www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West New UGCC Catechism Reaffirms Papal Infallibility?

It is the case that the Melkites tend to be much more ambiguous in terms of defining what they believe and we shouldn't expect anything similar to the UGCC catechism emanating from the Melkite Church any time soon, if ever. The Zoghby initiative, truth be told, came from Zoghby. It does not reflect the official position of the Melkite Patriarchate and it was rejected by Rome.

Our Brother Todd's assertion that one can be a member of an Eastern Catholic Church and, at the same time, regard the papal dogmas as being "erroneous" is simply incorrect.

Brother Todd has, by this confession, already placed himself spiritually within the Communion of Orthodoxy - not that there's anything wrong with that. One cannot be an Eastern Catholic or Orthodox in communion with Rome and regard the papal dogmas (however we, as Eastern Catholics, wish to recast them within our own spiritual ethos)as being erroneous. That position breaks our communion with Rome, as per Rome's teaching itself.

It does not state that it is under direct control, or subject to, or less than, but full communion.

And this is where things get interesting, because "communion", by its nature, is a reciprocal relationship. One side does not get to set the terms of the communion unilaterally, for that is not communion, but submission. But communion is a form of love, and in love, each party submits to the other.

In the last years of John's pontificate there arose a dogmatic conflict about the Beatific Vision, which was brought on by himself, and which his enemies made use of to discredit him. Before his elevation to the Holy See, he had written a work on this question, in which he stated that the souls of the blessed departed do not see God until after the Last Judgment. After becoming pope, he advanced the same teaching in his sermons. In this he met with strong opposition, many theologians, who adhered to the usual opinion that the blessed departed did see God before the Resurrection of the Body and the Last Judgment, even calling his view heretical. A great commotion was aroused in the University of Paris when the General of the Minorites and a Dominican tried to disseminate there the pope's view. Pope John wrote to King Philip IV on the matter (November, 1333), and emphasized the fact that, as long as the Holy See had not given a decision, the theologians enjoyed perfect freedom in this matter. In December, 1333, the theologians at Paris, after a consultation on the question, decided in favour of the doctrine that the souls of the blessed departed saw God immediately after death or after their complete purification; at the same time they pointed out that the pope had given no decision on this question but only advanced his personal opinion, and now petitioned the pope to confirm their decision. John appointed a commission at Avignon to study the writings of the Fathers, and to discuss further the disputed question. In a consistory held on 3 January, 1334, the pope explicitly declared that he had never meant to teach aught contrary to Holy Scripture or the rule of faith and in fact had not intended to give any decision whatever. Before his death he withdrew his former opinion, and declared his belief that souls separated from their bodies enjoyed in heaven the Beatific Vision.

And this is where things get interesting, because "communion", by its nature, is a reciprocal relationship. One side does not get to set the terms of the communion unilaterally, for that is not communion, but submission. But communion is a form of love, and in love, each party submits to the other.

It seems that he preached that as a private opinion but never taught it formally as dogma. I am not butting my nose in here to say one way or another about papal infallibility, but just to fact check, if you will, this quote and find it wanting in saying Pope John XXII declared and commanded. He did teach but not the latter two as far as I can tell. If one wants to present counterevidence for this proposed statement, I would be curious to see it.

Kyrie eleison,

Manuel

Carson's ecclesiology is faulty. The Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church is a "Metropolitan" Church sui juris, which means it is autonomous and does not answer to any patriarch. The Metropolitan Archbishop of Pittsburgh is the primate of the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church, not the Bishop of Rome.

Let me ask this one question, why then does the Ruthenian Church need the Popes approval for a new Metropolitan? Because that IS what we waiting for. Now, I believe that that as a particular church we shouldn't need Papal approval for our Metropolitan but this is our reality. Isn't it?

Canon 155

1. A metropolitan Church sui iuris is presided over by a metropolitan of a determined see who is appointed by the Roman Pontiff and assisted by a council of hierarchs according to the
norm of law.

2. It is solely the right of the supreme authority of the Church to erect, modify, suppress and define the territorial boundaries of metropolitan Churches sui iuris.

The next time I see our metropolitan, if we ever get another, I will make sure to address him as a Patriarch.

at least we have a pretty liturgy even if we aren't connected to the Apostolic Church.