www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Discerning what to accept from the Pope

The attitude, by the way, exists up and down the Latin Church. I don't know how many times I've had to roll my eyes, for instance, on 1 November, when some Latin priest or bishop begins an op ed or blog column with "Today, all Catholics are celebrating the Feast of All Saints", or on Ash Wednesday, when the begin their spiels with "Today, all Catholics mark the beginning of Lent". The imputation is obvious: either we aren't Catholic, or we don't even appear on their radar scopes. Either way, our Tradition gets short shrift from them.

Stuart, a lot of very good people believe sometimes common sense trumps what the magisterium has to say.

Withholding assent to everything it's spokesmen utter is always an option, and sometimes the only one which coincides with mental health.

Mental health might be better demonstrated by just paying less attention. One terrible effect of modern communications technology is that people use it. If you dedicated yourself to reading everything written by, say, Pope John Paul II (of happy memory), you would be dead before you finished, quite possibly of boredom.

I remember when Mel Gibson's movie "the Passion of the Christ" was released. The Vatican published that the Holy Father had watched it but had no comment, not so much as "the popcorn coulda used more butter". Not because he actually had no comment, but because a lot of people would have interpreted it to be an infallible movie review.

We are not Mormons and we don't need to know how the prophet likes his eggs.

I'm too old for this discussion.

Then why do you constantly interject, Carson? I mean, if you want to be an old-fashioned uniate, that fine with me. Just don't try and drag the rest of us along with you, or pretend that what goes on in one insignificant diocese of one relatively small Eastern Catholic Church in any way represents the voice of Eastern Catholicism universally.

StuartK,

To be fair, couldn't it also be said that you are dragging us down by your own "constant interjecting" that we are to be "Orthodox in communion with Rome"? Do you see yourself as representing the voice of Eastern Catholicism? Aren't you yourself pretending the opinion of one particular Eastern Catholic Church represents all of Eastern Catholicism?

It was recently suggested to our pastor that he put this declaration on our parish website's opening page in LARGE, noticeable letters

"Pope Benedict XVI is in communion with our parish."

He hasn't done it - yet.

Yeah, but I don't complain that I'm too old for the debate. And also, I'm correct, and you're not. That makes a big difference.


Pretty much, yes. In half a century, we'll know for sure.

Encyclicals have to be evaluated to determine their doctrinal force. Some are ex cathedra and some aren't. Humana vitae wasn't a new teaching, so talking about whether or not to reject it doesn't matter, you also have to discuss whether to reject the teachings on the matter from prior popes as well.

I asked our priest if we accepted Humanae Vitae? He said, "of course". I asked an Orthodox friend of mine if his Church accepted any form of artificial contraception? He said, "Of course not." So, for those who reject Humanae Vitae and accept artificial birth control you are left with only one serious option. Almost all the Protestant groups have accepted artificial birth control. It seems odd that some claiming to be Eastern Catholics accept ABC and reject Humanae vitae when there is another option. This objection somehow gives them the "freedom of conscience" to practice ABC. They claim that the wording is too legalistic and not pastoral enough and so they will practice ABC. Then become protestant.

This whole conversation shouts loudly of the brokenness and fracture of the Eastern Church(es.) I say this, not in critcism, but in sadness.

If the Eastern Church were not so politicized and divided there would be an Ecumenical Council (together with the Roman Church) to discuss this issue and offer it's direction to its sheep.

Sad, indeed. Lord have mercy on us sinners.

I agree with you, Paul. There's way too much harping on non essential and much too little effort to be one Church in Christ.

It would appear that Carson simply did not understand the nuanced, non-legalistic approach demanded by Eastern Christian pastoral theology.

What, realistically, would a reunited church really look like? What do you expect (please, let's try to live in reality)? This line of discussion would be a small microcosm of it. In my opinion its been a good discussion that illuminates that such a reunited church will feature a range of opinion and not a monolith. No, not always comfortable, but if we can't live with that then there is no hope for Christian unity on this side of the eschaton.

The reunited Church will consist of a number of patriarchal Churches established on a geographical basis. Each Patriarch will be equal in grace and dignity to the others, but the Bishop of Rome, as Patriarch of the West (whether he wants the title or not), would have primacy, not in a juridical sense, but in the form of the kind of moral authority that derives from being head of the Church of Rome, "which presides in love". He will not be infallible, he will not have universal, immediate and ordinary jurisdiction, but he will concern himself exclusively with issues that affect unity, strengthening the brethren in their faith, and serving as court of final ecclesiastical appeal. Ninety nine percent of his time and attention will be given over to the concerns of his own Metropolitan province and his patriarchal duties. The establishment of separate and distinct chanceries (as, ironically, required under the CCEO) for his diocesan, patriarchal and pontifical roles would ensure that idle hands in the Curia could not gradually insinuate the papacy into the internal affairs of other Churches.

Of the other patriarchates, each will be responsible for the welfare of all the faithful within their territories (which will have to be redrawn), while at the same time giving deference to the patriarchs of other communities within those territories (this was, in fact, normal in the first millennium) on matters pertaining to their faithful.

It would be expected that, in light of the ease of modern transportation and communications, the patriarchs would meet on a fairly regular basis (if not annually) to discuss matters of concern to all. And, in the event that controversies arise that threaten the faith and/or the unity of the Church, that the Bishop of Rome would be authorized to call a council of all the bishops in the world to discuss and resolve the issue. And, having arrived at a decision, the Bishop of Rome, speaking on behalf of all, would announce that decision to the world, after the manner of James the Brother of the Lord speaking at the Council of Jerusalem, in AD 50.