was a very wise move by the Holy Father, and opens the way for more independent administration of the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches.

It happens to be the same problem the Syro-Malabar church (and Syro-Malankara church) is dealing with within India,

Whatever problem you see in India within the Catholic Church also exists in the OO communion. The problem is complicated and would need a separate thread.

and the UGCC around the world as well.

The same exigencies regarding the “Western Patriarchate” exist in this situation. Let’s see what the future holds, and let’s do that with hope and prayer.

For the sub-Carpathian Ruthenian church there is no patriarch nor ‘home territory’ anywhere. They must wait for the Pope to name a patriarch for them, which doesn’t even seem to be discussed seriously anywhere. Every bishop in that church in Europe and North America is named by the Pope.

Again, a complicated situation. I don’t think the Catholic Church generally has ever attempted to create Patriarchates apart from the ones recognized by the 7 Ecum Councils. Tradition is the rule here, I think, even though it may conflict with the interests of some non-Latin Catholic Churches.

As Eastern Catholics migrate from their ancestral homes to new places around the world (and the Pope names administrators and bishops for them), Papal authority actually grows in each of the other synods. Latin Catholic Traditionalists might look at this as a sign of Divine Providence. It is a case of all power being drawn to the center, a continuation of a very long trend.

As stated, let’s hope and pray that the best comes out of the Pope’s giving up of the title “Patriarch of the West.” I think the trend is reversing and moving towards more independence for the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches (heck, in Ethiopia, the situation has been reveresed, and it is Latins who are under the omophor of the local Oriental Catholic bishops).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear 5loaves,

Purgatory isn’t within the tradition of ECCs.

Are you distinguishing between the Latin concept of purgatory, on the one hand, and the dogmatic teaching on Purgatory on the other?

All Catholics (Western, Eastern, and Oriental) adhere to the Catholic Church’s dogmatic teaching on Purgatory – which is distinct from the Latin concept.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Aramis]

The ONLY reason the Sub-Carpethian Rus are not part of the UGCC is because they came into union separately; They were, in fact, a schism from the UOC of the time. They were and are of the same Rite, Tradition, Patrimony, Ritual, and Calendar.

Really, no patriarch nor major archbishop should be appointed for the Ruthenians until there are multiple metropolia. A Metropolitan Church Sui Iuris for the Ruthenian Eparchy and Exarchates in Europe is something that would be useful, viable, and beneficial… but it anything, the UGCC should have it’s status raised to Patriarchal from Major Archiepiscopal. In fact, it’s long overdue.

And the Metropolia of Pitsburgh? Really, it’s the American Greek Catholic Church, not truly a Ruthenian one; all other Greek Catholic/Byzantine Churches Sui Iuris in the US are supra-national.

 

[Ignatios]

Dear brother Madaglan,

From my studies, I’ve found that the other four Patriarchs did recognize this kind of right with the bishops of Rome,

Hello Marduk,

The word "granted him " is more accurate.
And if my memory serves me right the same was granted to the Ecumenical Patria. in some areas too, but I have to double check on this one though.

… but it was always an appellate authority.

I believe this is somewhat correct. So long it is understood as asking the Pope not as an authority but as a mediator.

…In other words, the bishop of Rome did not micromanage the Church and interfere in the affairs of other Churches.

Your ideas seems to always have some sort of snares in them.

1. “micromanage” is when someone has the right to do so when and if he wills it, In other words, it is someone who is stepping outside the norm. of the way he manages things and not stepping outside his boundary.
2. “interfere” is when someone DOES NOT have the right to do whatever, but despite that he does regardless, in other words he steps outside his boundary.
   And in the case of the RCs we see them stepping outside their boundary and hoping to make as the norm.

So which is of the two you apply to the Pope of Rome?

He did so only in extreme circumstances…,

He did which one in extreme circumstances? “micromanage” or " interfere in the others affair"?

Many think that V1 gave the Pope the authority we are speaking about as something he can do on a whim. I believe such an interpretation of V1 is overly polemical and horribly inaccurate.

Blessings,
Marduk

Can you be more specific what is this Pope authority that you are speaking about, and name its elements ACCORDING to your RCC doctrine?

GOD bless you all †††

 

[bpbasilphx]

\Communion is established through and by love. Communion is not equivalent to subjection and submission.\

Amen, Diak!

 

[bpbasilphx]

How strange that Vatican II and the popes can be quoted when an individual chooses to agree with what is taught, and primacy and infallibility can be ignored when it suits – such as with the case of the Orthodox Churches over the infallible teaching against contraception, denial of the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception, and the permission of divorce and remarriage.

1. The teaching on contraception, if you’re talking about Humanae vitae, does NOT meet the criteria established for it being an infallible statment. (I’m saying nothing about contraception itself here.)
2. Immaculate Conception, as defined by Pius IX, for the Orthodox implies a false understanding about original sin.
3. The Catholic Church gives permission for divorce and remarriage, too, only Latin canonists use the legal fiction called “declaration of nullity.”

 

[sidbrown]

1. The teaching on contraception, if you’re talking about Humanae vitae, does NOT meet the criteria established for it being an infallible statment. (I’m saying nothing about contraception itself here.)
2. Immaculate Conception, as defined by Pius IX, for the Orthodox implies a false understanding about original sin.
3. The Catholic Church gives permission for divorce and remarriage, too, only Latin canonists use the legal fiction called “declaration of nullity.”

OK.
However, with reference to #2 and original sin, could you expand somewhat or provide a link which explains the difference between the concept of original sin as taught by the two Churches.
Thanks

 

[5Loaves]

Dear Marduk-

Dear 5loaves,

Originally Posted by 5Loaves View Post
Purgatory isn’t within the tradition of ECCs.

I don’t know, you’ll need to tell me. What you ask is beyond my depth.

As Byzantine Catholics we’d have a similar understanding-- that the souls of those who have fallen asleep need more purification before entering into the presence of God and the prayers we pray for them are of value in that process. We don’t claim something more explicit beyond that, Purgatory isn’t within the tradition of ECCs.

Here’s the whole quote. I welcome being corrected and/or have what I said amplified according to what you’ve asked.

In Christ-
Mary

 

[Abu]

bpbasilphx

1. The teaching on contraception, if you’re talking about Humanae vitae, does NOT meet the criteria established for it being an infallible statment. (I’m saying nothing about contraception itself here.)

1. Immaculate Conception, as defined by Pius IX, for the Orthodox implies a false understanding about original sin.

1. The Catholic Church gives permission for divorce and remarriage, too, only Latin canonists use the legal fiction called “declaration of nullity.”

1. Really? Here, there seems to be enormous disinformation concerning Vatican I and the dogma on papal infallibility, so you can study it at ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papae1.htm #9. Both *Casti Connubii *(Pius XI, 1930) and Humanae Vitae (Paul VI, 1968) teach infallibly against contraception. The former responded to the Anglican confusion and retreat on contraception at their Lambeth Conference in 1930.
2. Fancy trying to tell Christ’s Church what to teach on Original Sin and The Immaculate Conception! That’s why you don’t have the fullness of truth – selfism.
3. As you haven’t a clue on nullity either you could at least avoid spreading disinformation. Despite the fact that some canonists may be dissenters, Christ instituted the primacy and infallibility of His pope precisely to ensure truth and discipline offenders. No outsider can do this!

 

[SyroMalankara]

1. Fancy trying to tell Christ’s Church what to teach on Original Sin and The Immaculate Conception! That’s why you don’t have the fullness of truth – selfism.

The person you are responding to is a Catholic, he is simply stating the Orthodox position. As to Original Sin, the Catholic Church allows for diverse theological opinions - both the Latin and Byzantine are equally acceptable, as are the Alexandrian and Antiochian - the only thing that is declared and binding on all Catholics is that Mary was born grace-filled and without the sin of Adam and Eve by the preliminary action and grace of God.

]3. As you haven’t a clue on nullity either you could at least avoid spreading disinformation. Despite the fact that some canonists may be dissenters, Christ instituted the primacy and infallibility of His pope precisely to ensure truth and discipline offenders. No outsider can do this!

While the practice of ecclesiastical divorce and annulment seem similar on the surface, the theology behind annulment and ecclesiastical divorce are vastly different. As to the infallibility of the Pope, that does NOT apply to declarations of nullity - never has, ask any Canonist.

 

[Abu]

SyroMalankara

1. The person you are responding to is a Catholic

Since bpbasilphx puts his religion as “Orthodox”, how so?

1. As to Original Sin, the Catholic Church allows for diverse theological opinions

The solemn teaching is: that God gave Adam Sanctifying Grace and immunity from death; Adam lost these gifts by his sin, became an enemy of God and slave of the devil; Adam transmitted his guilt and its evil consequences to all his posterity; man still has his free will. (Council of Trent).

“…diverse theological opinions” have no place against dogma.

1. Papal infallibility secures the indissolubility of the Sacrament of Marriage by solemn teaching (Council of Trent) – hence the canon law provided for it….bpbasilphx falsely asserted that “The Catholic Church gives permission for divorce and remarriage” among other disinformation.

BTW, diverse theological opinions presented as comparable to Magisterial teaching have resulted in just about all of the schisms and heresy since the foundation of Christ’s Church.

 

[Madaglan]

Since bpbasilphx puts his religion as “Orthodox”, how so?

The solemn teaching is: that God gave Adam Sanctifying Grace and immunity from death; Adam lost these gifts by his sin, became an enemy of God and slave of the devil; Adam transmitted his guilt and its evil consequences to all his posterity; man still has his free will. (Council of Trent).

“…diverse theological opinions” have no place against dogma.

1. Papal infallibility secures the indissolubility of the Sacrament of Marriage by solemn teaching (Council of Trent) – hence the canon law provided for it….bpbasilphx falsely asserted that “The Catholic Church gives permission for divorce and remarriage” among other disinformation.

BTW, diverse theological opinions presented as comparable to Magisterial teaching have resulted in just about all of the schisms and heresy since the foundation of Christ’s Church.

Some Eastern Catholics understand themselves as “Orthodox in communion with Rome.”

 

[Abu]

Magdaglan
Some Eastern Catholics understand themselves as “Orthodox in communion with Rome.”

Imprecision – lack of clarity – encourages confusion.

To be “in communion with” implies “a common religious faith and practice of the same rites.”

As the faith and mind of Christ are made clear by His institution of primacy and infallibility in faith and morals in His chosen leader St Peter and his successors, so everything that is orthodox (faithful and universal) depends on that fact. Muddying the waters by expressing dissent against this fact and Magisterial teaching, by various opinions (theological or otherwise) distorts the essence of the message.

 

[Ghosty]

The solemn teaching is: that God gave Adam Sanctifying Grace and immunity from death; Adam lost these gifts by his sin, became an enemy of God and slave of the devil; Adam transmitted his guilt and its evil consequences to all his posterity; man still has his free will. (Council of Trent).

This is actually an incorrect rendering of the teaching of Trent. Nowhere does Trent say that Adam’s guilt (culpa) was passed on, but rather that the consequences (reatum) were passed on. In older English guilt could refer to the consequences as well as the guilt of a crime, and hence the translations we have of Trent. The actual Latin does not permit one to conclude that culpability was passed from Adam to his descendants, however.

Peace and God bless!

 

[sidbrown]

1. As you haven’t a clue on nullity either you could at least avoid spreading disinformation. Despite the fact that some canonists may be dissenters, Christ instituted the primacy and infallibility of His pope precisely to ensure truth and discipline offenders. No outsider can do this!

I think that many of us have a clue as to what has been going on with the annulment situation, when we look at the fact that the overwhelming majority (is it 80 or 90%) of those who apply for the annulment will get it approved. The conditions for getting a marriage annulment have been watered down since Vatican II, that is the clue which enlightens our discussion on this issue.

 

[Hesychios]

\Communion is established through and by love. Communion is not equivalent to subjection and submission.\

Amen, Diak!

**When forced to sign the decree … **

What kind of force is not subjection and submission

 

[sidbrown]

1. The teaching on contraception, if you’re talking about Humanae vitae, does NOT meet the criteria established for it being an infallible statment. (I’m saying nothing about contraception itself here.)
2. Immaculate Conception, as defined by Pius IX, for the Orthodox implies a false understanding about original sin.
3. The Catholic Church gives permission for divorce and remarriage, too, only Latin canonists use the legal fiction called “declaration of nullity.”

I am still interested in (2) and the difference between the RC and EO teaching on original sin, and which one is more of an innovation from the teaching in Apostolic times.

 

[tdgesq]

It’s interesting that you write this. I disagree with you on both points, I’m afraid. I believe as the other Orthodox here that St. james indeed had the chief rule at the Council. But that is because the Council of Jerusalem was only a local Council, not an ecumenical one. If you check any contemporary map of the boundaries of the Church during the time of the Jerusalem Council, you may find that it extended far beyond “Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia.” The fact is, the Jerusalem Council was addressing only a local problem.

Yes, I have seen this argument before, but the problem I have with it is that Acts 15 states that the apostles (it appears all of them) and elders with the whole Church consented to the decree:

22Then it seemed good to (AR)the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them to send to (AS)Antioch with Paul and Barnabas–Judas called Barsabbas, and (AT)Silas, leading men among (AU)the brethren,

23and they sent this letter by them, "(AV)The apostles and the brethren who are elders, to (AW)the brethren in (AX)Antioch and (AY)Syria and (AZ)Cilicia who are from the Gentiles, (BA)greetings.

Furthermore, the decree itself - that circumcision is not to be imposed upon the Gentiles - would be relevant to all Gentiles where judaizers may be present. Finally, every Catholic biblical commentary I have read on this subject does not designate this council as purely local.

That St. James was the head of the Jerusalem Council in no way demeans the primacy of Peter among the Apostles. The Church since the earliest times have always held local councils, and the bishop of Rome was certainly not the head of those local councils.

I agree with this, as I expressly indicated when I stated that I had no problem with it if it was a local council. I don’t think it was though, for the reasons stated above. Perhaps the views could be reconciled if it began as a local council and ended as an plenary council. This is certainly not unheard of in the history of Christianity. It would take some analysis to figure out if this is what happened.

 

[Abu]

Ghosty
Nowhere does Trent say that Adam’s guilt (culpa) was passed on, but rather that the consequences (reatum) were passed on. In older English guilt could refer to the consequences as well as the guilt of a crime, and hence the translations we have of Trent. The actual Latin does not permit one to conclude that culpability was passed from Adam to his descendants, however

.

From the English translation of the Latin text of the Creed of the People of God (Paul VI, as published in The Acts of the Apostolic See, 1968), Msgr Eugene Kevane:

1. “ We therefore hold, with the Council of Trent, that original sin is transmitted with human nature, ‘not by imitation, but by propagation’ and that it is thus ‘in each of us as his own’ (See the Council of Trent, Session V, Decree on Original Sin; DS 1513). [See *Creed and Catechetics, Christian Classics, 1978, p 126].

No one may choose to interpret a Magisterial text to their own opinion, in a way contrary to that of the Magisterium and expect to override the Magisterium; of such is the selfism so prevalent in fallen human nature – private opinion. Of such have all the heresies and schisms arisen. So long as Christ’s Magisterium is denigrated, so long will the divisions remain.

As St Paul teaches: “a multitude, through one man’s disobedience, became sinners” (Rom 5:19). Our guilt lies in our human nature received sinful from Adam’s nature.

Similarly: The solemn teaching is: that God gave Adam Sanctifying Grace and immunity from death; Adam lost these gifts by his sin, became an enemy of God and slave of the devil; Adam transmitted his guilt and its evil consequences to all his posterity; man still has his free will. (Council of Trent). [My original citation from* Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, Archbishop Michael Sheehan, revised by Fr Peter Joseph, The Saint Austin Press, 2001, p 360].

Baptism remits the guilt of original sin, that is, human nature in the fallen state resulting from the willful disobedience of Adam and Eve, and incorporates one into the Church founded by Jesus Christ. It infuses sanctifying grace into the soul of the recipient and imparts an indelible character.
Encyclopaedia of Catholic Doctrine, OSV].