www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Sister Churches?

Misguided though I may be, I did not infer that the Orthodox were either infidels or pagans. The example I gave was to demonstrate that being loved by God does not give one a greater or equal or lesser claim to the Truth. God loves everyone without regard to the correctness of their beliefs.

If, in fact, Catholicism is not a different religion than Orthodoxy, then why do the Eastern Catholic Churches exist? They are exactly alike to the Orthodox churches as far as rites and traditions go. Is there no difference in faith either? If not, shouldn't all the Eastern Catholic Churches return to Orthodoxy? Or, are you saying they never left Orthodoxy? In which case, was their reunion with the Catholic Church superfluous and meaningless?

I should not go so far as to say that Orthodoxy is similar to other faiths. The differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism are far fewer than the corresponding differences Catholicism has with any other faith. "That which unites us is much greater than that which divides us." But there IS still that which divides us. Mostly there is that ONE issue that divides us, excellently described by Myles. And this one issue IS an issue of faith! Orthodoxy is not Catholicism. "Orthodox Catholic" is a misnomer.

Firstly, forgive my use of the phrase "return to her bosom," which, you will note, was in quotation marks. I was ironically using the words of the interviewer from my original post. But, in another sense, I do mean what I said. If you really don't believe that the Orthodox should be Eastern Catholics, why do you belong to as church that returned to Catholicism from Orthodoxy? Shouldn't you return to the Orthodox Church?

As far as papal triumphalism goes: here, here!

My position does indeed belong to the later Papacy, at least in its explicit expression. I'm afraid your other questions don't seem relevant to me.

All of this being said in honesty and according to my conscience, please understand that I have nothing but love for all Christians. Furthermore, I am willing to admit that my conscience may be misguided, but what choice do I have but to obey its dictates?

Dear JohnRussell,

First of all, congratulations on your Crowning!

Just remember that the wife's crown remains on her head for all time . . .

You've raised enough issues for a book but somehow I don't think the Administrator is into desk-top publishing!

When it comes to faith, I don't see the difference between Catholics and Orthodox. Yes, there are different emphases, as between RC's and GC's - but ultimately, we share the same original Apostolic faith - later RC additions notwithstanding.

The real difference lies with respect to ecclesiology.

The RC Church developed into a kind of monolith with the Pope at the apex. The Eastern Churches maintained their earlier sense of collegiality among the various Churches, equal in status.

When the GC's, for example, in 1596, came into communion with Rome, the above distinction was lost on them.

The Orthodox East has no problem with the Petrine Primacy - only with how it is exercised. Even if a final agreement could be reached on all other matters (essentially recognizing that there is no difference in terms of faith and sacraments etc.), then the issue of the exercise of Papal primacy would still be a stumbling block.

The history of the EC's under the Papacy was not a good one, it should be said, and this despite the willingness of the EC's to suffer and die for union with Rome.

And our UGCC, with its many martyrs for Rome, still finds Rome's attitudes toward it annoying i.e. how Rome will essentially be asking Moscow for permission to recognize the UGCC patriarchate.

Do you yourself feel that this is right? Is this how the Roman Papacy should operate, by having its decisions on internal matters depend on what Churches, not in communion with it, have to say?

For us, if Rome acted like a REAL papacy, there would be no problem. And I would be the first to proclaim papal triumphalism, as my father did with respect to Pope Pius XII.

Until then, the very idea that Rome is a true Papacy toward the Churches of the East in communion with it is something of a bad joke.

Alex

Dear Andrew,

In fact, I've heard EC and one RC theologian say that Eastern Catholics "always have the privilege of returning to their Mother (Orthodox) Church."

The fact is that the current situation of the EC's is not a jurisdictionally regular one and does reflect a Roman ecclesiology that did not respect a) Orthodoxy; b) Orthodox ecclesial jurisdictions; c) was quite prepared to "poach" Orthodox Christians from the bosoms of their Orthodox Mother Churches and group them into Latinized "Unias."

Alex

Dear Alex...

as to the troubles of the churches...

Humans.

Bah-hum-bug.

The church would be better off without them.

But on a serious note...

I would definitely throw my vote to you for the next Papal election. Pope Alex I has a ring to it.

I like it.



-ray

Alex,

I agree with much of what your saying; however, it seems to me that of old the pope did have juridical primacy, without of course having juridical supremacy. To put it another way, he was first among equal, not only with regard to honor but with regard to jurisdiction as well.

A good example of this is in Ware's discussion of the Photian-Nicholatian schism. In particular:

"Canon III of the Council of Sardica (343) ... states that a bishop, if under sentence of condemnation, can appeal to Rome, and the Pope, if he sees cause, can order a retrial; this retrial, however, is not to be conducted by the Pope himself at Rome, but by the bishops of the provinces adjacent to that of the condemned bishop."

(With regard to the context of this passage, i.e. the 9th century schism, suffice it to say that the text -- to wit, the section "From estrangement to schism: 858-1204" in The Orthodox Church -- can be found online at:
http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/history_timothy_ware_1.htm#n4 )

So, IMO, the real question here is not whether the pope had primacy of jurisdiction. He did. Rather, the real question is what exactly do we mean by that phrase, and how is it different from "supremacy of jurisdiction"? (And hence how is "primacy of jurisdiction" compatible with the equality of Patriarchs?)

Having said all that, may I add the qualifier that I think "primacy of jurisdiction" can be a misleading phrase, and I would not be opposed to replacing it with something more lucid. But in any case I don't think "primacy of honor" is adequate.

Many years,
Peter.

JohnRussell

I'm slightly confused. You didn't infer that from what?

Dear Peter:

You are onto something. Would you share your thoughts on this "issue" with us?

Amado

Amado,

I've shared all the thoughts I have for the moment; but if anything else comes to mind, I'll post that as well. In the meantime, perhaps someone else will want to respond to what I've said already.

-Peter.

Dear Peter,

I've no doubt the Pope had primacy of jurisdiction!

I don't think that is an issue!

It's an issue as to how and under what conditions it is used . . .

I think the East was very grateful to have the Pope as referree betweeen the Patriarch and the Emperor . . .

But the Pope as the ultimate arbiter in a situation that cannot be resolved by the local authorities - no problem with that!

Even now when our UGCC Patriarch is moving to Kyiv amidst alot of noisy rancor - the Pope gave his blessing and we're all happy about that!

Alex

Dear Rayk,

Well, the full title would be "Pope Alexander VII."

I would probably move quickly to canonize Jerome Savonarola as a way to apologise for the nastiness of my predecessor, Pope Alexander VI of ignominius memory . . .

But YOU could call me "Big Al!"

Right this minute, I'm wearing a little Papal lapel pin . . . Now, how many Latin Catholics here can say they witness to the Petrine Primacy of the Pope in that overt way? Hmmm? Am I putting you all to shame, amici?

Alex

Alex,

You put most of us to shame with your encyclopedic knowledge and persuasiveness. Certianly, me.

Dear Juan,

What did I do?

Ah, you are SAINT Juan Diego now . . . forgive me!

Alex

Sorry. I meant to write "imply" where I wrote "infer." It was late and I was tired.

Alex, quite interesting,
not meaning to keep this thread off topic, but I wondered if you would keep the name Alex

Also.. all I can say about that lapel pin is .......nothing.

Brad - in shame

PS. Where did you get the pin and what does it look like? I understand that Benedict XVI chose a bear as his "crest".

Alex,

Oh ... I guess we agree even more than I realized