www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Fr. Gabriel Bunge (OSB) has been received into Holy Orthodoxy

No, I am putting it in its proper context. The document was written not for Eastern Catholics, but for Latin bishops in India who were syncretistically incorporating elements of Hindu belief into Christian doctrine. That Dominus Iesus was poorly conceived and written in a ham-fisted manner is apparent from the reaction it received from the Pontifical Commission for Promoting Christian Unity. I had the privilege of hearing Edward Idris Cardinal Cassidy, the Secretary of the Commission, explain both the background of the document and its implications for Catholic-Orthodox dialogue.

As far as I am concerned, Dominus Iesus changes nothing, and the epistemological implications of Catholic teaching on ecumenism with regard to the Eastern Churches are unavoidable: if the Church is one, and the Orthodox Churches are true Churches, then the Orthodox Churches have the fullness of the Catholic Church, for the Church is the Body of Christ, and Christ is one and indivisible.

Finally, whether you like it or not, on the blessed day when communion is restored between the Catholic and Orthodox communions, the Eastern Catholic Churches become utterly redundant. There will be no need for two Ukrainian Churches, two Antiochian Churches, two Russian Churches, etc. etc. As we are the products of a schism within Orthodoxy (a well intentioned one, but a schism nonetheless), we have an obligation to heal the wound by returning to our Mother Churches. Numerous Greek Catholic bishops--including patriarchs--have said so. The Holy See has implied that this is the desired outcome of communion, which is why we are commanded to be fully Orthodox in communion with Rome--that we might bear witness to a future reality.

Now, I am fully aware that there are still (after all these years!) Greek Catholics who do not consider themselves to be Orthodox Christians, but this is their fault, not mine. If they consider themselves to be "Roman Catholics of the Byzantine Rite", then they are in opposition to the teaching of the Church, and are promoting "uniatism", a mode of reunion that the Church has disavowed. And there is certainly no room in the Catholic Church for an Elkoist "tertium quid", neither Orthodox nor Latin. As Father Taft has said (Liturgy in the Life of the Church), if we are not willing to be fully Orthodox, then there is no reason for our continued existence and those who are so unwilling should join the Latin Church and have done.

Thanks for your thoughts on Domine Iesus. I suspected it was not written to address Eastern Christian issues.

Here's an adjustment of my statement that I don't perceive myself destined to join the Orthodox Church:

I don't feel destined to join it as long as the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are separated. When reunion takes place (if I'm alive to see it)I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.

It will indeed be a blessed day.

Your post is a succinct statement of Orthodox ecclesiology and reminds me of a report I did many years ago comparing Catholic and Orthodox views of the Church. For it to be a statement of Catholic ecclesiology would require the addition of a phrase acknowledging the necessity of the local bishop to be in union with the Bishop of Rome.

Where in her official documents does the Church command us to disregard truths revealed to us by Our Lord through the Pope of Rome?
Is the Holy See telling us,for example, to deny that the Theotokos was conceived without any sin and instead believe that she was sanctified at the Annunciation as some of our Orthodox brethren do?

griego catolico,

Glory to Jesus Christ!

First, I've been curious. Are you latino? I'm just curious because of your sn. Also because I am latino. I'm from the Dominican Republic.

Secondly, are you saying that the Orthodox are not part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church? That is how I am understanding your statement and just want to make sure I am understanding you correctly or if I am misunderstanding your statement.

Kyrie eleison,

Manuel

Hello Manuel,

Yes, I am Latino. There are many Latinos who are members of Byzantine Catholic parishes, most especially in the southwest of the USA.

Now, I have a question for you. What do you mean when you say that the Orthodox Churches are part of the
One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church?

It's one thing to say that the Eastern churches are true particular churches which have apostolic succession, true mysteries (sacraments), and the graces necessary for one to become holy. It's another to say that the Orthodox Church as a whole composes along with the Catholic Church the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Could you clarify for me what you mean by your question? Gracias.

Griego

It's my understanding that the official position of all Eastern Christendom (Catholic and Orthodox) is that the Theotokos is the "all holy, all pure, most highly blessed and glorious Lady..." She is "higher in honor than the Cherubim, and more glorious beyond compare than the Seraphim, who without corruption, gave birth to God the Word..." At what point she became sinless is a matter of speculation, and an Eastern Orthodox could just as likely believe that she was sinless from birth, or that she was made sinless at the Annunciation.

The issue at hand isn't really a matter of whether or not the Theotokos was sinless. The issue is the fact that the "dogma" of the Immaculate Conception is inherently tied to the Latin understanding of Original Sin. In order to make the Immaculate Conception a dogma, the Latin Church would have to force the Eastern/Byzantine (I can't speak for the Orientals) Churches to deny their own theological patrimony with regards to the Ancestral Sin. No Church, however great and whoever its head, has the right to force another Church to abandon its own legitimate and equally apostolic theological tradition in favor of another's.

I (respectfully) do not think that anyone who is Byzantine Catholic should be encouraged to join one of the Orthodox Churches. I do think that part of being Byzantine Catholic is identifying yourself with the importance of union to the Bishop of Rome. For this reason I could not see myself becoming Orthodox aside from after a reunion took place, which still seems a bit out of reach (unfortunately) for where things are now.
I do see that there is room within Catholicism for a high degree of acknowledgment of the Orthodox Churches as valid Churches with a true Sacramental and Apostolic authenticity, and a respect for the theology as well. But I still think that he official Catholic position (regardless of how well Dominus Iesus is written or its context) is that to maintain union with Rome is one of the very important factors of being a member of the Church in as much fullness as could be desired. If Dominus Iesus does not convince you that this is part of our stance, than why are ideas similar in nature repeated in the more recent "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church," which was approved by Pope Benedict XVI in 2007?

I resepct what people are trying to do. They want to move ecumenism ahead and say that Catholic should go all the way and view the Church as Catholic + Orthodox (if not other Oriental Orthodox groups?) branches because of how they both have many of the important elements of being a Church. But this is dis-service to both Churches who both have the right to believe that there is something(s) more perfectly understood specifically within their structure. This is not divisiveness so much as honesty and respect, and I hear many Orthodox say the same thing. That of course they think they are the true Church and we are the one's missing a more full or perfect understanding. We can not just sweep these differences under the carpet. We need to actually work through them. The idea of agreeing on and going back to how we observe the papacy working in the first millennium is a good idea to start with - I think.

But, I think that union with Rome is a non-negotiable aspect of the Catholic faith, for a Byzantine or Latin Rite Catholic. I would view else wise if I saw a group of Bishops under approval of the Holy See actually and officially encouraging Byzantine Catholics to either become Latin Rite or fully Orthodox (where possible geographically or otherwise) in order to help reunite the two branches. Even if a handful of Bishops have said this it is their opinion, I still do not think it is a good idea to encourage. I respect the Orthodox Church and I understand the pull that it has for Byzantine Catholics who want to follow it's traditions, but if this happened, (without more of a hint that it was a significant step toward an implied future unity) all that would result right now is that the Catholic Church would lose many of its members and then we would go on in disunity for however much longer.
I do find the discussion interesting as to whether we are a schismatic group with good intentions. I can see why you would say that, and I could see why we would become redundant (in most cases) once reunion took place. Though, I could also see us as a non-schismatic group. A group, that after all was originally Catholic and in union with Rome in the first place and therefore is not schismatic, but simply acknowledging our desire to be Orthodox in union with Rome like we always were. Though it is undeniable that we did break off locally from Orthodox bodies.

I mean none of this to be harsh, but just offering the way I see it. I think that Stuart is trying to offer an opinion that comes from a high degree of knowledge and intelligence and wishful and wonderful ecumenical minded thought, but is less than completely accurate.
I am also interested in whether a Byzantine Catholic is within their right to enjoy elements of both lungs of the Church (or whether this makes us uniates). Meaning, are you saying we should be as Orthodox as we can as much of the time as we can be as individuals or else we are a disservice to the Church? I could see this as ideal (and probably necessary) for our Byzantine Parish's liturgies and customs, but I do not see it as binding for an individual. Meaning, if some weeks I just prefer to go to a Latin Rite liturgy because there are aspects of it that I think are equally valid liturgically and pleasing in a prayerful way (let's not argue about how feasible that is on average, but sometimes I do find myself willfully attending and enjoying a RC service) I do not think this makes me less of a good Byzantine Catholic. I think that while one should remain mostly in communion with one branch or the other in order to maintain a certain spiritual grounding and build up the Church, I do not see it as a flaw if one occasionally supplements his or her faith with a celebration from the other side. This is why RC memebers are allowed and encouraged to go to Church at Byantine Catholic parishes with no threat of it making them less of a good Catholic. The freedom to enjoy both rites of the Church, to me, is a positive, that I would be giving up, were I to be Orthodox. Just my opinion, here.

I like the way that people try to clarify this, but as a Byzantine catholic I disagree. I think that part of our unity with Rome, is that we do acknowledge the Roman dogma. I do not see how we could be Catholic and still of the opinion that Rome is wrong in one of it's dogma. One of the few that was supposedly rendered so by Papal infallibility (another hurdle toward unity, no doubt).
I agree that maybe the issue is the understanding of original sin, but I think that Rome is or has been willing to move in more of an Eastern direction regarding her understanding of this matter. We can find unity in acknowledging that nothing is inherently sinful about being born and that it is possible that Mary was immaculately conceived once one maybe realizes this. Though, I think that we should go a little further and acknowledge that there was some sort of specific grace given to her from birth, or else the dogma would be rendered a little less meaningful IMO.
But I think that part of being Catholic is belieing that our Church (while full of sinners over the years who have made mistakes) has not made official theological errors that have become dogma, that we can just take back. Maybe we can lessen the emphasis or develop our understanding of a doctrine in a new light, but that is not the same thing as giving the okay to deny it's truth and or existence, or say, that Mary only became holy at the Annunciation. While I like the freedom that each Church may have in its understanding/interpretation of the matter, theological chaos may result from one Church dogmatically saying it is fact that she was holy and sinless from birth and other members saying, no, this is false. I think it works better to smooth the differences regarding original sin, and then maybe say, I am an Eastern Catholic who can accept the IC because it is easy for me to believe that someone can be conceived without sin, and further that Mary most likely enjoyed a virtious life from start to finish. This is the way that I see the matter.

...or that she continued to sin after giving birth.
http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8038

What I said is actually found in the CDF document Communionis Notio, which says that "the one Church of Christ 'through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord . . . is built up and grows in stature,' for in every valid celebration of the Eucharist the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church becomes truly present," but which goes on to append - as you indicated in your post - the modern notion that the Pope is somehow necessary to the Church's unity, an idea that is a late second millennium theory found only in the West.

Be that as it may, a Church can no more be "a little bit Church" than a woman can be "a little be pregnant," which is why the Eastern Orthodox Churches through their celebration of the Eucharist and their profession of the unchanging Orthodox faith are local manifestations of the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Hola Griego,

Es muy bueno a conocer otro latino. Yo horo que nuestro Dios, Salvador y Senor todo poderoso te bendiga este dia y que te da mucho mas dias de vida. (I'm not the best at writing in spanish since I've been raised in the US since I was 3. So, sorry for any grammatical error ) For those who do not know spanish, here is what I said: It is very good to come to know another latino. I pray that our God, Savior and all powerful Lord bless you this day and give you many more days.

I have noticed certain Latin American countries even have Eparchies of the Melkite church at least. I do not know of the other churches. I understand that there were many middle and near Easterners that moved to Latin American countries as well as North America.

Before I answer your main question, I need to (you could see this as step to my full answer) correct (not correct you, just) how I understand something you said for the sake of our conversation.


When I see the Catholic Church, I see the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I do NOT see, when I see the Catholic Church, I do NOT see the Roman Catholic church. The Roman Catholic church is a particular church as are the Orthodox churches. We are together, both east and west, both Roman Catholics and Eastern Christians (Catholics and Orthodox[that includes of course the Oriental churches]) the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. We are a communion of churches that make up the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I do believe none the less that the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, has Papal Primacy and is the unifying power in that Church. But I am starting to disagree the extent to which that power goes. In other words, the extant of that universal immediate power to affect any particular church.

Do you see the Catholic Church as the Roman Catholic Church and we are just a Rite that theologically must submit to Roman theology, tradition and understanding/disposition?


Kyrie eleison,

Manuel

PS I guess I did end up answering your question lol

I understand your dilemia here, and it is a question that I have asking myself. On the other hand it simply begs the question as to if the IC is even the proper place to dogmatize. Obviously, Christology was not affected on the Latin by those believing that Mary may have had original sin (e.g. Thomas Aquinas among many), so why did the Church need this question to be dogmatized in 1854?

That the definition given at that time carries langauge that favors one particular church's theologoumen on the question of original sin is also troubling in these ecumenical times. So why not follow Cardinal Ratzinger, by allowing the west to be the west (i.e. not say that it is heretical), while at the same time, continue to follow the eastern approach to theology? This may not solve the apparent tension, but we are not given to know all the mysteries of God.

Dear ByzBob,

Glory to Jesus Christ!

You said:


Can you provide me with that specific reference?

One thing I love about the Roman Catholic church is the Dominican Religious Order. I was looking at becoming a lay/3rd Order Dominican[ since I have a daughter from a previous relationship (never married) and so could not discern becoming a Dominican priest or brother] when I started attending the Melkite parish.

Kyrie eleison,

Manuel

If you google "Immaculate Conception and Thomas Aquinas," you'll find my references. The point is he disagreed with the doctrine (though he said if the Church decided it he would accept it). He isn't the only one on the Latin side who disagreed with it, which I think demonstrates that liberty should be allowed.