|
0 members (),
722
guests, and
81
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,506
Posts417,454
Members6,150
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 194
BANNED Member
|
|
BANNED Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 194 |
Matt,
Thanks for the reply. I agree that there is and needs to be legitimate theological diversity. However, the rejection of Vat. I as non-binding on Eastern Catholics is just inherently illogical. For an expression of legitimate theological diversity, the new UGCC Catechism will be an important test case.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411 |
I agree completely with your observations on intercommunion. As a matter of mercy in cases of dire emergency a Catholic is permitted by the Catholic Church to receive in an Orthodox Church. But there is no emergency when a Latin rite Catholic Church is in the neighborhood. I believe the principle and norms for ecumenism are even looser than that, and are in fact different for RC's and EC's IIRC based on which code of canon law one is subject to. It's actually hardly surprising that people would want to commune outside of one's church based on what is laid out in the principles and norms.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 528
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 528 |
The absence of the ROC is not what makes the Ravenna Document unathoritative, but the lack of approval by Rome and the various Patriarchs who were represented.
Ecumenical dialogue almost always happens in several stages. First, there are joint statements by committees. These statements are sometimes agreed upon by the authorities represented. sometimes they are sent back to work. Sometimes the Vatican will issue a statement on the joint statement pointing out its strengths and weaknesses. Sometimes, though rarely, the other dialogue partner has not fully accepted a joint statement.
The Ravenna document is an exploratory document and will never be made authoritative, IMHO. The reason is that its tone is speculative and outlines a way forward for future discussions. In other words, it is not a definitive document with specific agreements but a procedural document pointing towards what will likely be many, many years of discussions.
For an idea of what a definitive and authoritative document might look like, see the Joint Declaration on Justification. It is an academic treatise and is book-length. Such a document has to exhaustively address historical issues, semantic issues, and theological issues and issue a joint agreed authoritative teaching binding on the parties. This takes lots of time and good will.
The Joint Declaration on Justification, now approved, has the force of Catholic Magisterium and is binding in whatever way documents are binding on Lutherans. Note that the JDoJ did also specify areas of continuing differences.
In the Ravenna Document we have something truly historical. It is a tiny step in a process that may require centuries, barring a miracle of the Holy Spirit, which is always a possibility according to Divine Providence. I am not debating the hierarchy of the documents, nor am I claiming authority where there is none. I am citing the problematic nature of reaching consensus when autocephalous and autonomous bodies come together to articulate their position(s). Centuries? Heaven forbid.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 773
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 773 |
Lance,
Intercommunion in all Apostolic Churches is a Catholic idea? That's news to me.
Alexis The Catholic Church will allow members of the Eastern Orthodox, Orientale Orthodox, Assyrian Orthodox and Polish National Churches to receive communion in the Catholic Church. I am not sure how meaningful this is however, because at the same time, the Church simultaneously admonishes the members of these sister churches "to respect the discipline of their church," which typically means that they won't in fact partake.
Last edited by lanceg; 11/13/07 01:31 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 194
BANNED Member
|
|
BANNED Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 194 |
Lance,
Intercommunion in all Apostolic Churches is a Catholic idea? That's news to me.
Alexis The Catholic Church will allow members of the Eastern Orthodox, Orientale Orthodox, Assyrian Orthodox and Polish National Churches to receive communion in the Catholic Church. I am not sure how meaningful this is however, because at the same time, the Church simultaneously admonishes the members of these sister churches "to respect the discipline of their church," which typically means that they won't in fact partake. lanceq, Thanks. It is my understanding that such intercommunion can be granted by a Catholic priest to members of these churches when the ministry of their churches is unavailable to them, particularly in dire circumstances, and the person initiates the requests (it cant be offered by the priest). But this does not imply that the other Churches will do the same, even as a matter of mercy.
Last edited by Fr J Steele CSC; 11/13/07 02:47 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264 |
Gordo,
Before this descends into a free-for-all, I would either admonish you to find the exact quote or withdraw the accusation stating that he claims the pontiff to be in heresy.
In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Administrator Father, I do not want to veer too far away from the topic, but I thought that I would post the specific quote with the accusation of heresy: Reference to Filioquist Heresy The previous posts also demonstrate that Saints Gregory Palamas and Photius ARE *Catholic* saints to be remembered and that official music is readily available. Yes. Praise God. Yes. Praise God. The doctrine of energies espoused by St. Gregory Palamas, which is based upon the theological tradition of St. Irenaeus, St. Clement of Alexandria, St. Athanasios, the Cappadocian Fathers, St. Maximos the Confessor, and St. John Damamscene, is vital to maintaining a proper understanding of the doctrines of the Trinity and theosis; while the teaching of St. Photios on the hypostatic procession ( ekporeusis) of origin of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone safeguards the monarchy of the Father from the Carolingian filioquist heresy. Praise Almighty God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, for these two pillars of Orthodoxy. This was the first time I had read him making reference to the filioque as a formal heresy. Since, as we all know, this is part of the Creed as professed by the Church of Rome and its bishop, I could only thus assume that the Pontiff was included in that charge of heresy. Obviously dogmas do not somehow exist apart from a body or an individual that professes them, and if the filioque is in fact heretical as Todd asserts, the Pope of Rome and all those who are in communion with him that profess it are also therefore in heresy. That was my reasoning in the matter. Todd may have changed his views regarding the status of filioque as a heresy, or his statement may have been made in a moment of heated rhetoric. If not, he takes an extremely hawkish view of a Roman Catholic dogma as heretical that not even Metropolitan Kallistos Ware endorses. Also, I just want to mention that my intent earlier in bringing this up was only to state what I thought was his true position, and not to be contradictory (I was responding to Matt when Todd replied that he did not believe the pope to be a heretic; my post appeared after his because I took longer to write my additional post-script) or accustory. I welcome any correction on this matter from him or from you, Father. Thank you and God bless, Gordo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264 |
Father J.,
One further point regarding the use of nomenclature of "Orthodox" or "Orthodox in Communion with Rome" as applied to Eastern Catholics.
Not only is it appropriate because that is in fact what we call ourselves in the Divine Liturgy, it is also appropriate historically since it is our heritage. To assert somehow that by entering into full communion with Rome something constituitive to our nature as an Orthodox Church has changed, to my mind accepts the premise of the Orthodox who oppose our very existence. To my mind, it is also a reminder for us to "be who we are" and to return to the full practice of our traditions, prior to any unjust efforts at Latinization.
A final point: I find it very valuable to offer this as a catechetical point when explaining who we are to outsiders, particularly Roman Catholics. The conversation usually goes like this:
RC: "So what Church do you attend?"
Me: "I attend St. Mary's _____ Byzantine/Greek Catholic Church".
RC: "What's that? What's a Byzantine/Greek Catholic?"
Me: "We are Eastern Catholics. Are you familiar with what an Eastern Orthodox Christian is? Like the Russian or the Greek Orthodox?"
RC: "Yes. I saw 'My Big Fat Greek Wedding' three times!"
Me: "Well we are Eastern Orthodox Christians that are in full communion with the Catholic Church and with the Pope of Rome."
RC: "Oh, wow. I never heard of that."
...or words to that effect. I'm not saying that we should all change the signage on our churches to "Orthodox Catholic Church" (although part of me would love that), but far from finding it a point of confusion for outsiders, it becomes a catechetical moment in the spirit of Orientale Lumen.
God bless,
Gordo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411 |
Not only is it appropriate because that is in fact what we call ourselves in the Divine Liturgy, it is also appropriate historically since it is our heritage. To assert somehow that by entering into full communion with Rome something constituitive to our nature as an Orthodox Church has changed, to my mind accepts the premise of the Orthodox who oppose our very existence. I say I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic church every week. I still think it would confuse people needlessly if I said I belonged to the Catholic Church when asked. The idea that something essential changed in the nature of those who joined communion in Rome is not based on the premise that Eastern Catholics shouldn't exist; it is from an Orthodox standpoint simply a matter of fact. I'm also sure the Anglo-Catholics make similar arguments about their being fully catholic through the way they worship and their past heritage. Again, I doubt if people would accept that premise. Also, as we know, some Eastern Catholics in fact make it a point to avoid the use of the word Orthodox itself in divine services.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264 |
Not only is it appropriate because that is in fact what we call ourselves in the Divine Liturgy, it is also appropriate historically since it is our heritage. To assert somehow that by entering into full communion with Rome something constituitive to our nature as an Orthodox Church has changed, to my mind accepts the premise of the Orthodox who oppose our very existence. I say I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic church every week. I still think it would confuse people needlessly if I said I belonged to the Catholic Church when asked. The idea that something essential changed in the nature of those who joined communion in Rome is not based on the premise that Eastern Catholics shouldn't exist; it is from an Orthodox standpoint simply a matter of fact. I'm also sure the Anglo-Catholics make similar arguments about their being fully catholic through the way they worship and their past heritage. Again, I doubt if people would accept that premise. Also, as we know, some Eastern Catholics in fact make it a point to avoid the use of the word Orthodox itself in divine services. Andrew, The analogy with the Anglicans (even the more Catholic minded ones) falters when one considers the embrace of Protestantism that still constitutes elements of its basic faith and the fundamental impetus for its creation. The Orthodox Churches in communion with Rome have not embraced any heresy, and ergo merit to be regarded both as Orthodox and Catholic. Regarding your reference to the Orthodox Churches who view Eastern Catholic union with Rome as changing our Churches' fundamental nature, perhaps you could clarify what that is essential has changed. I'd be curious about your perspective on this. God bless, Gordo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
Not only is it appropriate because that is in fact what we call ourselves in the Divine Liturgy, it is also appropriate historically since it is our heritage. To assert somehow that by entering into full communion with Rome something constituitive to our nature as an Orthodox Church has changed, to my mind accepts the premise of the Orthodox who oppose our very existence. I say I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic church every week. I still think it would confuse people needlessly if I said I belonged to the Catholic Church when asked. The idea that something essential changed in the nature of those who joined communion in Rome is not based on the premise that Eastern Catholics shouldn't exist; it is from an Orthodox standpoint simply a matter of fact. I'm also sure the Anglo-Catholics make similar arguments about their being fully catholic through the way they worship and their past heritage. Again, I doubt if people would accept that premise. Also, as we know, some Eastern Catholics in fact make it a point to avoid the use of the word Orthodox itself in divine services. Andrew, The analogy with the Anglicans (even the more Catholic minded ones) falters when one considers the embrace of Protestantism that still constitutes elements of its basic faith and the fundamental impetus for its creation. The Orthodox Churches in communion with Rome have not embraced any heresy, and ergo merit to be regarded both as Orthodox and Catholic. Regarding your reference to the Orthodox Churches who view Eastern Catholic union with Rome as changing our Churches' fundamental nature, perhaps you could clarify what that is essential has changed. I'd be curious about your perspective on this. God bless, Gordo Gordo, Does being an Orthodox in communion with Rome involve holding to Papal infallibility and universal, supreme jurisdiction? the treasury of surplus merits of the saints? indulgences? the filioque, understood in terms of Latin theology, as legitimate? purgatory as the passive suffering of temporal punishments for sins committed in this life? the scholastic view that after receiving initial grace that predisposes us to faith that we can merit additional graces, to mortal and venial sin understood according to Latin, scholastic theology? to the Roman Church's theology of marriage as being legitimate? the Immaculate Conception? If the answer is yes, then being Orthodox in communion with Rome cannot mean the same thing that we mean by Orthodox. My own personal view as a former Eastern Catholic and that being Eastern Catholic and being Orthodox are not the same. There is an essential change in the nature of a particular Church when it comes into communion with Rome. Whether this is good or bad is not the issue here. If Rome is right, then it is good and we Orthodox are wrong. But we do not hold an identical faith. Joe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,131
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,131 |
Does being an Orthodox in communion with Rome involve holding to Papal infallibility and universal, supreme jurisdiction? the treasury of surplus merits of the saints? indulgences? the filioque, understood in terms of Latin theology, as legitimate? purgatory as the passive suffering of temporal punishments for sins committed in this life? the scholastic view that after receiving initial grace that predisposes us to faith that we can merit additional graces, to mortal and venial sin understood according to Latin, scholastic theology? to the Roman Church's theology of marriage as being legitimate? the Immaculate Conception? Wow, Joe. I've gotta hand it to you - you have the laundry list down to a paragraph one could almost recite fully without taking a breath. Impressive.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 194
BANNED Member
|
|
BANNED Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 194 |
Does being an Orthodox in communion with Rome involve holding to Papal infallibility and universal, supreme jurisdiction? the treasury of surplus merits of the saints? indulgences? the filioque, understood in terms of Latin theology, as legitimate? purgatory as the passive suffering of temporal punishments for sins committed in this life? the scholastic view that after receiving initial grace that predisposes us to faith that we can merit additional graces, to mortal and venial sin understood according to Latin, scholastic theology? to the Roman Church's theology of marriage as being legitimate? the Immaculate Conception? Joe, Can I request that you calm down a bit. It is pretty clear that you dont know much more about Catholic theology than what you have learned from Orthodox polemics. And we are all very aware of where polemics get us: angry and frustrated. Catholic theologians haven't used the term "merit" in forty years. It is a problematic term. If you want to know what has happened to that term, go read the Joint Declaration on Justification. Otherwise, I would advise against bringing such terminology up. The same is true for just about anything "scholastic." As far as I know the only scholastic term still current in Catholic theology is "transubstantiation." Attack that, and you WILL have a fight on your hands, so I suggest you dont go there, either. Mortal and venial sin? Do you really want to discuss that? If not, then I suggest you dont go there either. I agree with you that the formula "OicwR" is problematic. But that is a problem that Eastern Catholics have to deal with themselves. We all have to live with each other and we ought to agree to let everyone name themselves. There is nothing more infuriating than being told how I must or must not identify myself. What if Catholics started insisting that the Orthodox "Schismatic Orthodox" in order to deprive them of the unqualified term "Orthodox" or the Orthodox insisted that Catholics always call themselves "Unorthodox Catholics" or some such thing? That would get us nowhere but in an endless fight. If they want to call themselves "OicwR", though I dont like it, so be it. Leave them in peace. So, can we agree to calm down and stop throwing around polemical epithets?
Last edited by Fr J Steele CSC; 11/13/07 06:28 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
Father,
I was just asking a question. I will have to read up on my Catholic Catechism of the Church again because I thought that all of these ideas were in there, but I could be wrong. My only point is that there are things in contemporary Latin theology (affirmed as doctrine by Rome) that we as Orthodox do not see as being compatible with the historic Orthodox and Catholic faith. Does being in communion with Rome require that one believe in those things or at least that they are legitimate doctrines? We can even limit it to papal doctrines. I'm not trying to be polemical.
Joe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
This is not to throw the thread into a discuss of the use of the language of merit, but this is from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (the current one)
2027 No one can merit the initial grace which is at the origin of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit, we can merit for ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal life, as well as necessary temporal goods
So I am not crazy and I am not just being polemical and I do understand the context in which this passage is placed and I still think that it is theologically problematic. I understand that many would disagree with me and as I said, to get into this would be to derail the thread. I just wanted to be clear that I am not reading this out of a medieval manual or something from the Council of Trent.
Joe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411 |
The analogy with the Anglicans (even the more Catholic minded ones) falters when one considers the embrace of Protestantism that still constitutes elements of its basic faith and the fundamental impetus for its creation. Not surprisingly, they see history differently. This is not to say they're right or wrong, but simply that they interpret things differently and continue to see themselves as Catholic in every sense of the word. I'm happy enough to let people who see themselves this way alone, but I have witnessed many Catholics who get all worked up and even angry when Anglicans refer to themselves this way and try and argue them out of their belief. The Orthodox Churches in communion with Rome have not embraced any heresy, and ergo merit to be regarded both as Orthodox and Catholic. I do think you know what the Orthodox answer to that statement would be. Regarding your reference to the Orthodox Churches who view Eastern Catholic union with Rome as changing our Churches' fundamental nature, perhaps you could clarify what that is essential has changed. I'd be curious about your perspective on this. The fundamental change is being outside the bounds of the sacramental union of the church. The other is being in communion with a particular church that has embraced views not accepted by the church, i.e. are heterodox. Which I state not be polemical, but just to state the matter of fact as the situation lies now. I could think of many things I observed in person that are different to me when I have been in a ECC as opposed to an Orthodox one. I would rather not go in to detail, as it would be taken I think simply as just criticism. I grant you in a fundamental way Catholics (Eastern and Western) are very much like Orthodox Christians. We share a great deal, probably much more than we differ on.
|
|
|
|
|
