www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Orthodox to Eastern Catholic?

I'm glad, because of course that wasn't my intention.

I would submit, however, that telling people that living the Eastern faith within the Catholic church is "not possible" might seem rather unwelcoming, whether you intend it or not.

Wasn't he an early hermit of Scetis?

The Ratzinger Proposal [wanweihsien.wordpress.com] was all I needed.

Eastern Catholics have already been asked to live out the fullness of our Tradition.

Stuart's Narnia quote applies. It already exists, just a question of living it, imo.

That's indeed a very good document, but what about this part?:

"...from a theological perspective, the union of the Churches of East and West is fundamentally possible, but the spiritual preparation is not yet sufficiently far advanced and, therefore, not yet ready in practice. When I say it is fundamentally possible from a theological perspective, I do not overlook the fact that, on closer inspection, a number of obstacles still exist with respect to the theological possibility: from the Filioque to the question of the indissolubility of marriage."

Am I misunderstading the pope here? He is obviously enthusiastic about the possibility, but he says it's not yet a reality. Yet yourself and others are claiming it is indeed already a reality and that others are refusing to see it.

I really have to wonder what it is the Holy Father is thinking. On the Filioque, the clarification issued by the Pontifical Commission for Promoting Christian Unity pretty much resolved the matter in favor of the Orthodox position: the uninterpolated Greek text is the only ecumenically binding symbol of faith. All that needs be done there is have the Latin Church remove what it should never have included, in order to bring liturgical usage into line with its own doctrine. As for the indissoluability of marriage, why should a matter that was NOT an obstacle to unity in the first millennium become one today?

Basically, I think he's thinking of what might be perceived as obstacles by the laity of the Latin Church, not what theologians would call substantive issues.

I believe you are, as the sentence you highlight refers to the "union of the churches of East and West", not the faith and practices of Eastern Catholics.

We don't need the two churches to be united in order to be OICWR, although of course we all eagerly anticipate that day.

Just curious if you are able to provide a link for this documentation?

Well, Stuart seemed to see somewhat of a contradiction there as well. As for me, I'm still confused as ever.

We need to be careful though about attributing what Professor Ratzinger proposed then to what Pope Benedict XVI may believe now. It's been many years since that proposal was made and it can be argued that he no longer holds to that proposal in light of his response to the Zoghby Initiative.

The article Are the Ratzinger Proposal and Zoghby Initiative Dead? [imageandword.com] is worth reading.

How truly good that such nonsense as Ad tuendem fidei does not apply outside the Roman Church.

You can't contradict his essay with what you speculate he may have changed his mind about, and expect it to mean anything to someone.


Are you referring to its conclusion, where the author grudgingly admits that Rome "tolerates" these proposals and that they aren't "dead"? (I'm sure Pope Benedict does not struggle with tolerating himself).

Sounds more like that Pillar of Orthodoxy, St Mark of Ephesus, to me. Was he not the only eastern prelate not to sign the decree at Florence? He definitely heard a different drummer, did he not? I await Stuart's spin.

It is this sort of discussion that makes me angry and frustrated. I don't understand why my fellow Catholics have such trouble with their Eastern brothers and sisters living out the Eastern expression of the faith to its fullest. I don't get it. I don't understand their issues and have difficulty comprehending why they feel the need to be the watchdog for all things Eastern.

I ask forgiveness if I have offended anyone by writing that. My intention was not to offend but rather to express a frustration I often feel when I come on here.

That being said, it seems to me that one of the issues in play here is the difference in the model of the Church of the East versus the West. The East has a conciliar model and the West has a magisterial model. Both models have their good points and their bad points. For example, the Eastern model, while respecting the place of the local church, does not provide for any clear oversight in matters of doctrine, and the Western model, while having a clear overseer, becomes overly centralized and removed from the local church and diminishes the role of the local bishop and his relation to his people.

I think this is one issue that underlies all the discussions that have been raised here. The Eastern Catholic Churches still want to operate on a conciliar model of governance, but we run into problems because the Latin Catholic Church is almost entirely magisterial in its governance. While I do think they are complementary in theory, they are not treated as such in reality. The papacy and its development become a lightning rod for this, but the underlying issue has more to do with how Catholics and Orthodox will reconcile the two models of governing the Church.

Another problem that leads to discussions like these is the lack of clarity on the issue of the Eastern Catholic Churches from anyone. The Eastern Bishops will say one thing, which seems to be contradicted by something coming out of Rome. However, in a subsequent statement by the Eastern Bishops, nothing has changed. This results in the confusion that we find in these sorts of discussions. People will quote from old documents, but there seem to be no authoritative statements that definitively answer any of these things.

For example, the Melkite Synod passes the Zoghby Initiative. Rome seems to reject it. In recent speeches, HB Patriarch Gregory says Rome never rejected it. Rome does not respond to those recent statements of HB, which leads one to believe that what he said is true. As a Melkite, this tells me that my Patriarch holds to the Zoghby Initiative and so does the rest of the Melkite Synod, which means that the Melkite Church does as well.

Patriarch Gregory, in his speech, Ecclesiology and Ecumenism from the recent Synod of Bishops:

Patriarch Lubomyr makes statements like the following:

and

Obviously, one can say that this is just their opinions, but the thing that I find interesting is the silence from the Holy See to all of this. There are no statements made to the contrary. Rome never says we are not Orthodox in union with Rome. Rome never says that, as Eastern Catholics, we do not have the same faith as the Orthodox. This just fuels the fire for discussions like these, which never seem to solve the issue at hand but only make it more confusing.

Obviously, I hope and pray we will be one very soon, so we don't have to have discussions like this anymore, but in the meantime, I think that we Eastern Christians in union with Rome should remain faithful to our bishops and live our faith the best we can. In that way, we will be the true bridges we are called to be.

May God have mercy on us all!

Peace and blessings,
Scott

Stuart does not spin, but makes trenchant historical observations. The Union of Florence was imposed upon the Greeks through the undue coercion of the Latin Church, which took advantage both of the poverty of the Greek delegation (it was out of money and seriously worried that it would not be allowed to leave) and the deteriorating strategic situation in the Empire (it was essential that the Emperor return home quickly). The Greeks were essentially told to shut up and sign, and to get out of Florence, they did--except for Mark of Ephesos. I would note that Florence was objectionable not just to the Byzantines (who had good reason to hate the Latins), but to the Armenians, who also rejected the Union, even though the Armenian Church had much better relations with Rome and was generally suspicious of the Byzantines. As Fr. Robert Taft noted, they rejected Florence because it was tantamount to ecclesiacide.

In contrast, the Zoghby Initiative was imposed on nobody. It was started by one particular bishop, brought before the entire synod, and endorsed overwhelmingly in a free and open vote. Sayedna John was the only active bishop who refused to sign, and he suffered no penalties, either ecclesiastical or social, for his stance. He continues to this day to be a highly respected emeritus member of the Synod, well liked both personally and pastorally.

Though both he and St. Mark of Ephesos can be lauded as men of great integrity, who refused to compromise their conscience, there really is no comparison between the situation in 1439 and that of today.

Neither you nor Bill "The Factor" O'Reilly. Your spin is decidedly anti-western, and it serves no one. There really is no evidence that the Latin fathers of the council were any less inconvenienced than those of the east. All things being equal, there was a sincere desire on both sides to achieve a union. One could argue, as some do, that St Mark of Ephesus was manifesting an intransigence born of narrowness and ignorance. To view the other eastern hierarchs as desperate is disingenuous. I drew the comparison to show that Bishop John stood alone among his fellow bishops in an ecclesiastical setting much as St Mark did in his. They were not platoon leaders. It is ironic that their points-of-view are quite different. The ecumenical question before Orthodox and Catholics is how was papal authority exercised before the schism and what were the limits of that authority. The so-called Zoghby Initiative begs the question, and really says little, IMHO.