Why I am drawn to Orthodoxy in one word

[JohnVIII]

The Catholic Church has attempted to reconcile with the EO on different occasions. The Catholics Church is always reaching out a hand to it’s Eastern brothers. The East continues to refuse.

I read, not too long ago, that there was several Russian bishops that wished to unite with Rome but it didn’t happen because of road-blocks that Rome put in the way. I don’t think your assessment is correct. If Rome made steps to remove road-blocks the only Orthodox that would not return to communion with Rome would be a few die-hards in a few isolated places - probably less than 5% of all the Orthodox.

 

[jam070406]

I read, not too long ago, that there was several Russian bishops that wished to unite with Rome but it didn’t happen because of road-blocks that Rome put in the way. I don’t think your assessment is correct. If Rome made steps to remove road-blocks the only Orthodox that would not return to communion with Rome would be a few die-hards in a few isolated places - probably less than 5% of all the Orthodox.

What were the road-blocks?

 

[bobzills]

As a Catholic who left for Orthodoxy (and is now returning), I can testify that the majority of other ex-Catholics I met were not going towards something they found in Orthodoxy–they were running away from something they didn’t like in Catholicism, whether that was the current state of the Catholic Church in America, the OF Mass, whatever.

This is what I have been trying to point out.

 

[bobzills]

Bob,

I have heard that Fr. Ludwig Ott wrote a book on Catholic Dogmas that you might want to check out. That is, if you are really serious about learning the Faith and are not just looking to pick a fight.

The question was why Catholics may be drawn to Orthodoxy. I have attempted to give an honest answer to this question and now I am being slandered as trying to pick a fight? I don’t see how these type of personal attacks serve to answer the question as to why a Catholic may be drawn to Orthodoxy? See post 256 and 260, if you are sincerely interested in the question.

 

[JohnVIII]

Commentators and historians more able than you or me (e.g., Zonaras, Baronius, Asseman, etc.) have adjudged that if these canons were interpreted according to the manner the modern EOC have done in order to justify its unpatristic “Cyprianic” ecclesiology, then it would cause the Sixth Ecumenical to contradict the First and Second Ecumenical Councils. The correct understanding is the one the Catholic Church gives (in perfect agreement with the First and Second Ecumenical Councils who validated Pope St. Stephen’s teaching, NOT St. Cyprian’s) that there are SOME who are considered heretics whose baptisms are valid, while there are others whose baptisms cannot be accepted and must be rebaptized.

I don’t know how the EO can claim to faithfully preserve Sacred Tradition when they cause Sacred Tradition to contradict itself! :tsktsk:

In any case, not all the canons from Trullo were ever accepted by the Western Churches. If this canon of St. Cyprian is one of the ones not accepted, then please be more exact with your statements and don’t attempt to claim that this canon had ecumenical status.

Blessings,
Marduk.

Was “St.Clement the First” a pope in Succession to St. Peter? Of course he was! The Canons of the Holy Apostles that were approved as valid and true by the 6th Ecumenical Council were those that were also edited and approved by St. Clement, who was also a disciple of St. Peter himself. There are several canons in the Canons of the Holy Apostles that likewise support the view of St. Cyprian. I understand that you cannot except anything from any source if you feel it is not in accord with the majority of the popes, but here are some of the canons I speak of:

CANON 46

We order any Bishop, or Presbyter, that has accepted any heretics’ Baptism, or sacrifice, to be deposed; for “what consonancy hath Christ with Beliar? Or what part hath the believer with infidel?”

CANON 47

If the Bishop, or Presbyter baptize anew anyone that has had a true baptism, or fail to baptize anyone that has been polluted by the impious, let him be deposed, on the ground that he is mocking the Cross and death of the Lord and failing to distinguish priests from pseudopriests.

CANON 68

If any Bishop, or Presbyter, or Deacon except a second ordination from anyone, let him and the one who ordained him be deposed. Unless it be established that his ordination has been performed by heretics. For those who have been baptized or ordained by such persons cannot possibly be either faithful Christians or clergyman.

CANON 50

If any Bishop, or Presbyter does not perform three immersions in making one baptism, but a single immersion, that given into the death of the Lord, let him be deposed. The Lord did not say, “Baptize ye into my death,” but, “Go ye and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”.

I know that there are other canons that seem to contrdict these but the explanation for this apparent contradiction is fully explained by St. Basil the Great by the very first canon by him. I’m not going to quote St. Basil’s first canon right now, maybe later. It’s rather long and I don’t have the time now to type it in. You can look it up youself - but it also supports the view of St. Cyprian as well, as I’m sure you will see.

If perhaps the validation of the Canons of the Holy Apostles by the 6th Ecumenical Counsel is perhaps one of those things the pope didn’t fully validate (I do not know whether it is or not) surely Pope St. Clement excepted it, and since the Canons themselves in one place say “… by me Peter” (see canon 29) it also seems that St. Peter himself is of the same mind as St. Cyprian! :tsktsk: I really don’t see how you can get around this! I think it would be easier to say that those popes who disagreed with St. Cyprian were not speaking infallibly at that time.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother JohnVIII,

I read, not too long ago, that there was several Russian bishops that wished to unite with Rome but it didn’t happen because of road-blocks that Rome put in the way. I don’t think your assessment is correct. If Rome made steps to remove road-blocks the only Orthodox that would not return to communion with Rome would be a few die-hards in a few isolated places - probably less than 5% of all the Orthodox.

Are you referring to the Macedonian Orthodox (who I think used to be part of the USSR)?

From my understanding, the last two Popes have been exceedingly and keenly sensitive to EO concerns about “sheep-stealing.” Explicit statements from the Vatican indicate that at this point in the ecumenical endeavor, CORPORATE reunion is preferable to individual local Church reunions. This would lessen tensions at the local level. I think that is a legitimate pastoral concern, though I’ve noticed (with great sympathy) that my Eastern Catholic brethren feel marginalized when it seems the Holy Father is more concerned about what the EO think rather than give heed to the needs of his own flock.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jam070406]

Was “St.Clement the First” a pope in Succession to St. Peter? Of course he was! The Canons of the Holy Apostles that were approved as valid and true by the 6th Ecumenical Council were those that were also edited and approved by St. Clement, who was also a disciple of St. Peter himself. There are several canons in the Canons of the Holy Apostles that likewise support the view of St. Cyprian. I understand that you cannot except anything from any source if you feel it is not in accord with the majority of the popes, but here are some of the canons I speak of:

I know that there are other canons that seem to contrdict these but the explanation for this apparent contradiction is fully explained by St. Basil the Great by the very first canon by him. I’m not going to quote St. Basil’s first canon right now, maybe later. It’s rather long and I don’t have the time now to type it in. You can look it up youself - but it also supports the view of St. Cyprian as well, as I’m sure you will see.

If perhaps the validation of the Canons of the Holy Apostles by the 6th Ecumenical Counsel is perhaps one of those things the pope didn’t fully validate (I do not know whether it is or not) surely Pope St. Clement excepted it, and since the Canons themselves in one place say “… by me Peter” (see canon 29) it also seems that St. Peter himself is of the same mind as St. Cyprian! :tsktsk: I really don’t see how you can get around this! I think it would be easier to say that those popes who disagreed with St. Cyprian were not speaking infallibly at that time.

Is a Heretic’s baptism the same as a valid baptism performed by a Heretic?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother JohnVIII,

Was “St.Clement the First” a pope in Succession to St. Peter? Of course he was! The Canons of the Holy Apostles that were approved as valid and true by the 6th Ecumenical Council were those that were also edited and approved by St. Clement, who was also a disciple of St. Peter himself. There are several canons in the Canons of the Holy Apostles that likewise support the view of St. Cyprian. I understand that you cannot except anything from any source if you feel it is not in accord with the majority of the popes, but here are some of the canons I speak of:

No, the Canons support the Catholic view that SOME heretics need to be baptized, while there are those whose baptisms are acceptable.

I know that there are other canons that seem to contrdict these but the explanation for this apparent contradiction is fully explained by St. Basil the Great by the very first canon by him. I’m not going to quote St. Basil’s first canon right now, maybe later. It’s rather long and I don’t have the time now to type it in. You can look it up youself - but it also supports the view of St. Cyprian as well, as I’m sure you will see.

I had a thorough discussion on the matter here last month (IIRC) on the matter of St. Basil’s support of Cyprianic ecclesiology. It was proven that the EO claim of St. Basil’s support depends on a selective quotation of his letter (and its abridged form which constitutes St. Basil’s canon 1) wrenched out of context. A reading of the ENTIRE letter proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that St. Basil supported Pope St. Stephen’s position to the letter. Feel free to discuss it. It would be a good refresher for the readers here.

Indeed, there is no contradiction between the Catholic position and all the canons. There is a contradiction, however, between St. Cyprian’s very strict view and all the canons (except the singular one that bears his name, of course).

If perhaps the validation of the Canons of the Holy Apostles by the 6th Ecumenical Counsel is perhaps one of those things the pope didn’t fully validate (I do not know whether it is or not) surely Pope St. Clement excepted it, and since the Canons themselves in one place say “… by me Peter” (see canon 29) it also seems that St. Peter himself is of the same mind as St. Cyprian! :tsktsk: I really don’t see how you can get around this! I think it would be easier to say that those popes who disagreed with St. Cyprian were not speaking infallibly at that time.

The Catholic Church’s rejection of some canons from the Trullan Council was not en toto. Only the ones which were clearly intended out of “hatred” for the Latin Church.

I also want to make it clear, more for readers’ benefit rather than your own (since I’m sure you are already aware of the fact)- People should be discerning of the fact that the Trullan Council was NOT part of the proceedings of the Sixth Ecumenical Council. It was a convention that occurred about 12 years later. The Easterns wanted it appended to the Sixth Ecum Council wholesale, but the Westerns would not accept some of the Canons from the Trullan Council. Whatever canons that the Westerns rejected was not from the Sixth Ecum Council proper, but rather from the Trullan Council. When the EO speak of the “the Sixth Ecum Council,” they intend BOTH the Sixth Ecum Council proper AND the Council of Trullo. When the Westerns speak of the Sixth Ecum Council, they intend only the Sixth Ecum Council proper.

The Latins have generally regarded the Apostolic Canons as spurious, NOT out of a disregard for its holy contents, but only and merely because the Latins were not certain of the origins of the Canons. Easterns and Orientals, on the other hand, have greater confidence that the Canons are truly apostolic.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother JohnVIII,

If you want to discuss St. Basil’s letter, may I suggest we do it in a new thread?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Volodymyr_988]

The question was why Catholics may be drawn to Orthodoxy. I have attempted to give an honest answer to this question and now I am being slandered as trying to pick a fight? I don’t see how these type of personal attacks serve to answer the question as to why a Catholic may be drawn to Orthodoxy? See post 256 and 260, if you are sincerely interested in the question.

I suggested that you pick up Fr. Ott’s book if you wanted to know what the Dogmas of the Catholic Faith are and you are indeed not just picking a fight. No slander was implied.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

The Eastern Catholic Churches are not given any respect in the Catholic Church. Their traditions are balked at and suppressed and are told to “submit to Rome” which is NOT how the Church was set up in the first millenium. They cannot express their true theology and spirituality because of Rome imposing dogmatic proclamations on them that they are forced to believe. It’s really rather sad, actually.

Where have you been since the Second Vatican Council?

(And by the way, why do you find it inaccurate to speak of the Eastern rites of the Catholic Church? I mean, they’re not separate churches.)

 

[Addai]

Where have you been since the Second Vatican Council?

(And by the way, why do you find it inaccurate to speak of the Eastern rites of the Catholic Church? I mean, they’re not separate churches.)

actually they are Churches in their own right. They not only have their own liturgy, but they have their own Canonical Law, Tradition and Theology, and seminaries and other institutions. Churches is the right term and the Catholic Church has advised to stop referring them as “rites”.

Eastern rites is a bad term because it it implies the Eastern Churches differences with the Western Church are only stylistic in Liturgy and not in Philosophy, Culture as well as their own autonomy or semi-autonomy.

 

[Madaglan]

actually they are Churches in their own right. They not only have their own liturgy, but they have their own Canonical Law, Tradition and Theology, and seminaries and other institutions. Churches is the right term and the Catholic Church has advised to stop referring them as “rites”.

Eastern rites is a bad term because it it implies the Eastern Churches differences with the Western Church are only stylistic in Liturgy and not in Philosophy, Culture as well as their own autonomy or semi-autonomy.

Just a quick question. Why does the Latin Church, one Church in the Catholic communion, have its own Canon Law, while the other 22-some *sui iurus *Churches of various backgrounds, all share one uniform Canon Law? Are the differentiations amongst the Eastern Catholic sui iurus Churches not such as to warrant a different Canon Law for each major tradition (e.g. Byzantine, Coptic, West Syrian, East Syrian)?

 

[Ghosty]

Just a quick question. Why does the Latin Church, one Church in the Catholic communion, have its own Canon Law, while the other 22-some *sui iurus *Churches of various backgrounds, all share one uniform Canon Law? Are the differentiations amongst the Eastern Catholic sui iurus Churches not such as to warrant a different Canon Law for each major tradition (e.g. Byzantine, Coptic, West Syrian, East Syrian)?

They don’t have just one Canon Law, and the Eastern Code of Canons makes this clear. The Eastern Code of Canons is simply the general stuff, which is why it’s much, much smaller than the Latin Code of Canon Law.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Aramis]

To expand Ghosty’s incomplete thought:

The CCEO is the common elements, and the individual elements are defined in particular law of each church sui iuris.

Therefore, there are (in theory) specific codes for each Church Sui Iuris. I know that the Ruthenian, Ukrainian, and Romanian Churches each have specific particular canon law.

 

[mardukm]

I would also add that each Eastern and Oriental Church has inherited the canon laws already extant from its patrimony.

For instance, the Latins generally reject the ancient Apostolic canons as spurious, not because it rejects its holy contents, but because they are not certain of its authorship. In contrast, Easterns and Orientals are generally more certain of their apostolic authorship, and accept it fully as part of our canon laws.

Again, the Easterns specifically have as part of its canonical patrimony the Trullan Canons. On the other hand, the Latins don’t have it, nor do the Orientals.

The only mitigation from the new Codes is that nothing retained may contradict the new Codes. Thus, for example, some of the Trullan canons would need to be rejected, especially those that demonstrated a disrespect for the genuine Traditions of other Churches - e.g., some particularly anti-Latin canons, or another canon that sought to destroy the Armenian Tradition of using unleavened bread.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

actually they are Churches in their own right. They not only have their own liturgy, but they have their own Canonical Law, Tradition and Theology, and seminaries and other institutions. Churches is the right term and the Catholic Church has advised to stop referring them as “rites”.

Eastern rites is a bad term because it it implies the Eastern Churches differences with the Western Church are only stylistic in Liturgy and not in Philosophy, Culture as well as their own autonomy or semi-autonomy.

That all makes sense. Still, could you help me clear up a bit of confusion? I have a couple more questions.

Firstly, this is the first I’ve heard that the term “rites” is misleading and should therefore be avoided. That may be because most of my sources are Latin, but that leaves me with the general impression that Latin theologians and authorities are okay with the term but eastern Catholic theologians and authorities are not. Is that impression valid? If so, is that because the Latin church is so huge that it doesn’t really need its autonomy made clear to the rest of the world, and therefore they don’t care about something which would minimize their uniqueness? If not, why haven’t I encountered this terminology change in Latin sources that I read, or from my visit to a Melkite Catholic church in my area (I attended a program there for Latin Catholics that was designed to introduce them to the great diversity within the Catholic Church)?

Secondly, I realize and fully embrace that eastern Catholics and Latin Catholics do not have merely stylistic differences, but also in their canon law, theology, culture, philosophy, liturgy, devotional practices, etc. But why, theologically speaking, does it follow that they are in some sense to be considered separate “churches” because of this? Is not the Catholic Church in some sense one universal (“catholic”) church that includes great diversity in its traditions, liturgy, and theology and is in no way exclusive to the Latin way of doing things? Why shouldn’t we emphasize our unity? Why, theologically speaking, is it a threat to the Catholic Church’s catholicity to speak of different “rites” within one church?

Thirdly, you stated that the Catholic Church has advised its members not to refer to the eastern “churches” in union with Rome as “rites.” Could you point me to the document which states that so I could read it for myself, and also help me understand it with a brief explanation of your own as to why the Catholic Church felt the need to say that? Also, I’m curious as to when the document was released. If it was relatively recently, then I probably did just miss it.

Please make sure to address all three paragraphs/questions separately, because I feel they are separate questions and I really am curious to learn more.

To anyone who answers me: THANK YOU for taking the time to do so.

 

[Ghosty]

Firstly: The term “rite” is fine, but only in its appropriate context. For example the Melkite Church is not the “Melkite Rite”, but rather it is the Melkite Church which uses the Byzantine Rite.

One of the key reasons for this distinction, and for insisting that the Eastern Churches not be called the “Eastern Rites”, is that a Rite doesn’t make for a distinct hierarchy, but a Church does. For example, the Ukrainians and the Melkites have distinct hierarchies, as in they don’t share priests and bishops, and have their own Synods and such, even though they share the same Rite. On the other hand, you can have more than one Rite within a single Church, as is the case with the Latin Church which has a number of Rites but only one hierarchy.

As for why your Latin sources wouldn’t have embraced this terminology, I would imagine it’s just from ignorance or habit in most cases. This is the terminology of the Vatican and of Canon Law, so any other uses are merely mistakes.

Secondly: I’m not sure I understand this question. There’s no threat to unity by speaking of different Rites in the Church; heck, there’s no threat to unity by speaking of different Rites and theologies within just the Latin Church (the Dominican Rite and theology versus Franciscan theology or the Mozarabic Rite, for example). The term Church can be used for the entire Catholic Communion, and for particular Church hierarchies within it, such as the Latin and the Melkite.

Perhaps you’ve misunderstood the objection to the use of the term “Rite” in an inappropriate context to mean a general rejection of the term all together? Rite is a fine term, and is used all the time throughout the Catholic Church, it just has a very specific meaning and should be used appropriately.

Thirdly: I personally don’t know of any official document addressing this, I only know of how official documents refer to the Eastern Churches, and that’s as Churches and not Rites. The term Rite is defined by Canon Law, and can be found here in the Eastern Code of Canons and the definition of Church is found here. As you can see from the definitions, they are distinct terms with specific meanings, and not interchangeable.

Hope that helps! Peace and God bless!

 

[mardukm]

Secondly, I realize and fully embrace that eastern Catholics and Latin Catholics do not have merely stylistic differences, but also in their canon law, theology, culture, philosophy, liturgy, devotional practices, etc. But why, theologically speaking, does it follow that they are in some sense to be considered separate “churches” because of this? Is not the Catholic Church in some sense one universal (“catholic”) church that includes great diversity in its traditions, liturgy, and theology and is in no way exclusive to the Latin way of doing things? Why shouldn’t we emphasize our unity? Why, theologically speaking, is it a threat to the Catholic Church’s catholicity to speak of different “rites” within one church?

Magisterial documents teach us that the fullness of the Church inheres in each particular or local Church. I hope that partially answers your questions, aside from Ghosty’s great replies.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Madaglan]

They don’t have just one Canon Law, and the Eastern Code of Canons makes this clear. The Eastern Code of Canons is simply the general stuff, which is why it’s much, much smaller than the Latin Code of Canon Law.

Peace and God bless!

Ok, thanks for this clarification.