www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Papacy

hey all,

in what ways do Eastern Catholics and Western Catholics differ on their views on the Papacy?

Peace be with you!

Michael

11-17-2001

Visit the Q&A page on my site, linked to my Orthodox page.

http://oldworldrus.com

Serge,

I was browsing your website for the first time in a few months. What a delight! I encourage people to look in on it from time to time.

I noticed that you have a link to Orthovox which is run by my very good friend Ben Sharpe. He is one of the brightest United Methodist Ministers I know. His vision for the Apostolic Church is astounding coming from a Methodist. I would not be surprised at his eventual conversion.

Dan Lauffer

hey Serge,

thanks Serge for the link. I'm more interested in how Eastern Catholics think though, any idea? or are they basically the same in thinking as the Orthodox regarding the Papacy? I suspect there must be a difference, since the Eastern Catholic accept Communion with Rome but the Orthodox do not. any ideas? thanks in advance!

Peace be with you!

Michael

11-18-2001

The Eastern Catholic Church (Byzantine, Malabar, Syrian, many others) accept the authority of the Pope as Western Catholics do. That's who we are...CATHOLICS. But understand that the Pope of Rome doesn't do much to us because we have our own patriarchs, bishops, etc. But of course if problems arises, that's when we go to the Pope. The Pope is not our Patriarch. So that's why you notice that the Roman Catholic Church has direct authority under the Pope because he is their patriarch.

Typically, I still do not understand why the Orthodox have a "beef" with papacy. I am so frustrated with them because...they think that the Pope is a dictator of all churches...that's not so! If that was true...then why are our priests married, we have our own laws, etc?

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

Slava Isusu Christu!

All CATHOLICS are commanded by Church Law to believe with a sure Faith, under pain of excommunication whether formally or informally, all the teachings of the Catholic Church and that INCLUDES every definition of Trent et al. Again I find, again, it is a matter of sifting the wheat from the chaff when it comes to Catholics of whatever Ritual Church. There will always be dissidents, there will always be disputes, but Catholic teaching is very CLEAR about what must be believed for our salvation and deification. The lack of clarity only began only within the past several decades; whereas: before "the great openness" of the 20th century it was, again, very clear about the position of a Catholic in relation to the teachings of Rome

The apostolate of the Eastern Catholic Churches was and is to translate the teachings of Rome into their Eastern equivalent and if there is not one, then we must take the Latin terms and definitions. That is the way it is in every Ritual Church.

I think there needs to be an open honesty about our relationship with the Orthodox, our true relationship. And that relationship historically has been and is to offer them a Catholic Church to enter into that corresponds with their ethnic traditions and Orthodox Church. We are not actively converting Orthodox, but the historical mandate is still there to do so. And the liberal window period that afflicated the Latin Church has had its day; and as the old liberal clergy and religious die off we are seeing a new generation of conservative Catholic bishops, priests and nuns. One thing I believe we will witness in the next 100 years is a total removal of all abuses in the Latin Church as well as a restoration of traditional Latin theology and a very conservative theological interpretation of Vatican II. That means, as was seen in Ratzinger's "The Lord Jesus", a return to a more traditional ecclesiology of the Catholic Church. These ecumenical fads will pass and many already have, such as the idea of "Sister Churches."

What of the statement of the first Vatican Council that "...all the faithful of Christ must believe 'that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold primacy over the whole world', and that the Pontiff of Rome himself is the successor of blessed Peter, the chief of the Apostles, and is the true Vicar of Christ and head of the whole Church and Faith, teacher of all Christians...this is the doctrine of Catholic truth from which no one can deviate and keep HIS FAITH AND SALVATION..."(Dogmatic constitution on the Church, Vatican I, 1870).

I mean give me a break - that was just in 1870 and Vatican II supported that statement as well, so anyone saying we don't have to believe these decrees are not Catholics, but are already out of communion with the Holy See in their hearts. You will hear alot of diatribes even from so-called Eastern Catholics "disputing" and "arguing" over things that are not even debatable such as Papal Primacy and Infallibility et al. Again trying to "re-work" the contraversial Catholic Dogmas to suit the Orthodox or Protesants is not only academically immoral and unethical, but also puts those who propagate such sophistries in grave sin and "by that very fact" out of communion with the Catholic Church.

I really have to side with Spdundas on this matter. The Orthodox are in Jurisdictional chaos now and many of them are pointing their fingers at us I mean come on now at least, we have our ducks in a row in the area of the manifestation of clear organic unity. We have centralized unity, based upon the Papal form of government, whereas the Orthodox have to form such entities like SCOBA to get some semblance of unity excluding other independents like ROCOR et al because they are not in step with the current ecumenist party line. And of course I do not need to mention contraception and "case by case" scenario abortions

Here's another thing the traditional Catholic mentality about the Church is that there is an Eastern Catholic Church and a Western Catholic Church; now over time the East and the West seperated over political and religious reasons, but some Eastern Catholics stayed with, or were reconiled, to the Church of Rome, which is the "Mother if all Churches." The Churches of the East, the dissident Eastern and Oriental Churches, that were not in communion with Rome took upon themselves the name Orthodox to some how differentiate themselves from the Roman Church, which they considered heterodox. So Eastern Catholic Churches, in the traditional Catholic sense, are in actuality the Mother Churches for all the Orthodox Churches, not visa versa. For instance, since Byzantine-Ruthenian Catholics do not have a Patriarch appointed for them by the Pontiff, His Holiness is our Patriarch as it is listed in the Catholic Directory. So although there is not much that seperates the dissidents from Rome that "little bit" is the stumbling block for them. And I do not see Rome recanting of all the infallible Papal pronouncements of the Middle Ages until now to satisfy the Orthodox, for that would be a total admission that Rome had lost the Faith, or that the Pope and the Roman Curia has gone into total apostasy and that will never happen.

Again Catholics who know their Faith should not be afraid to evangelize, and from the very beginning our Churches were called to bring people to unity with the Holy Father; once we stop doing that we will die out, just like any other Church that does not have the missionary mindset. It is common sense that most people will not come to the Church the Church has to come to them; we must reach out and in this era in which we live, especially the new generation of traditional minded young people, they want to know what makes us different not what makes us the same. They want to know why they should remain Catholics, and that "why" is found in emphasizing our uniqueness and our theological differences with the other Churches. I am 25 years old and am a part of what some people call "(GT) generation tradition" We are the generation who saw the theological hollowness and liberal superficiality of the previous generations of ashram participants, treehuggers, and WomanChurch adherants. We are the generation who want Tradition, who want what our parents and grandparents wanted to flush down the toilet of history. So you will have to forgive me I am a part of that new generation of bold Catholics who will be running the Church 10 and 20 years from now Catholic Tradition Rocks!

Yours joyfully in Christ,


Chief Among Sinners, Robert

Michael, you're welcome and I should have read your question more carefully.

Dan, thanks!

Spdundas, the Byzantine Catholics I know would not say "exactly like Western Catholics' but your explanation otherwise is very good. As head of all Catholicism, as vicar of Christ, yes, the Pope is seen by all Catholics the same way. But as you point out, he is not your patriarch so ideally the Pope really wouldn't do much in your Churches, kind of like how George Bush doesn't preside over your local city council meeting. But in practice and historically your Churches were treated like literal parts of the Roman one (as "rites' of it) and were subject to sometimes major alteration called latinization.

Robert, I know this is a Catholic forum and understand your being down on the Orthodox, based on where you are now, but this part of the thread tests my charity, even though I hope you are right about GT (your generation may well take your Church back), the liberals dying out and the great restoration in the Latin Church. I've often said the same thing on that. But I don't know of any authoritative Byzantine Catholic voices today who say their goal is to replace the Orthodox. And the sister-Churches thing isn't liberalism. We could be your best friends in the job of rolling away liberalism... like my Orthodox page says. I know where you're coming from, but I have known conservative and traditionalist Romans who are very interested in and sympathetic to the Orthodox as possible coalition partners in this endeavour.

The trouble with what you propose, Robert, is that it assumes as a given that the Roman Church is superior. You say the job of your Churches is to present Roman teaching — what about Catholic teaching, which is both and neither Roman, Byzantine, Coptic, etc.? — and where the Roman teaching is untranslatable in Eastern terms, adopt the Roman one whole. If all the Churches of the Catholic communion are equal, the only difference being the Pope coincidentally is usually the Roman patriarch as well, then what you describe, if it's how things really are, is a big contradiction and automatically unfair to the Eastern Churches. (That, Robert, Spdundas and Orthodox Convert?, is, I think, my big difference with the current setup of the papacy.)

I've addressed Orthodoxy and contraception and abortion, and the jurisdiction issue, on Orthodox Convert?'s thread. I will admit as I did on an old, now gone thread, that I am very, very disappointed in the massive, deafening silence and indifference to prolife among too many Orthodox. But I am happy where I am.

The use of the term "Catholic' as a moniker for the Latin Church and "Orthodox' for the Church in the Roman Empire*, or as we call it today, the Byzantine Church, is pre-Schism. Back then, the one Church was made of Churches, and there were Eastern ones and a Western one.

*As it called itself, because it was in fact a continuation of the Roman Empire, only with its capital moved — for centuries, Orthodox called themselves "Romans'! (Greek Romaioi; the Turks called them Rum.) Even though they spoke Greek, which always was the unifying and trade language in the eastern parts of the Empire (which is why the New Testament is written in it and not Latin).

http://oldworldrus.com

Slava Isusu Christu!

How's it going? Just to comment on a few of the things that you mentioned Serge. I am not down of the Orthodox people nor their Churches, having been a Chrismated member of the OCA I was once Orthodox and understand both sides of the picture. I also did not mean to test your charity And I think I am pretty right about those of my generation who have discovered the Grace that flows from sacredotal Tradition. Now about "authoritative Voices"; that is "in the works" as you know in the Greek Catholic Church. So far we only have one side being shown, the side that presents Greek Catholicism as a movement to bring the Roman Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches into full Communion which will result in the handing over of our parishes, clergy et al to that corresponding Orthodox Jurisdiction, ACROD maybe?

We hear many promoting that persepective, but the traditional Catholic thesis that the Greek Catholic Churches are the Mother Churches for the Orthodox, and that the primary mission of those Churches is to convert them, what of it? Now there are some SSPX thinkers out there, who are in schism, and saying what the Church has declared regarding the Eastern Churches, but what of those in good standing who have a fully Catholic mentality in union with our Holy Father?

I think that there is room for two or more options to the more recent theology regarding the our ecumenical role. I also recognize that there is liberalism not only amongst Catholic theologians and faithful, but also among the Orthodox. And I am wondering, since Eastern Catholics have all that Orthodox have in the areas of praxis, spirituality et al, why it is needed for the Orthodox to be our "best friends" in expunging liberalism and modernism?

I also recognize that at the Ecumenical, I believe them to be so, Councils convened by the Popes after the so-called Great Schism there was a noticable lack of an Eastern Voice in the theological debates and decisions, BUT that does not mean they were not inspired of the Holy Spirit or that they are not applicable to Greek Catholics. Again we are to take them, apply them to our lives and transfer them into an Eastern theological language. The role of our Churches in presenting the teachings of the Pontiffs, the Magisterium, and the doctrinal developement that occured, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, in the Decrees and Canons of the post-seven Ecumenical Councils, is to present them faithfully and to believe them fully.

Our Greek Catholic theologicans have much work to do in regard to working out a faithful and distinct Eastern Catholic theology that focuses on our traditional place in the great Communion of Catholic Churches. I consider myself a traditional Greek Catholic Christian; and since there are very few Greek Catholic thinkers who have worked out a suitable traditional theology, of Eastern Catholic identity, I have had to work one out for my conscience's sake. I inititally did not have a problem with Balamaand theology, but after reading more of the writings of the Popes I had found a MAJOR problem with it.

The Balamaand Agreement is a only accepted by a small minority of Orthodox. Most Orthodox Christians are traditionalist especially in the old Country and would have nothing of it; as a matter of fact most traditional Orthodox view the modern Orthodox as Uniates waiting-to-happen. I would think that the reason why so many Orthodox Patriarchs have a problem with the Holy Father visiting their countries is that they know inside that it would spark Orthodox conversions toward the Catholic Church. There is something about the Holy Father that people need a real longing for a Papa, a Universal Papa They love him because he is a great man of holiness, and when they see him they want what he has. The Holy Father is what brought me back to the Catholic Church from Orthodoxy.

And again the Latin Church is not the Apostolic See or the Church of Rome it is its daughter. The Latin Church follows the Rite of the Church of Rome or the Aposolic See. So when I say "dogmas of the Roman Church" or the Apostolic See, I say what I mean. We are all commanded to believe all of the teachings of the Apostolic See under pain of excommunication, that's the end of the story

It of course must be noted that since the Latin Church is the largest Catholic Church it would obviously have a major affect on the other smaller Catholic Ritual Churches, I mean that is just common sense and it is historical as well. Latinizations...oooh you think I were talking about the devil. Give me a break; if a Latin Catholic wants to have an ikon corner and pray all the Kanons and akathists then he or she has free go at it; and if a Ruthenian Catholic like myself wants to have statues all over my house and pray all the novenas I can get my hands on then I will, because it is my RIGHT to do so; because all these pious customs and traditions are the heritage of the ENTIRE Church of Christ.

I have seen Latin Catholic Churches full of ikons, I mean even to point that they look Eastern Catholic, but they are not are they? And if a Greek Catholic Church wants to have statues and have Rosary before "Mass" then that is ok by me. And believe me it happens as we all know if the East Coast. Now has Rome mandated a movement toward authentic renewal, yes, just as that renewal was mandated for the Latin Church at Vatican II. That renewal is an organic process and some parishes have done it quite well and some haven't. But I think we should not trash 400 years of liturgical developments since our re-union with Rome. Like benediction of the Holy Mysteries I think there is nothing wrong with our Faithful asking their priest to do this (Are you gasping yet) I had seen a Ruthenian rite for it many years ago in Slavonic, with pictures, and I thought is was wonderful. Intersharing of customs and traditions is different than imposed latinization.

So to sum it up... All Catholic Churches are equal... we must all believe the teachings of the Church of Rome and apply them in light of our individual Ritual Church patrimony...I am not down on the Orthodox having been one...We need traditional Greek Catholic theologians faithful to the teaching of the Popes and Councils of the Catholic Church developing a much needed official position for us amongst the Orthodox dissidents or "seperated bretheren" ...And I think Byzantine Benediction is pretty nifty and that interchanges of traditions are fine since they are not mandated.

Thank you again for your informative website and God bless.

Sincerely in the Theotokos:

Robert, Chief Among Sinners

[ 11-18-2001: Message edited by: Robert Horwath ]

Robert Horwath,

You may side with me on views of papacy, but I do not side with you because of what you stated, you are mistaken. The Byzantine Catholic Church are not bound under all Roman Catholic councils such as Trent, etc. (Some, but not all). Absolutely not!!! Even we are NOT required to believe in Purgatory.

I have a beef with your superiority attitude towards Orthodox and Byzantine Catholic. The Roman Catholic Church is NOT superior than all Churches. The Roman Church is NOT the model of all Churches, theologically, spirituality and culturally. It never was and it never will. Don't you forget that.

The Churches of the East is truly the mother of all Churches. Even Pope John Paul stated so in his aposotlic letter, Lumen Orientale. The Eastern Church is the founder of Christianity, but Rome is the chief patriarchate because of Primacy of St. Peter.

I have to side with Serge on this one. I'm very dissappointed in you, Robert Horwath. I don't care if you're traditional or not, if you're young or not, you are mistaken.

I just thank God that the Byzantine Churches and other Eastern Churches are not affected by the so-called Roman Catholic councils such as Trent, Vatican II, etc. You guys have your own problems and don't try to drag us into solving your problems (abuses, etc.).

Byzantine Church maybe considered to outsiders like you to be "traditional" but to us, we are not traditional or liberal. We are exactly what we are supposed to be.

The Catholic Church is communion of churches, all having their own spirituality, theology, culture, rites, laws, etc. are all of equal dignity but NONE are superior than other.

spdundas

Slava Isusu Christu!

Oh my gosh...slow down passionate one. I am not an outsider I was fully received into the Byzantine Catholic Church by Baptism, Chrismation and Eucharist. I am very Eastern and very devout and very committed to my Byzantine Catholic Faith. And again I never stated that the Latin Church was superior to the other Catholic Churches...read my post again

It is right there in the Canons that we are obliged to believe all of the teaching of the Catholic Church under pain of excommunication. I didn't write it nor did I inspire it, the Holy Spirit did. And of course we should also want to obey the laws of the Church as the laws of God. Over and over again in Church documents it has been constantly re-iterated that the Catholic Church lacks nothing to complete Her unity; she has full and perfect unity, so the only traditional perspective to have in regard to the Orthodox is evangelization.

And in regards to who is the Mother of all the Churches; well the Holy Father in Orientale Lumen was addressing that the Church began in the East i.e. Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost. And the Church has consistently declared in the past and at Vatican II that the Church of Rome, the Apostolic See, the First See among them all in honor, is the Mother of all the Churches in union with Her and for example that includes the Latin Church which as I mentioned before is the daughter of the Church of Rome.

The Holy Father cannot undue Catholic Dogma or doctrine that is not in his power, he only has the power to confirm it not make a new doctrine or declare a previous Dogma in error; he can change discipline, but not Dogma. So we can talk about Sister Churches et al all we want, the facts and the thousands of pages of Decrees, Canons, documents of the Catholic Church cannot be conveniently thrown in some closet somewhere and ignored. The blood of the Greek Catholic martyrs cannot be ignored either! They died for unity with the Pope not for a false ecumenism; they showed us how to be loyal to Rome, can we follow their example?

And what's this nonsense about Rome saying Byzantines don't have to believe in purgatory; then why were we able to receive indulgences during the Jubilee 2000 Holy Year? Huh? And why did our bishops offer them to us in the Holy Father's Name? So don't tell me we do not believe in purgatory or that Rome doesn't oblige us to believe it as if it were one of those pick and choose Dogmas of the Faith.

I will not abandon my Catholic faith nor will I abondon my Eastern traditions because someone wants to put me in an Orthodox box, sorry my friend.

Sincerely in Christ,

Chief Among Sinners, Robert

[ 11-18-2001: Message edited by: Robert Horwath ]

Robert,

I do not believe that a 25 year old, who could have been Orthodox for a few months or a couple of years at the most, understands Orthodoxy or the Orthodox point of view. That type of comprehension can only come from many years, even a lifetime, living an active and conscious life within a community of Orthodox. Frankly, it is even better to be born into an active and knowledgeable Orthodox family.

Not all human beings, who are Christians, either need or want a "papa." I know for certain that the majority of Greek/ Albanian/Macedonian Orthodox do not. However, if one has that type of personality and has that need, then I say, God bless you and seek and find what you need to make you a more stable person and Christian. (BTW: How many times have you been baptized, chrismated, etc.? Were you born Byzantine Catholic?).

I agree with others that Orthodox and Eastern Catholics have a great deal in common, if one means by "common" our Byzantine veneer. On the other hand, His All Holiness, Barthalomeos, Patriarch of Constantinople, is "infallibly" correct when he states that Orthodoxy and Catholicism are organically different and that each of us has evolved from a common ancestor into a unique subspecies of Byzantine Christianity. This truth is very easy to discern once you actually begin to study Orthodox theologians, and especially the Greek Fathers, and compare them to Catholic theologians:the differences are very significant. And Russian theologians certainly are a breed apart from the West or Byzantines with strong links to the West.


I agree with you that ecumenical overtures have outlived their usefulness in our lifetime. Man proposes, but God disposes, and we cannot predict the future. But it is time for us to us withdraw into our unique "ghettos" and begin the work of evangelizing, reforming, and strengthening our respective communities from within, for....."what will be will be."


Tranquility,

Bill

[ 11-18-2001: Message edited by: Psalm 46 ]

Slava Isusu Christu!

Dear Friend:

I will surely take your post under advisement

chuckle chuckle

Thank you for your comments,

Sincerely in Christ,

Robert, Chief Among Sinners

And thank you, Patron Saint of Passive-Aggressive Personalities

Robert, Spdundas (thanks) and Psalm 46 (well put),

the traditional Catholic thesis that the Greek Catholic Churches are the Mother Churches for the Orthodox

Now it's my turn to laugh, Robert. And the Byzantine Catholics I know would guffaw right along. That's kind of like saying a typical female chihuahua is mother to a full-size Great Dane. (Youch.) No, it's the other way round. The Orthodox Churches are a lot bigger than the Byzantine Catholic Churches and the latter are obviously carved out of the former.

I too wonder how long you were Orthodox or what kind of formation you had before chrismation, since you seem really keen to spit into the well from which you once drank.

Ironically, in one Church started in part as a frank attempt to hurt the Orthodox — the tiny, very holy Russian Catholic Church — AFAIK nobody in its three American churches today thinks like you regarding "evangelizing' the Orthodox.

(Uh, Orthodox already ARE evangelized.)

A lot of other Orthodox would put this a lot less charitably that what I write below...

Walt Disney has been described as the scam-meister for tearing down some of California's real mountains, building new ones and charging admission to see them. (Disneyland.)

Setting up little copycat Churches (that turned into half-Roman ones anyway) to try to hurt the Orthodox is ludicrous. And as shown at Balamand, Catholics realize that.

and that the primary mission of those Churches is to convert them, what of it?

Orthodoxy doesn't dogmatize about Churchness or lack thereof outside its communion but Catholicism does, and your present communion teaches we are real Churches with the fullness of faith, only not in Roman form and at the present time not in outward communion with you. The approach you reject — restoration of communion between Churches — is where Catholicism wants to go with this, and soliciting conversions at the other Churches' expense, including creating "Uniate' setups, is counterproductive to this goal.

Now there are some SSPX thinkers out there, who are in schism, and saying what the Church has declared regarding the Eastern Churches, but what of those in good standing who have a fully Catholic mentality in union with our Holy Father?

You seem to sound more like the SSPX, taking potshots at the Orthodox in an attempt to get individual conversions, than a Byzantine Catholic. While the society makes several good points about the problems in the Latin Church, its approach to the East seems muddled, mixing a respect for the rites and cultures with the "Roman equals real Catholic' mentality, trolling for converts and promoting latinization. In the same publication they will write admiringly of a rite, then print a scurrilous attack on the Orthodox whose rite it is.

And I am wondering, since Eastern Catholics have all that Orthodox have in the areas of praxis, spirituality et al, why it is needed for the Orthodox to be our "best friends" in expunging liberalism and modernism?

Some Roman Catholics have the false impression you seem to share: "who needs those "dissidents' anyway when we are complete with our own “little Orthodoxy”?'

Sad to say, partly because of the conditions under which they started and the state they are left in due to latinization, few outside small ecclesiastical circles (like this one) take the Eastern Catholic Churches seriously, perhaps least of all the "Roman means real Catholic' school of thought. Which is why being a serious, really traditional, Orthodox-minded Byzantine Catholic is a kind of martyrdom.

I consider myself a traditional Greek Catholic Christian

I would describe your posts as coming from a conservative Roman Catholic with some Byzantine background. An observation, not a value judgement.

Latinizations...oooh you think I were talking about the devil. Give me a break

Give me a break. When on this thread have I badmouthed Western devotions as such? My point, and the point of the Orthodox-oriented Byzantine Catholics, is one can't live in two or more patrimonies at once. One should dominate at least 50% in one's life (the faith is a whole way of life), and church practice definitely should be all one rite or another. You have a point, however, when it comes to home prayer life. Prayer is prayer. The Rosary, for example, has been used in varying forms by Russian Orthodox historically.

Another thing that's wrong with latinizations historically is they promote the idea that one must imitate the usages of "the Apostolic See' to be really Catholic. Again, it's that whole Rome-is-better thing.

The Orthodox tradition is a package deal that offers the full faith, and doesn't need add-ons from another Church to "make it better'. This is why Byzantine Catholics are delatinizing.

if a Latin Catholic wants to have an ikon corner and pray all the Kanons and akathists then he or she has free go at it

I sympathize and not just because I'm Orthodox. All these practices are true: small-o orthodox, and entirely Catholic. However, to be fair, I'd think the rite one worships with in church would predominate your prayer life at home.

and if a Ruthenian Catholic like myself wants to have statues all over my house and pray all the novenas I can get my hands on then I will, because it is my RIGHT to do so; because all these pious customs and traditions are the heritage of the ENTIRE Church of Christ.


Devotion is a free-form thing (prayer is prayer) but see my note above.

http://oldworldrus.com

[ 11-18-2001: Message edited by: Serge ]

Robert,

You greatly oversimplify the situation of the Eastern Catholic Churches and also make some very disturbing statements. However, I do understand where you are coming from. Raised Roman Catholic, I naturally shared the assumptions you currently have when I joined the Byzantine Church at age 15. However, after 16 years in the Byzantine Church studying our theology, history, and tradition I could not help but shed my assumptions and biases and come to the realization that the East does not need to be anything but faithful to her traditon to be in accord with Rome.

"The apostolate of the Eastern Catholic Churches was and is to translate the teachings of Rome into their Eastern equivalent and if there is not one, then we must take the Latin terms and definitions. That is the way it is in every Ritual Church."

First of all the premise of this statement is false. Do the East and West have different teachings or faiths? While some Orthodox would disagree, I believe the Eastern Catholic response is no. We certainly have different emphases and outlooks and if taken to an extreme fanaticism can make it appear the two are different faiths. However, the truth we procalim as Eastern Catholics is that East and West share one Apostolic Faith that is expressed and lived differently. We have no deficiencies that need corrected by Latin definitions. What does Rome teach that the East does not? Why would we need to translate or use Latin definitions? The uncritical approach you describe can only diminish the Eastern Churches into ritual appendages of the Latin Church.

The Eastern Churches have a duty to guard their tradition in its fullness, even when there is an apparent conflict with the West. Look at the fruit that is produced by such a stance. At Vatican II it was the Eastern Bishops who championed the causes of venacular liturgy, communion under both species, reestablishment of the permanent diaconate and Eucharistic concelebration, the establishment of the Synod of Bishops and the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity for the Latin Church.

How about the statement from the Vatican on the Filioque? The Eastern view of this issue prevailed over Western ones. The Father was affirmed as the only source of the Trinity and the Creed without the Filioque declared normative, while allowing its liturgical use in the Latin Church to continue.

Also look at the very recent agreement between the Assyrian and Chaldean Churches. Most significant was Rome's affirmation of the validity of the Anaphora of Mar Addai and Mari without the Words of Institution as the Latin Church has commonly understood that term. Many Latin theologians were of the opinion that the Assyrian Church would have to insert them before this affirmation.

At the end of the day the only problem is that of Papal jurisdiction and infallibilty. However, I do not see this as doctrinal so much as practical. The concept of infallibility is found in both the East and West. It is the exercise of this charism that is the problem. While remaining loyal to the Pope, I think Eastern Catholics can question if it is necessary for the Pope to exercise this charism in an extraordinary manner as opposed to defering to an Ecumenical Council which is the historically normative form for the exercise of this charism.

In Christ,
Lance, deacon candidate