www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West The "Mother Church"?

Run ! ! !

The Brazilians (or is it Portuguese?) are coming!

Ipreima (Lauro), where art thou, my brother? We need a full-fledged Ukie to clobber them Brazilians.

Amado

Pax Tibi.

JL.

I agree, Diak. I fully concede that this article hasn't the privilege of either an imprimatur or nihil obstat. I also presume that this interpretation is not in line with your own. But do you have an imprimatur or nihil obstat on your interpretation? Is there and impr. and/or nih-obst. on any interpretation concerning the 8th chapter/section of Lumen Gentium? If so, it would be appreciated if you could post it here, as it would clear a lot of this up.

Logos Teen

The 54th footnote to Dominus Iesus says the following:

This seems to be about as authoritative as we're going to get on this matter.

Logos Teen

L-T,

The major fault with your argument is that it assumes that the Orthodox Church is a non-Catholic Church. Anyone reading the writings of Pope John Paul II and Pope Paul VI before him can see that both clearly consider(ed) the Orthodox Church to be part of the Catholic Church. From the most rigid Latin point of view one could state that the Orthodox Church is imperfect because it is not currently in full communion with Peter. One simply cannot validly claim that it is a non-Catholic Church.

Admin

Admin,

The purpose of the footnote is to clarify beyond a reasonable doubt the meaning of a passage, text, verse, etc. The 56th footnote of Dominus Iesus uses the words "non-Catholic Churches." For a Catholic reading a Catholic document, don't you think that the phrase "non-Catholic Churches" connotes as well as denotes all religious organizations outside of visible union with the Pope? It's very hard to twist these words in this circumstance. I find it to be very far-fetched that a footnote in a document aimed at nothing else but to clear up misconceptions about an earlier document, would so easily lead readers into yet another misconception.

As for Popes Paul VI and John Paul II, I once again beseech you to prove your point with examples of such (fallible) writings. It would be my hope that these writings do not contradict earlier infallible writings.

Logos Teen

L-T,

It is not I who needs to prove what I know is true. Please provide the appropriate official statements which specifically state that the Orthodox Church is a �non-Catholic Church�. If you look hard you will find only that the Church teaches that the communion is profound indeed. You will find that Pope John Paul II has stated the term �schism� is too strong to describe the continuing separation.

I do believe that a Latin Catholic with a very rigid understanding of Church can read into such a document that one is either fully part of the Catholic Church or not part of it at all. I do not believe that a Byzantine Catholic would ever think of such an understanding, let alone embrace it. �Non-Catholic� does not automatically refer to all religious organizations outside visible communion with Peter. One may state that their membership in the Catholic Church is incomplete. One may not state that their membership is invalid.

Admin

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I thought I'd poke my head in here to try and sort out why we cannot see these issues in a complimentary way. It's only my opinion, no Nihil Obstat available yet!

In the western traditions there are essentially no churches outside the Catholic church with valid orders (with the exception of the Old Catholics) or valid Eucharist. No Protestant church teaches the Real Presence. From a Roman Catholic perspective there are no options, it's our way or the highway. Our knee-jerk reaction in the western church is communion with Pope = good but not in communion = bad.

There is, in other words, a form of Iron Curtain between the Catholic and non-Catholic western traditions.

I try to imagine what it was like during the great western schism, when we had a Pope in Avignon as well as Rome. People moved between jurisdictions constantly, and then there were three Popes! What would you or I have done in those days? Eventually all three parts of the western church were knitted together. It wasn't one branch driving out the other or one swallowing the other. If they had not recognized each others' validity and true Catholicity reunion would never have been possible.

The Byzantine churches are all really Orthodox, root and branch. The Catholic and Orthodox churches should be virtually identical in theory. The Orthodox churches have valid episcopal orders, valid theology, valid sacraments and a continous Apostolic tradition extending through time in concert with the west, with no interruption! In fact, if the autocephalic Greek Orthodox church (as one possible example) were to desire communion with the bishop of Rome today, nothing more would be required of them.

In the east there is no iron curtain between the Catholic and non-Catholic Orthodox churches, if anything it is a thin veil. The Orthodox churches are a true manifestation of the Catholic church. The Eastern Catholic churches know they were always validly constituted and legitimate parts of the Catholic church during the period when they were out of communion. The disputes between the Catholic and Orthodox Eastern churches are fundamentally related to Canon Law, not theology(from the Catholic perspective)!

Our current Pontiff is encouraging dialogue to find a formula for the Petrine ministry that will be acceptable to the Orthodox. This clearly implies that office of the Pope is malleable and subject to change.

In my understanding, the reason the Eastern Catholic churches are not in communion with their brothers and sisters are because they were excommunicated when they communed with Rome automatically. The hierarchs and people were not converted in any sense when the reunion agreements were penned. The bishops in each case of union did not excommunicate the Orthodox, they were excommunicated by the Orthodox. They were anxious to preserve all of their Orthodox faith intact as evidenced by the texts of the reunion agreements and to ideally maintain communion with both East and West, with the elusive goal of bringing all the East into communion, this was sadly denied them.

Even today an eastern Orthodox christian will not be refused communion in any Catholic church anywhere should they request it.

Although there were certain guarantees protecting Eastern theology, tradition and liturgical practice in the reunion agreements, a process began that eventually robbed the Eastern churches of much of their spiritual patrimony.

In the course of time there have been additional obstacles to unity, the imposition of certain Latin practices on the churches of the East, especially in an inconsistant and arbitrary way among the various churches has been the source of great frustration and misunderstanding. In other words, the churches in the spirit of union were hi-jacked by later developements, this did not go unnoticed in the East.

The imposition of Latin disciplines into the Eastern churches (such as clerical celibacy in some places) have contributed to inflicting great harm to the Eastern churches in terms of loss of temples and congregations, restraint of growth and loss of vocations to the Orthodox.

In recent times some Orthodox churches in North America have admitted prominent converts from the Evangelical Protestant traditions and many of these have unfortunately brought their vitriolic anti-Catholicism with them. By our mis-handling of the Byzantine Catholic churches in times past we have provided a fertile field for anti-Catholicism to grow among the Orthodox.

It is certainly time to reverse the trends, practices and attitudes that have been so damaging to the church. We must always pray for unity, and act as though we mean it.

In Christ,
Michael

I think we both need to prove our points. I'll certainly do my part to skim church documents, but it would make it easier for me if you would at least provide a few examples of these writings and documents.

Logos Teen

Is the text of the Union of Brest-Litovsk available on the internet? I've been looking and can't find it...

Logos Teen

Admin,
The text cited by Logos Teen makes reference to the Church's "visible structure," stating that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church alone, and that outside her "visible structure" exist only "elementa ecclesiae."

Since, according to Lumen Gentium and Dominus Iesus, the one Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church--and not outside her "visible structure"--I think it is for you to explain how the Orthodox churches are within her *visible* structure.

I really think that it is an assault on the visibility of the Church--not to mention her unity--to assert that churches who are not in communion with one another are really part of the same big Church. If that were the case, there would be no point to JP II's exertions.

Thoughts?

LatinTrad

Logos Teen, I was simply pointing out the "canonical" limitations of the article. I have no intention of getting into a discussion of nihil obstat, imprimatur and the like.

Since there seems to be a need to pull out "official" documents, I was simply making the point that the essay in question is strictly private opinion and carried absolutely no official sanction of the Roman Church.

I would like to bring up some statements from Vatican II, and since promulgated by the successor of Peter speaking in concord with all of the bishops of the Church, should carry credentials that are acceptable to all. The capitals are my own emphasis.

Paragraph 15: "Although these Churches are separated from us, they possess true sacraments, above all-by apostolic succession -the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are STILL (my emphasis) joined to us in a VERY CLOSE relationship (again my emphasis)...some worship in common is not only merely possible BUT IS RECOMMENDED.

Paragraph 17:"...they (the Orthodox) are directed towards right ordering of life, indeed, toward a full contemplation of Christian truth....this sacred Synod declares that this ENTIRE heritage of spirituality and liturgy, of discipline and theology, in their various traditions, belongs to the FULL CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC character of the Church".

Unitatis Redintegratio , signed by Paul, Bishop of Rome and signed by the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council, November 21, 1964

These sections specifically refer to the Orthodox Churches. There can be no confusion since (1) the document iteself earlier states this and (2) the Eastern Catholic Churches are discussed in their own Council document, Orientalium Ecclesiarum.

I believe it is nonsensical to think the Church speaking through a Council would describe the relationship this way and consider them to be "non-Catholic" churches.

My little two cents:

Hopefully someone here can remember the criteria better than me, but isn't the orthodox/catholic faith what has been believed "in all places, at all times, by all people". And I use the small "o" and the small "c" to signify correct belief and universal belief.

I hope someone will provide us with the more correct version of "all" than I have above.

And before anyone jumps on my possibly incorrect usage of orthodox and catholic, I admit to being no theologian, but someone who loves both the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church and see them as sisters, not as adversaries.

Pray for unity.
denise

Dear Denise,

Thankyou for posting exactly my sentiments.

I always think of the 'sisters' as being somewhat estranged, and having lived in different cultural environments, they have evolved somewhat differently. The sisters' 'parents' (Christ, Apostles, Early Church Fathers,) are ofcourse, exactly the same!!

Let us keep up the good will for unity, in the footsteps of the great Christian example of this cause, Pope John Paul II. (May God grant him many years).

Much love in Christ,
Alice

Dear Alice and Rose, those are wonderful thoughts for unity. May the Holy Spirit give us the love and charity to resolve the family disputes because we certainly are family in the apostolic sense, and one day God willing the sisters can fully live together in harmony and not be somehow estranged.