www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Will Eastern catholics say "No" to Rome?

Shane , you said "the Byzantine Catholics used to be Orthodox Christians that became in communion with Rome" Does that imply that we "used to be Orthodox" and are longer "Orthodox"?

Some of us are still Orthodox, we just choose to remain in communion with the successor to the Petrine Ministry while not abandoning our Orthodoxy.

Several of the bishops in the Kyivan Church historically believed in and wrote about the possibility of dual communion between Constantinople and Rome.

Randy,

You're right! My bad!!!

But you know what I mean, right?

God bless,

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

The assumption here seems to be that Rome IS teaching error. It is my conviction that the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox who reunited with Rome, did not believe Rome was teaching error. Nor do these Churches today believe Rome is teaching error.

Rather, we believe (as manifested by our communion with her) that Rome is teaching the authentic Christian faith, albeit from her own western, Latin, scholastic perpestive. Unlike the Orthodox seperated from Rome, we do not damn Rome for being different. We treat her as we would expect to be treated in return (although this hasn't always been the case).

All this, so far is a review. But I would go one step further by admitting something some Eastern Catholics on this forum don't seem to want to admit to our Eastern Orthodox brethren. I confess that I believe that Rome is protected by the Holy Spirit from EVER teaching officially as binding on the universal Church, a doctrine which is objectively heretical. That's right, I said it. And without this confession, I think all Eastern Catholics are left unable to answer your reasonable question, adequately.

In other words, I don't fret Rome teaching heresey as formal doctrine (the scenario you presented) because I don't believe the Holy Spirit would ever allow it. This is the answer I would give to your question.

Now, could Rome teach error as the private view of the Pope. Most certainly. The way we would deal with this (if I were Patriarch) would be just to explain to him his error. Perhaps even hold councils to collectively point out his error. All this is, I think, compatible with Catholic doctrine. At that point the Pope, most likely, would not continue his teaching unless it was us in fact us who were in error. This is what I believe.

In Christ's Light,

Wm. Der-Ghazarian

Dear William:

That, in a nutshell, is what we Romans also believe.

Thanks for your Armenian perspective.


AmdG

Now this is exactly what Dimitrius was getting at. Your trying to justify an invalid belief. The head of the Catholic Church (as Eastern Catholics see it) is the Pope John Paul II. In the Cathechism of the Catholic Church it quotes Origen:
"Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."

So anyone who does not hold to the whole of the catholic faith as the pope sees it is a heretic. As the Latin church sees it, the pope when speaking from the chair of St. Peter he is the one who gives truth of faith with divine authority. Hence if you do not following the leading and teaching of the one in the papal office you are a heretic.

Lovely posting here,

I am going to disagree a little with both sides here. I continue to find the instance by some that my communion can not even have our commonly applied name -- namely Orthodoxy. Ukrainian Catholics complain of the robbery of churches from them, I think we can complain abotu the robbery of our name.

As to the issue of the Pope, I think both Orthodox and Catholics can agree that the first principle is the indefectability of the Church. Having agreed to that first principle, one can then (AND ONLY AFTER THEN) have a discussion of exactly how the Holy Spirit does so offer that grace.

May I offer two questions I have no answers to but I find gives me cause to pause before being too critical of either communion:

Accepting that the Western Church has largely avoided error and has preached the truth of the Gospel for centuries, how else, given its particular history and development, could it avoid error except by special grace to the Bishop of Rome?

Accepting that the Orthodox Church has largely avoided error and has preached the truth of the Gospel for centuries, given its history of lack of communion with the Roman See, how has it avoided error even without communion with Rome?

Axios

Axios,

Those are darn good questions. I like where you are going with them. What do you think: could it possibly be that the ancient Churches are all still a part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church after all? Just maybe.

In Christ's Light,

Der-Ghazarian

Hi:

This absolutely nails the issue:


I think that, provided we accept the truth of both assumptions, it is quite impossible to explain either one of them except by the positive action of the Holy Spirit that has kept us in more or less the right track.

The Catholic Church wouldn't recognize the validity of all sacraments of the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox if they weren't real, full Particular Churches. And we do believe that the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church fully subsists in the Particular Churches. This seems to be true regardless of whether the Particular Churches are in communion with each other, or with any particular See, for that matter.

This renders our divisions all that more painful. If a group splits and misses the mark so badly that the Holy Spirit is no longer fully in charge, well, then they probably were not really "kin".

But if we're divided and yet both sides are sincere enough that God is still able to conduct us and protect us, then it is because it is really "us", there is no "them" and yet we fail to recognize it.

Shalom,
Memo.