www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Re-establishing communion between east and west and the Slavic EC

There will be unity only when the two sides come to believe that they hold they same faith.

That's why Eastern Catholics exist. If this is no longer the purpose then what is?

CDL

We Eastern Catholics are stuck in the middle. Most of the Roman Catholics I know think that we should adopt their theology and their spirituality and devotions; while the majority of Orthodox that I know believe that we are really Latins who superficially dress up in an Eastern fashion.

The problem with being a bridge between two opposing sides is that no one ever really wants to just stand on a bridge, because that is not the real purpose of a bridge.

Sometimes one can have a fresh perspective of both sides of the shore by standing in the middle of a bridge that one couldn't have had by only staying on either end.

I don't mind being part of the Bridge. I just can't understand why so few RCs and EOs are willing to even stand on it.

CDL

Which only restates accept RC theology. Put it in 'Easternese' but accept RC theology. Rome can say nothing less without self-refuting.


But did it ever really? Orthodox are not Protestants. Not only have they got the episcopate and the Eucharist but they get the benefit of the doubt regarding post-schism Roman definitions of doctrine because the Orthodox haven't held a dogmatic council condemning any of it. Everything you read from Orthodox on those matters is opinion.

This benefit of the doubt is why churches under Rome, when approved for their rite, liturgically commemorate post-schism Orthodox saints as the Melkites do Gregory Palamas and the Russian Greek Catholics do most of the Russian Orthodox saints.


See above on opinion. Of course the Orthodox do accept first-among-equals primacy, the papacy as a man-made rank of the episcopate much like the Patriarch of Moscow runs the Russian Church. Which is why pre-schism Pope saints are commemorated as Popes.


Sounds like much trad opinion, yes, but as far as doctrine goes I think they would only say the Orthodox are schismatics and that it is meet and right to solicit individual conversions. Rome itself of course says the Orthodox are in schism but today wouldn't call somebody never RC/Eastern Catholic a schismatic.



Of course. Because that's what it is.

This identity of faith should be demonstrated with such force and thoroughness as to refute any and all doubts.

The problem is, this identity of faith is often treated simply as an article of, well, faith.

I agree.

[quote=The young fogey]
Of course the Orthodox do accept first-among-equals primacy, the papacy as a man-made rank of the episcopate much like the Patriarch of Moscow runs the Russian Church. Which is why pre-schism Pope saints are commemorated [i]as Popes[/i].
[/quote]

-oOo-

The place of a patriarch is different to a papal-type authority. For example, he has the duty of convening the annual Synod of Bishops - but at the Synod he simply has one vote like any other bishop and no power of veto..

To put it concisely, he is subject to the same conciliar framework and constraints as are all the other bishops.

Sandro Magister, an Italian Church journalist, speaks of the restricted role
of the Patriarch in one of his articles. Magister is always an excellent
read and I recommend reading the whole article.

http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/7014?&eng=y

The patriarch´s role


In general the role of the Orthodox patriarch is not well understood in the
West. He is often seen as another pope. Yet according to Orthodox
ecclesiology, the Church´s patriarch is only its top bishop. It is almost
sacrilegious to call him the Church´s chief or head, since only Jesus Christ
can be the head of the Church.

As a symbolic figure of the Church the patriarch has an enormous
responsibility, but is imbalanced by his prerogatives. He is not the only
protector of the Orthodox faith, since the faith in entrusted to the whole
Church, both to its pastors and laity. According to the very same faith,
however, it is only the patriarch who can intercede for the Church´s flock
of faithful and is the chief administrator of the Church in terms of its
institutional aspects.

His responsibility is threefold: before God, the Church itself (represented
by the synod, the ranks of bishops, and all the faithful whom the faith must
safeguard and protect through its dogmatic purity) and before fellow
brothers and sisters in the faith and other patriarchs of local Churches
with whom he is in communion.

The weight of such responsibility sometimes poses a problem for his personal
freedom, which is quite different than that of the Roman Catholic pontiff.
The Catholic pope has real freedom in decision making. Many innovations and
changes, though not completely approved of by the Roman curia, are the fruit
of the pope´s intuition and charisma. Yet if the Orthodox patriarch were to
dare reform tradition, he would be simply ousted by the Synod or even
directly by the Orthodox faithful themselves.

We must forever bear in mind this possibility, when referring to gestures
(made or not made) or to meetings (which have not occurred) between the pope
and Moscow´s patriarch. Even if we are reminded much more often and much
more solemnly so in the liturgy that the patriarch not the pope of the Roman
Catholic faith, indeed he does not have a great opportunity to express his
personality in the Church of which he is its highest representative

The patriarch alone cannot touch any part of the faith´s sacred inheritance,
handed down by the fathers of the Church. Not event local Church councils
can do this, despite having the highest power. Only an Ecumenical Council
can: in terms of doctrinal matters it has the highest authority, that is,
the power of the Holy Spirit (according to Acts 15: 28). The Ecumenical
Council has the right to change or "update" such sacred teachings and
traditions, yet only under a spirit of fidelity to past councils.

http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/7014?&eng=y

Hieromonk,

I like the theory up to a point it is better than the ultramontanism that has passed for conciliarism in the West in too many places. Latin Bishops agree to the popes wishes and then go off and do their own thing often in a contrary way to which they had vowed to act before. It wasn't fully honest but there seems to have been many practical changes since VC2. Actually, what the Western Church seems to be doing now is what the East is doing.

The one shortfall of the Eastern Ecclesiology is precisely the one that some Eastern hierarchs have pointed out in the saying "the only thing the East lacks is a pope." This comes through private conversations. It would be unthinkable to see it in print. The one shortfall is: "Who is the tie breaker?"

Actually there is another shortfall. Who speaks against evils in the world on behalf of the Church in Orthodoxy. Who speaks for the suffering peoples of the world who can get the ear of anyone who can or will do anything about it? Who could speak effectively against the Poles and the Russians who so often put Greek Orthodox and then Greek Catholics in the middle of their struggles? Even if the one theory of conversion for the EOs change to EC is correct then it only bolsters the argument that a Pope is in fact needed. What Orthodox spokesman can effectively speak against the evils of Islam? What Orthodox spokesman can effectively speak against the evils of abortion?

If there are any or ever has been any I'd certainly like to read about them.

CDL

I agree as long as that existence is not treated as though it were some disputed territory (e.g BCC) that neither side (Catholic, Orthodox) really finds agreeable in itself but to which neither side will relinquish claim. My concern is that Rome might sell us out for ecumenical gain and that the Orthodox solution would be absorption with loss of identity. In this I think the BCC should have and demonstrate autexousia --- self-determination, free-will, preserving its unique identity.

In reference to an earlier post in this thread:


Very well said; once again I am in general and almost complete agreement. It is to be noted and commended that a Latin Catholic can see so clearly what some Eastern Catholics and Orthodox cannot.

Several years ago I had occasion to prepare talks on the general topic of dogma. One of the first slides of my talk asked:


And as I have posted elsewhere on this forum:

link

I can't imagine what we would then be. If our purpose no longer exists why should we be anything but part of Orthodoxy or part of the Roman Catholic Church? Why would we try to hang onto a separate identity?

CDL

YF, I think you actually know the answer to this.

The reason the Byzantine Rites exist is because at one time of course the RCC believed the salvation of those outside its visible boundaries was very much at stake. Read what Papa Stronsay was publishing until recently, which reflects the beliefs of the times. The original intention was not to be "bridge churches", but the only way to be "the church". There even re-baptisms of Orthodox Christians at various points.

Both sides have certainly been guilty of this. Moreover, is that the primary reason distressed Orthodox sought the shelter of the Catholic Church?

CDL

I'm sure there's a mix of reasons, some spiritual, some not.