|
1 members (San Nicolas),
378
guests, and
116
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,523
Posts417,636
Members6,176
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,351 Likes: 99
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,351 Likes: 99 |
asianpilgrim: Christ is Risen!! Indeed He is Risen!! ORIENTALIUM ECCLESIARUM
Decree on the Catholic Churches of the Eastern Rite
Second Vatican Council
DECREE ON THE CATHOLIC CHURCHES
OF THE EASTERN RITE
ORIENTALIUM ECCLESIARUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964
1. The Catholic Church holds in high esteem the institutions, liturgical rites, ecclesiastical traditions and the established standards of the Christian life of the Eastern Churches, for in them, distinguished as they are for their venerable antiquity, there remains conspicuous the tradition that has been handed down from the Apostles through the Fathers (1) and that forms part of the divinely revealed and undivided heritage of the universal Church. This Sacred Ecumenical Council, therefore, in its care for the Eastern Churches which bear living witness to this tradition, in order that they may flourish and with new apostolic vigor execute the task entrusted to them, has determined to lay down a number of principles, in addition to those which refer to the universal Church; all else is remitted to the care of the Eastern synods and of the Holy See.
2. The Holy Catholic Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ, is made up of the faithful who are organically united in the Holy Spirit by the same faith, the same sacraments and the same government and who, combining together into various groups which are held together by a hierarchy, form separate Churches or Rites. Between these there exists an admirable bond of union, such that the variety within the Church in no way harms its unity; rather it manifests it, for it is the mind of the Catholic Church that each individual Church or Rite should retain its traditions whole and entire and likewise that it should adapt its way of life to the different needs of time and place.(2)
5. History, tradition and abundant ecclesiastical institutions bear outstanding witness to the great merit owing to the Eastern Churches by the universal Church.(5) The Sacred Council, therefore, not only accords to this ecclesiastical and spiritual heritage the high regard which is its due and rightful praise, but also unhesitatingly looks on it as the heritage of the universal Church. For this reason it solemnly declares that the Churches of the East, as much as those of the West, have a full right and are in duty bound to rule themselves, each in accordance with its own established disciplines, since all these are praiseworthy by reason of their venerable antiquity, more harmonious with the character of their faithful and more suited to the promotion of the good of souls.
6. All members of the Eastern Rite should know and be convinced that they can and should always preserve their legitimate liturgical rite and their established way of life, and that these may not be altered except to obtain for themselves an organic improvement. All these, then, must be observed by the members of the Eastern rites themselves. Besides, they should attain to on ever greater knowledge and a more exact use of them, and, if in their regard they have fallen short owing to contingencies of times and persons, they should take steps to return to their ancestral traditions.
12. The Sacred Ecumenical Council confirms and approves the ancient discipline of the sacraments existing in the Oriental Churches, as also the ritual practices connected with their celebration and administration and ardently desires that this should be re-established if circumstances warrant it. My mentors in the Catholic Church during the last 40+ years tell me that our whole tradition is being viewed now through the prism of Vatican II and its decrees. So I would have to say that the resulting apparent contradiction between what you cite from the 19th century and what appears to be contradictory in our current practices within the one Catholic Communion is something that I would leave to the professionals--Rome and the Congregations that the Holy Father has given jurisdiction to decide these questions. In Christ, BOB
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
I will add just a brief comment on the Orthodox use of economia when accepting married converts into Orthodoxy. When my wife and I were chrismated in the Antiochian Church we were taught that the chrismation also supplies the grace of the sacrament of marriage that may have been lacking (see we were not married in the Orthodox Church). This view seems to suggest to me that from the Orthodox point of view marriages outside of the Orthodox Church are not de facto valid, but rather the only true sacramental marriages are those conferred by Orthodox priests. I believe that it is the case in some Orthodox jurisdictions to have a crowning for convert-couples as well as chrismation. I think that this is the practice of the Greek Church.
What does all of this imply? That the Eastern Orthodox Church's theology of marriage is incompatible with the scholastic view of marriage. How Eastern Catholics deal with this is another matter of course, but I can see how it would cause concern to those Eastern Catholics who wish to take a strictly eastern view of marriage.
Joe
Last edited by JSMelkiteOrthodoxy; 05/12/08 03:30 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
By the way, we were married as Melkite Catholics and our priest insisted (he made a point of it when instructing us) that he was conferring marriage upon us.
Joe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,131
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,131 |
What does all of this imply? That the Eastern Orthodox Church's theology of marriage is incompatible with the scholastic view of marriage. Or it implies that some views within Orthodoxy may be or may seem to be incompatible with some other views. The reduction of all things western to "Scholastic" (Especially useful if you want to drive a Scotist up the wall I suppose) or the presumption that how something is done in one place speaks to THE (singular) truth or understanding is a needlessly simplistic reduction.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,351 Likes: 99
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,351 Likes: 99 |
Christ is Risen!! Indeed He is Risen!!
Today I've learned more about the way in which the theology and practice of the Eastern Church differs from the West. That it points to further things to ponder our relations to and with each otehr goes without saying.
Thank you, Joe, for this further information. I now wonder if this is why the Catholic Church seems to to routinely grant a dispensation for Catholics who marry Orthodox Christians to do so in the Orthodox Church if the request is made.
In Christ,
BOB
Last edited by theophan; 05/12/08 06:52 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
Christ is Risen!! Indeed He is Risen!!
Today I've learned more about the way in which the theology and practice of the Eastern Church differs from the West. That it points to further things to ponder our relations to and with each otehr goes without saying.
Thank you, Joe, for this further information. I now wonder if this is why the Catholic Church seems to to routinely grant a dispensation for Catholics who marry Orthodox Christians to do so in the Orthodox Church if the request is made.
In Christ,
BOB Bob, this is precisely why a dispensation is made because Orthodox are forbidden to be married by anyone but a priest. By the way, I am not necessarily giving a personal opinion on these matters. I am just relating what seems to be the case based on my observation of Orthodox practice. Also, to "A Simple Sinner." I didn't mean to oversimplify western theology. I was simply making the point that the western and eastern approaches are significantly different. Joe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,131
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,131 |
Also, to "A Simple Sinner." I didn't mean to oversimplify western theology. I was simply making the point that the western and eastern approaches are significantly different. This much I understand and appreciate... But all things being equal (with no authoratative ruling to point to in some matters) it boils down to discussion and debate - even in the east - about what the approach and understanding is. The approaches can be significantly different... OTOH, not all in Orthodoxy take the same approach or speak with a united singular voice on issues of marriage.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,133
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,133 |
Hi, In either the Latin or the Byzantine Church, any baptized Christian can baptize, so your example falls flat. Let me start by saying I do not appreciate the tone of your post. The very fact that there can be extraordinary ministers for sacraments is an indicator that this is not an essential matter in which everyone needs to agree. As long as the Church says it's OK, it's OK. Shalom, Memo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,351 Likes: 99
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,351 Likes: 99 |
By the way, I am not necessarily giving a personal opinion on these matters. JOE: Christ is Risen!! Indeed He is Risen!! I understand that this is not your personal opinion and I appreciate the opportunity to learn about another aspect of orthopraxy from my Orthodox brethren. It's one thing to discuss things in the abstract, but quite another to put theology into practice. This just points up, to me, the much greater lengths that will have to be taken for the reconciliation we all pray for. Thanks again. In Christ, BOB
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
By the way, I am not necessarily giving a personal opinion on these matters. JOE: Christ is Risen!! Indeed He is Risen!! I understand that this is not your personal opinion and I appreciate the opportunity to learn about another aspect of orthopraxy from my Orthodox brethren. It's one thing to discuss things in the abstract, but quite another to put theology into practice. This just points up, to me, the much greater lengths that will have to be taken for the reconciliation we all pray for. Thanks again. In Christ, BOB Bob, I don't really see this as an issue dividing the Churches since it is a matter of praxis and not Dogma. After all, there is no reason, I think, why the Orthodox Churches couldn't view the Western practice of permitting deacons to marry people as a matter of oiconomia. Were there to be reunion, I doubt that this would even be an issue. The Western Church would retain her practices and the eastern Churches would retain theirs. I think what both Churches agree upon is the basic principle that the Church is necessary in order for the sacrament to effacaciously administered. Even in current Roman Catholic practice, a Catholic must have the Church's blessing in order to be sacramentally married. Joe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,028
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,028 |
Hi, In either the Latin or the Byzantine Church, any baptized Christian can baptize, so your example falls flat. Let me start by saying I do not appreciate the tone of your post. The very fact that there can be extraordinary ministers for sacraments is an indicator that this is not an essential matter in which everyone needs to agree. As long as the Church says it's OK, it's OK. Shalom, Memo While there are "extraordinary ministers", these ministers are all people who can give a valid sacrament even without need for dispensation. The distinction between "ordinary" and "extraordinary" have to do with licitness rather than validity. So, if a layman baptizes even if a priest is present, the Baptism will be valid, but there will be a degree of illicitness in it. On the other hand, a priest ordaining another priest does not confer any valid sacramental ordination at al. So, there is still need for agreement on who can or cannot impart the sacraments for the sacraments to be VALID. The Church says OK on the basis of that.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,028
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,028 |
asianpilgrim: Christ is Risen!! Indeed He is Risen!! ORIENTALIUM ECCLESIARUM
Decree on the Catholic Churches of the Eastern Rite
Second Vatican Council
DECREE ON THE CATHOLIC CHURCHES
OF THE EASTERN RITE
ORIENTALIUM ECCLESIARUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964
1. The Catholic Church holds in high esteem the institutions, liturgical rites, ecclesiastical traditions and the established standards of the Christian life of the Eastern Churches, for in them, distinguished as they are for their venerable antiquity, there remains conspicuous the tradition that has been handed down from the Apostles through the Fathers (1) and that forms part of the divinely revealed and undivided heritage of the universal Church. This Sacred Ecumenical Council, therefore, in its care for the Eastern Churches which bear living witness to this tradition, in order that they may flourish and with new apostolic vigor execute the task entrusted to them, has determined to lay down a number of principles, in addition to those which refer to the universal Church; all else is remitted to the care of the Eastern synods and of the Holy See.
2. The Holy Catholic Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ, is made up of the faithful who are organically united in the Holy Spirit by the same faith, the same sacraments and the same government and who, combining together into various groups which are held together by a hierarchy, form separate Churches or Rites. Between these there exists an admirable bond of union, such that the variety within the Church in no way harms its unity; rather it manifests it, for it is the mind of the Catholic Church that each individual Church or Rite should retain its traditions whole and entire and likewise that it should adapt its way of life to the different needs of time and place.(2)
5. History, tradition and abundant ecclesiastical institutions bear outstanding witness to the great merit owing to the Eastern Churches by the universal Church.(5) The Sacred Council, therefore, not only accords to this ecclesiastical and spiritual heritage the high regard which is its due and rightful praise, but also unhesitatingly looks on it as the heritage of the universal Church. For this reason it solemnly declares that the Churches of the East, as much as those of the West, have a full right and are in duty bound to rule themselves, each in accordance with its own established disciplines, since all these are praiseworthy by reason of their venerable antiquity, more harmonious with the character of their faithful and more suited to the promotion of the good of souls.
6. All members of the Eastern Rite should know and be convinced that they can and should always preserve their legitimate liturgical rite and their established way of life, and that these may not be altered except to obtain for themselves an organic improvement. All these, then, must be observed by the members of the Eastern rites themselves. Besides, they should attain to on ever greater knowledge and a more exact use of them, and, if in their regard they have fallen short owing to contingencies of times and persons, they should take steps to return to their ancestral traditions.
12. The Sacred Ecumenical Council confirms and approves the ancient discipline of the sacraments existing in the Oriental Churches, as also the ritual practices connected with their celebration and administration and ardently desires that this should be re-established if circumstances warrant it. My mentors in the Catholic Church during the last 40+ years tell me that our whole tradition is being viewed now through the prism of Vatican II and its decrees. So I would have to say that the resulting apparent contradiction between what you cite from the 19th century and what appears to be contradictory in our current practices within the one Catholic Communion is something that I would leave to the professionals--Rome and the Congregations that the Holy Father has given jurisdiction to decide these questions. In Christ, BOB I think it all boils down to how the Magisterium should be interpreted and understood. An inflexible, literalist, "ultramontane" approach to the Magisterium will inevitably lead to Lefebvrist Traditionalism, which condemns the teachings of Vatican II (including its teachings on the Oriental Churches, for which Lefebvre had scorn) precisely because these are in such apparent contradiction with the pre-1963 Magisterium. A more flexible and creative understanding of the development of the teachings of the Magisterium, on the other hand, would definitely enable a reconciliation between post-Vatican II and pre-Vatican II perspectives. This hermeneutic, though, has often been developed in terms of discontinuity, and there is a greater need to show its continuity with the pre-1963 Magisterium. And THAT is a challenge, worthy of a hundred doctoral dissertations. ANY rapproachment between the East and the West hinges on this. There is one trend that is bothering me. This is the trend among some neo-conservative Catholics to adopt an ultramontane, 19th-century approach to the Magisterium that would make the extreme ultramontanes like Manning and Ward proud -- then refuse to discuss the problems that this would lead to, by insisting that we must accept (almost on faith) without need of explanation that there is not a single contradiction between the Magisterium of the past and the Magisterium of the present. Oftentimes, this leads to a whitewashing of the past -- as if documents that were considered authoritative in the very recent past were never really authoritative, etc. One remembers, for example, the debate on Limbo. Until the 1960's, theologians who denied the existence of Limbo were treated almost like heretics. Now, all of a sudden, we have a Pope who is not in favor of limbo, and those who support limbo are suddenly treated like theological pariahs. One remembers too the Tridentine Mass. Until last year, the party line among most Catholic apologists is that the TLM had been abolished by Paul VI. And then, Pope Benedict XVI said "no, it was never abolished!". And now you have all of these conservative Catholics sounding like they have been supporters of the TLM all along. So, why should I suddenly bring this up, in this thread? Because our topic to a great extent hinges on the very understanding of "theological orthodoxy" in the Catholic Church, and it seems to me that the Magisterium -- the touchstone of orthodoxy in the Catholic Church -- has been so rigidly defined in the Church, as to lead to two excesses: 1) A refusal to tackle any possible contradictions in the body of Magisterial teaching; 2) A practical identification of orthodoxy with the theological orientation of the whoever is Pope, and with the "latest trend in Rome." And yet, it is precisely these two tendencies that will make any rapproachment between Orthodoxy and Catholicism impossible.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,133
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,133 |
Hi, So, there is still need for agreement on who can or cannot impart the sacraments for the sacraments to be VALID. The Church says OK on the basis of that. Who has the need? The Church or you, personally? For instance, there is no agreement between the Byzantine and the Latin Churches about valid matter for the Eucharist. The Latin Church says that only unleavened bread is valid matter for the Eucharist. Most (if not all) of the Byzantine Churches say that only leavened bread is valid matter for the Eucharist. And yet, Latins and Byzantines are in full communion with each other and regard each others' sacraments/mysteries as valid. How do you explain that? Shalom, Memo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,028
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,028 |
Hi,
For instance, there is no agreement between the Byzantine and the Latin Churches about valid matter for the Eucharist.
The Latin Church says that only unleavened bread is valid matter for the Eucharist. Most (if not all) of the Byzantine Churches say that only leavened bread is valid matter for the Eucharist.
And yet, Latins and Byzantines are in full communion with each other and regard each others' sacraments/mysteries as valid.
How do you explain that?
Shalom,
Memo The Latin Church has NEVER claimed that leavened bread is not valid matter for the Sacrament of the Eucharist. When, in case of necessity, a Latin priest has no wheat bread save for leavened bread, then he may use it to celebrate Mass. It certainly happened all the time in the gulags. The Byzantine Churches, to my knowledge, have never denied that a Mass celebrated with unleavened bread is still a "valid" Mass. What is needed for the validity of the sacrament is that the bread be WHEAT bread. Whether it is leavened or unleavened is a matter of DISCIPLINE but has no bearing on the VALIDITY of the msytery. I suggest that you read a bit more before you throw around all these accusations. A basic catechism has all the info that you would have needed. And personal insults are not necessary.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 179
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 179 |
While I realize that these two subjects are not the official thread topic, since they've come up:
Memo,
I believe the Catholic Church definitively declared at the Ecumenical Council of Florence that either leavened or unleavened bread is valid matter for the confecting of the Eucharist. Though I don't know the exact nature of its standing and authority, my impression is that Eastern Orthodoxy doesn't tend to recognize unleavened bread as valid.
AsianPilgrim,
With regard to the Tridentine Mass, my understanding has been that there has been no contradiction, though this is not an immutable article of faith in any event. From what I've learned, officially speaking, Tridentine was never definitively abrogated but was derogated out of common standard usage into restricted usage from 1969 until September 2007.
Also, in trying to drag this back toward our thread topic, I don't think there are any Magisterial contradictions on immutable articles of faith.
Best,
Robster
|
|
|
|
|
