|
Forums26
Topics35,516
Posts417,604
Members6,169
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,390
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,390 |
What is to stop an (Eastern Catholic) Orthodox church from being in communion with Rome before that happens? The patriarchal churches could acknowledge that this is a point that still needs further work, but not one that invalidates the inter-communion. Admittedly, this would not be a scenario the non-patriarchal churches could implement because they rely upon Rome for their hierarchal structure.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411 |
You accept the post schism dogma, councils, etc. or you don't. To me it really is that simple.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,390
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,390 |
OK. So what of those Eastern Catholics who don't? What is to keep them from having inter-communion with the Latins?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411 |
So what of those Eastern Catholics who don't? What is to keep them from having inter-communion with the Latins?
One's conscience I suppose.
We know a couple who are Roman Catholic. The female spouse who my wife is friends with has told her she does not believe the elements become the body and blood of Christ, she believes they are merely bread and wine before and after the consecration. She continues to receive when she goes and still considers herself a Catholic. Do I understand? No, not in the least, but in the end I guess she has her own inner reasoning for this. I can only observe that I think is the inconsistency in the situation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,518
Catholic Gyoza Member
|
|
Catholic Gyoza Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,518 |
You accept the post schism dogma, councils, etc. or you don't. To me it really is that simple. Which schism? Which Councils?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411 |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_churchhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Churchhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenical_councilAlso, here is the answer from Bishop John Elya of the Melkites on the main issue Are we Orthodox united with Rome? - Several different people have written in asking some variation on this most fundament of questions. Since each question was directed in a slightly different way, Bishop John has chosen a rather more complete answer.
Bishop John's Answer - Sometimes I think that the Melkite Catholic Church, as well as other Byzantine Catholic Churches, enjoys the best of two worlds: Orthodoxy and Catholicism. We rejoice in the affirmation of the good Pope John XXIII that "what unites us is much greater than what divides us."
When the Patriarchate of Antioch was divided into two branches in 1724, one branch kept the name Orthodox and the other branch which sealed its union with the Holy See of Rome, kept the name Melkite given to it since the Sixth Century and called itself Catholic. It became known as the Melkite Greek Catholic Church. In the Middle East, although both branches claim orthodoxy as well as catholicity, however being Catholic means not Orthodox and being Orthodox means not Catholic. To be a Catholic Christian means that one accepts the primacy of the Pope of Rome, because he is the successor of St. Peter. To be an Orthodox Christian means that one does not recognize the primacy of the Pope of Rome, but considers him as "first among equals."
According to the Catholic teaching, Christ did not create a church with five heads of equal importance. He established One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church whose invisible head is the Lord, but whose visible head is the Pope of Rome.
The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches states it in these terms: "The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in a special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise." (Canon 43 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches)
If an Orthodox subscribes to the Canon quoted above, he/she can be called Catholic and be considered "united to Rome" or in full communion with the Catholic Church.
An illustration may help: Is the Province of Quebec a province of France united to the British Crown through Canada, or a Canadian province with special relations to France? Is the Melkite Church a hundred per cent Catholic with special relations with the Orthodox Churches or a hundred per cent Orthodox with special relations to Rome. Certainly, the first case is true:
The Melkite Church is a hundred per cent Catholic, but not a hundred per cent Orthodox.
Independence and sovereignty or dependence on another Church? Such a decision is difficult to make. However, the Melkite Church has chosen dependency as a price for unity, in order to comply with the will of our Lord who prayed repeatedly "that all may be one." (John 17)
Last edited by AMM; 02/23/07 01:40 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
I guess the question I kept asking myself was whether I could be an eastern Catholic and reject the notion that the Pope is infallible when proclaiming matters of doctrine and morals. Also, could I reject the Roman Church's teaching that the Pope does, in principle, have complete, universal, and immediate jurisdiction over every Church. I know many Melkites who reject these teachings. Can one be in communion with Rome and say that Vatican I was in error? I eventually answered the question, "no" and so I became Orthodox. But, I can only answer for myself. His grace, Archbishop Zoghby and many of my Melkite friends have answered the question, "yes." What does Rome think?
Joe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411 |
The 1997 response written to the Melkite iniative said the following:
"On the question of communion with the Bishops of Rome, we know that the doctrine concerning the primacy of the Roman Pontiff has experienced a development over time within the framework of the explanation of the Church's faith, and it has to be retained in its entirety, which means from its origins to our day. One only has to think about what the first Vatican Council affirmed and what Vatican Council II declared, particularly in the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium Num. 22 and 23, and in the Decree on ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio Number 2"
Signed by Joseph Card. Ratzinger, Achille Card. Silvestrini, Edward Card. Cassidy
Last edited by AMM; 02/23/07 02:16 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,518
Catholic Gyoza Member
|
|
Catholic Gyoza Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,518 |
The Non-Chalcedonians only accept 3 Ecumenical Councils.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,516
Forum Keilbasa Sleuth Member
|
|
Forum Keilbasa Sleuth Member
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,516 |
You can not be Catholic without accepting the magisterium and its teachings. It's not sugar-coatable no matter how you try to do so.
Hence when the pope says he has primacy, petrine ministry you must accept it. Point blank, look at the canon law it is right at the top. Being Catholic also means accepting the teachings it sets forth as correct. You can't pick and choose what part of Catholic doctorine you want to. Doing this makes you not Catholic.
Same applies for Orthodox, you must accept and believe what it taught or you are not Orthodox.
You can't be half one and half the other, at some point there are major key points that prohibit the Orthodox from being in communion with Rome and there are major points that prohibit Catholics from being in union with the Orthodox.
Many times I see folks trying to justify their positions by sugar coating what they are supposed to believe. This very move seperates you from the church. At the end of the day you must ask yourself where you really stand.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,390
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,390 |
"This very move seperates you from the church."
From which church? One only must be united to one's own church. It does not separate one from the Coptic, Syrian, Maronite, Armenian, Chaldean, or Melkite churches, for example. If your church decides to intercommune with a church that has some areas all agree must be worked on, what separation has occured with one's church for this unity?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,133
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,133 |
I really don't understand why people have so much trouble grasping the concept.
Eastern Rite in Communion with Rome = EASTERN RITE CATHOLIC not Orthodox.
This does not make them worse or better, I am also not claiming that this makes the sacraments at these Churches invalid...
All I am saying is that you are either Orthodox or Catholic.
We do not believe that the Pope has supremacy over every Church.
We do not accept any councils past 7th Ecumenical Council
We do not accept the Filioque
We do not accept the Immaculate Conception
We do not accept forced clerical celibacy
We do not accept original guilt
We do not accept the Purgatory
We do not accepted watered down Liturgy
It's quite simple.
I pray every day for the Churches to be reunited, but it will not happen on Rome's terms. It will also not happen through 1 single Eastern Rite Church which is in communion with Rome. No, the Ukrainian Catholic Church will not bring us back together. People need to face up to that.
Having said all that, it does not mean that there shouldn't be dialogue. It does not mean that we should hate each other. Instead we should try to understand each other, but ignoring these MAJOR differences is not only disingenuous, it is uncharitable.
Again, sorry if I offend somebody, but this is my honest opinion and I can not lie even if it will make someone feel better about themselves.
It is much easier for us to have full communion with non-chalcedonians. However they won't do this, I don't think. They are very much under Islamic occupation and coming back in communion with us would mean having to answer for some of the statements by our Bishops which are often unfavorable towards Islam. I can not say that I really blame them either.
Finally, I'd like to say that tailoring any Religion to fit your set of beliefs is DISHONEST. Either your accept Roman Catholic Canons or you don't. It's not to hard to understand this. Again this doesn't make you a bad guy or gal, it just makes you Roman Catholic or Eastern Rite Catholic, which I am not!
Last edited by Borislav; 02/23/07 05:45 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,390
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,390 |
Borislav,
That would be true if any of the Eastern Catholic churches or those who identify themselves as Orthodox in communion with Rome also identified themselves as Roman Catholics of an Eastern Rite. I haven't met any who do so.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,133
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,133 |
Wondering, I am not sure I understand your statement. I think all Eastern Rite Churches in communion with Rome identify themselves as Catholic.
Last edited by Borislav; 02/23/07 05:49 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,390
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,390 |
Borislav, The churches do not identify themselves as Eastern Rite Catholics, and generally reject that term as a pejorative which diminishes their autonomy. Yuhannon's thread here is proof of that. He had Wikipedia change the title from Eastern Rite Catholic Churches to just Eastern Catholic Churches. They are churches in their own right, not Roman Catholic churches of another rite.
|
|
|
|
|
