www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Two Recent Byz Cath Podcasts on Ancient Faith Radio

I just listened to two recent interviews on the Illumined Heart program at Ancient Faith Radio and wanted to pass them along in case they haven't been mentioned yet here. The first program, dated March 31st, is with a Melkite priest named Fr. James Babcock, and the second interview is with Jeremy (Basil) Dannnebohm, a former Roman and Byzantine Catholic that later entered the Orthodox Church.

There is much interesting discussion in these podcasts, particularly regarding the relationship of Eastern Rite Catholics to Roman Catholic dogma, and whether or not Eastern Rite Catholics are obligated to accept post-Schism Roman Catholic dogmas. In the interview with Fr. James Babcock, I was most interested in his comments that Eastern Rite Catholicism is not a good model of unity for the Orthodox and Catholics, and his assertion that Eastern Rite Catholicism should disappear. In the interview with Basil Dannnebohm, I was interested to see the effort he made to stay Roman and then Byzantine Catholic, and how in the end he felt that he was just "playing Orthodox" in Byzantine Catholicism. He makes very clear the "spiritual vacuum" that he found in Roman and Eastern Catholicism, and the spiritual joy and fulfillment that he could only experience in the Orthodox Church.

Below are links to the two interviews. What do you think?

http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/illuminedheart/eastern_catholics_are_they_orthodox

http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/illuminedheart/byzantine_catholics_journey_to_from_and_back_again_to_the_orthodox_ch

I had heard both of these and was wondering if anyone was going to post about the latest one especially.

I am RC (for now) and not Eastern so take it for what it's worth. But Basil D. seemed to be very bitter, and quite honestly his biggest hang-up seemed to be with the authority of the Pope which I thought maybe was sign that he might have trouble with submission? Also thought interesting that he kept harping on the canon laws and the EC MUST follow them to the letter -- maybe the RC shows an unspoken level of ekonomia (sp?) withe eastern churches? And finally his feeling the spiritual vacuum was a little reminiscent of someone switching between protestant churches trying to find the one that "feels" best to them.
I've heard other podcasters on ancientfaith radio warn against "convertitis" -- we shouldn't measure someone's spirituality by their level of prayers or fasting. For if we did that the majority of us husband & wives with families would be "relegated to some corner of heaven just shy of hell" when compared to the place that monastics would reside.
After listening to that podcast -- there's reason #347 why OC will never reunite with Catholics: to many ex-catholics in the OC...(kidding)!

Poor Basil! He seems to fall into the category of someone who "converts from" a particular confession, instead of "converting to" another. He's presently in the honeymoon phase of his life in Orthodoxy, but I strongly suspect that at some point, the Orthodox Church will break his heart, in the same way the Latin and Greek Catholic Churches did--if only because all Churches are composed of fallible and sinful human beings, and not angels (Screwtape wrote extensively on how this helps Satan). Father Alexander Schmemann, whose love for the Orthodox Church was beyond all doubt, expressed his frustration in his diaries thus: "The Orthodox Church is the right Church with the wrong people!" I greatly fear that once Basil discovers the Orthodox Church, like the Greek Catholic and Latin Churches, is "full of the wrong people", he will simply decide that it, too, is "the wrong Church".

I was disappointed with the second podcast. I took it that they wanted another podcast on this issue in order to balance any perceived deficiencies, from an Orthodox perspective, of the first one. However, I think they should have gotten someone without an axe to grind.
I don't follow the canons that he insists I do, nor do I worry about not doing so. Papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction are currently being discussed, and hopefully worked through. That shows that in some respect they aren't "settled doctrine," even from the Roman side of the ledger, so what exactly am I suppose to be following, a theory that is still being worked out?

I listened to the first one again from Fr. James. Nothing too shocking or surprising there.
The topic about degrees of freedom on divergent viewsof certain doctrines i.e. indulgences/purgatory/filioque was interesting. From the very little reading I've done it appears that the RC as of late (maybe always but I don't know) has defined the controversial doctrines in a very limited sense that would allow for a nuanced understanding of what they mean and more readily allow agreement with eastern churches.
When I listen Fr. Loya or others like him (the Abbott from a monastery out West comes to mind) nuance the approach on certain doctrines and compare to what CCC actually says they seem to be very compatible. To be fair not a large number of RC's understand these doctrines in the first place.
I liked the question about what does “being in communion” mean if EC’s aren’t in agreement with RC on all points of latin doctrine other than being in canocical boundaries?
– EC’s not a model for unity;
-- relationship not based on accepting dogmas;
-- recognize patriarchs, i.e Pope by name in liturgy;
-- the goal should be EC returns to historical roots; no real reason for EC’s to exist other than keep communion open between historical patriarchs;

If patriarchs are historically based on geographic regions I wonder how this would work in US? I guess this is the same issue the EO are currently having here.

I also do not see the CCEO as a valid expression of the Eastern canonical tradition; instead, I see it as an attempt - sadly made by Pope John Paul II - to Latinize the Eastern Catholic Churches.

I tend to see things in this way too. I see no reason for Eastern Catholics to have to try and reinterpret theological theories that are peculiar to the Latin Church in an Eastern way. What the Latin Church teaches about the ancestral sin, or the conception of the Theotokos, or the authority of the pope is its own business. Latin theologoumena are not binding on Eastern Catholics.

I agree that the CCEO is not a valid expression of Eastern Canonical tradition- how can the Syrian, Coptic, and Byzantine Churches all have the same cannons when historicaly they haven't?


I agree very much with you but an important question is how does Rome see this? Does Rome see the IC, Authority of the Pope, and other Latin dogma/theologoumena only binding on Latin Catholics? While they are still being discussed by Ecumenical committees of RC and EO how does the Vatican view this topics in regards to the Eastern Churches in Communion with her?

I wonder how our EC views mesh with the profession of faith required by Rome (I believe all candidates for Holy Orders make this profession- both East and West)
Profession of Faith [vatican.va]

I have no doubt that Rome holds that Eastern Catholics are required to believe the Latin "dogmas" (i.e., what I call theologoumena) that it has developed during the course of the second millennium, but - to be blunt - I think that Rome is wrong on this issue. Eastern Catholics must be true to our own doctrinal, spiritual, and liturgical tradition, that is, if we are to be truly Eastern. Hopefully the Catholic / Orthodox dialogue will help Rome to see things more clearly.

Be that as it may, at the present time Rome does not push the logic of its own position, but should it eventually do so, many Eastern Catholics - at least those who hold a position similar to my own - will have to choose between communion with Rome and being Orthodox.

I completely agree! But sometimes Rome does make it hard to be in Communion with her.

Yes, it does. The popes historically have an exaggerated sense of their own importance.

A few things to remember about the CCEO:

In principle, the CCEO is temporary and will be abrogated once full communion is restored.

The language of the CCEO very general and almost always contains the clause, “unless particular law…” -- so Syrian, Coptic, and Byzantine Churches can and do have their own ‘particular law’.

In principle, CCEO is to be interpreted according to Traditional Orthodox norms and not Latin norms or customs. The highest and best interpretation comes from conformity with Orthodox commentators, not a juridical reading by a Latin Canon lawyer or lay person. The CCEO is about providing an orderly framework for the salvation of souls – it is not a ‘rule book’ or a basis for moral theology; there are no ‘automatic penalties’’ for things like abortion as there are in the Latin code.

The only valid argument about ‘Latinization’ is the section of the CCEO concerning marriage because it was indeed written to harmonize with the Latin Code and Latin understanding about marriage. Again, this will be abrogated once full communion is restored.

Especially since most RC's are generally not aware of the progress of the ongoing dialogue between Rome and the Orthodox Church. They are more acquainted with Catholic Answer type apologetics that seem to leave very little room for liberty in these matters. At some point the ecumenical discussions and historical realities need to start filtering down to the people in the pew.

Just under 80 percent of the canons present in the CCEO are also present in the CIC, and in practically all cases the original Latin text of the corresponding canons within the two codes are identical (n.b., sometimes there are minor differences of word order and punctuation in the Latin text of the canons, but they say the same thing substantially). That said, the CCEO is a massive Latinization of the Eastern Catholic Churches, but of course that is to be expected since both codes were written by curial officials in Rome. As I see it both codes are Roman Catholic documents.

Eastern Catholic Synods should just hold a CCEO burning. Rome might get the point....maybe.

Can anyone provide a reference to any Orthodox Code of Canon Law?
Is there anything codified in one document? It would be an excellent reference document.

Anxiously awaiting a reply.
Fr. Deacon Paul