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

Eastern Rite Catholics were all Orthodox as some point (except Marionites) and then re-established communion with the Roman Pontiff. If you do not agree with the decision of your forfathers no longer wish to maintain this communion then the Orthodox community would love to have you back. Better to be a schismatic than a heretic in my opinion!

I have also noticied that many former-Protestants that convert to Orthodoxy still harbor the Anti-Roman sentiments that they were indoctrinated with as Protestants. I pray that these individuals can free themselves of this evil and accept the successor of Peter as the true leader of the Christian Church.

It seems like while for example someone like Hans Kung might be right or respectively wrong in relation with his standing toward roman catholicism, one cannot come up and tell him that he is richly or poorly catechised!!!!

Respectively, Apotheoun might be right or wrong, but to say to him that he is poorly catechised, one has to be more serious than that.

I find catechism good enogh at quietly accepting in a simple way the teaching of the church, roman catholic or orthodox. There are themes and issues which cannot be covered by simple catechitical descriptions and it's not a matter of accepting or refusing church authority when one is not satisfied by that.

One gets pretty tired of people telling other people what they must or must not do.

I'll address to you again my challenge to back up your position with Church documents supporting that you are not 'required' to do this. Your position is appealing, but evidence free thus far.

Otsheylnik,

I think an Eastern Catholic who takes the "Orthodox in communion with Rome" perspective could make the case that their beliefs on the Assumption are complementary to the Roman view. It's a bit more problematic about the Immaculate Conception as Orthodoxy allows some divergence of views on when the Theotokos was cleansed. The issues re: Original Sin are also different but one could find a way to resolve them.

I think the bigger problem lies in issues related to the papacy: universal jurisdiction and papal infallibility. These are hard to resolve from the "OicwR" perspective, IMO. As far as I have seen, there is no encouragement in authoritative documents for Eastern Catholics to restore an Eastern perspective on ecclesiology.

One thing to note, there is no one singular "Eastern perspective" on ecclesiology. Even among the Orientals there is variation, not to mention between the individual Oriental Churches and the Eastern Churches.

Stuart,

Do you have a link to it? I tried to find it at melkite.org and couldn't.

Thanks,

The other SK

Aside: Can you restore something that is never extinct, but instead constantly living and evolving?

I think the problem is that somehow people think that Eastern perspective means believing what Orthodox theologians trot out. If that is what being eastern means, then really, just be done with it and become Orthodox.

Eastern is not Orthodox and Catholic is not "not-eastern", but rather there are partisan positions on the eastern tradition, defining eastern to be either compatible with an Orthodox viewpoint (but not a Catholic one) or with a Catholic one (but not an Orthodox one). I think it's quite possible for people to be authentically eastern and to believe the dogmas of the Catholic church. Most (one exception only) of the Russian Catholic Clergy I have known fit that bill. But it's only possible if one's position differs in crucial ways from the Orthodox one. This doesn't make it not eastern, it just makes it not Orthodox.

If you want a Catholic perspective, then that must take into account the dogmas of the Catholic Church regarding infallibility etc. If it rejects them all, it is not a Catholic perspective, it's an Orthodox one. But you can be an easterner holding either.

My point exactly.

So the Orientals no longer accept the ancient teaching (see e.g., St. Ignatius, Smyrnaeans, no. 8) that the whole Catholic Church is present in each local Church? If that is the case I am pleased that I am not an Oriental Catholic.

As a Melkite Catholic I do not accept the later Western Councils (i.e., those held after the Seven Great Councils) as ecumenical. Moreover, I do not accept the theological theories peculiar to the West, e.g., the notion of "created grace," the Augustinian view of the original sin, the theory of the immaculate conception, the theory of papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction, nor do I accept the Western views on predestination as exemplified in St. Augustine or the Scholastics as normative, and in opposition to the Council of Trent I hold that divinity is present in icons and relics, while I simultaneously reject the Tridentine notion that we are justified by a just other than God's own justice, to name just a few things. If Western Catholics have a problem with that . . . such is life.

The Orientals do accept that, yet two particular Fathers (not sure specifically about the others) the "Judge of the Universe" aka the Coptic Pope, and "Chief Patriarch" aka the Syriac Patriarch function as Supreme Heads of the Church, local synods and Conferences generally are rubber stamps and each respective Patriarch can and has removed bishops from their See at will.

In addition to the Orientals, the Church of the East Catholicos also in practice functions similarly. There are bishops synods to discuss these matters, but generally the Catholicos' words carry much more weight and are approved.

Any members of these Churches, I welcome correction if I am incorrect.

All bishops are heads of the Church over which they have been placed by God, and Metropolitans and Patriarchs are additionally the heads of their synods, but there is no "universal" Church existing over and above the local Catholic Churches, nor can a bishop be the head of more than one Church. The one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church exists and is made manifest only through the many local Churches. In other words, the one is many, and the many are individually the one.

That's fine, but in practice this works out differently depending on which Tradition and era one is discussing. In the case of the Orientals, sometimes they seem similar in practice to the Byzantines and others to the Latins.

This leads me to conclude that there is a wavelength in the Tradition Catholic, which varies between the Tradition of each Liturgical Church (theoretically even within each local Church), rather than a pinpoint.

The Melkite Catholic Church is in full communion with the Holy See as part of the worldwide Catholic Church. Moreover, they re-established communion with the Holy See in 1749, which was after the Council of Trent, thereby accepting the teachings of that council and all other councils of the Catholic Church that happened between their break in communion and their subsequent re-establishment of communion. Furthermore, the Melkite Church took part in the Vatican I and Vatican II councils, and while the leadership may have voted against some of the Dogma's that were eventually accepted, they did not break communion after councils and ultimately accepted the authority of the council. Some Latin rite Bishops also voted against the Dogma of Papal Infallibility, but ultimately the counsel spoke and all accepted. This is no different than any other council…a Bishop does not have to vote “yes” on a matter to be bound to accept it if the greater council approves it.

I'm sorry to say but your personal position is not compatible with the Melkite Catholic Church. This is no different than a Latin Rite Catholic who supports abortion rights, gay marriage, and women priests. Either you submit your will to the Church’s teaching authority, or you strand yourself outside the Church. I respect your right to have personal beliefs, but don’t try to claim that your personal beliefs are in anyway compatible with the Melkite Catholic Church.