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

I am an Orthodox Christian and I have been reading your posts for the last few days. I have a question for the Eastern Catholics:

Is there a teaching or a dogma in the Roman Catholic (Latin) Church (or Rite) that the Eastern Catholics condemn or disagree with, or views as even heretical. The reason I ask this is because there are many teachings in the Latin Church that the Orthodox do not agree with. However, when I read the posts of the Eastern Catholics in response to many Roman teachings, the Eastern Catholics keep saying things like, � this is a different way of looking at the same thing� or � the Roman Church�s opinion about such and such a teaching is a valid but alternate view�.

Eastern (Rite) Catholics keep trying to convince the readers here (and maybe themselves) that they are Orthodox Christians in union with Rome. But my question really is, what do the Eastern Catholics do when the Roman (Latin) Church teaches something that is unacceptable to the Eastern Orthodox. Where does that leave the Eastern Catholic. Do they side with the Eastern Orthodox since they claim that is their common heritage or do they side with Rome?

It seems to a non Catholic reader on this forum, that there is nothing that Rome can teach, whether it�s in the form of dogma or Canon, that eastern Catholics won�t somehow justify by saying, �This teaching only applied to the Latin Church and doesn�t apply to us� or �it�s a different yet valid view�.

Please understand that I am not trying to insult any Eastern Catholic at all, I just want some clarification on the issue. Is there a teaching that issued by Rome that the eastern Catholics are willing to say, �This goes against our �Orthodox� heritage and teaching. This is unacceptable dogma.

Demitrius,

That is a difficult question. In my humble opinion it is one that lacks consensus even within the Eastern Catholic church. In ideal, we are a church Suri Uris, an independently governing church in communion with the Roman See. However, this ideal has taken and is taking a long time to be actualized. The damage done from Vatican I, is often seen as anathama to Eastern Catholics. However, Vatican II was seen as an attempt to ameliorate some of that damage. As Eastern Catholics, we tenatiously hold to being Orthodox in Communion with Rome. If we have not yet achieved this ideal, the ideal remains something to be worked toward. Traditionally, anything that would come out of Rome today could be viewed as synodal by the Eastern Catholic churches, however, this poses some political problems. We have many differences on how we view certain issues. For example, the Dogma of the Imaculate Conception. Yes, this is foreign to us for a number of reasons. First, how it was promulgated, but deeper yet is the theology behind it which is foreign to Orthodox christians. It makes perfect sense from the Augustinian view of original sin but not from the Eastern understanding of sin. So, we can appreciate how and why Rome gave this dogma. If we can appreciate why something is done then it is less likely to be seen as a personal attack. In conclusion, Rome continues to have valid sacraments and apostolic succession. If this is true, then how can we, both Eastern Catholics, and Orthodox christians, not be in communion? Isn't it the precious Body and Blood of our Lord that which unites us in the mystical body? This is why we can remain in union and still disagree. We can appreciate the imperfect when we realize the perfect (the sacramental reality of our filial adoption). Isn't that what is really is all about?

In Christ,
Athanasius

Slava Jesu Kristu,

Your question, my friend, is at the heart of our Byzantine Catholic dilema. So far, with some exception, the Eastern Catholics have avoided outright re-schism. We are often accused by our Orthodox brothers of placating Rome and "watering down" Latinisms to make them easier to swallow. Statements like "it is just another way of expressing the same belief" help to coat that pill.

There may, however, come a time when the Eastern Catholics will have to side against the Roman Catholic Church. This time may be sooner than we think if the current trends in the Catholic Church are not somehow corrected. A great deal may be affected by the next Pontiff. John Paul II (1000 years to him) has made great strides to protect his Eastern children, but that may change and not for the better.

Should that happen (God Forbid), we will simply become Orthodox. We would have no other choice.

Dmitri

[ 09-05-2002: Message edited by: Dmitri Rostovski ]

Is the only real difference between the Orthodox and the Eastern Catholics, the follwing:

1) The Pope has infallible authority and is the spiritual leader of the Eastern Catholics.

2) The East respects the Western development of doctrine, while not adhering to it.

Shlomo Demitrius,
You have posted an interesting post, but I would like to point out to you and my Byzantine Brothers and Sisters, that not Eastern Catholics belong to Byzantine Tradition. Therefore, you are not dealing with a bilateral issue, vis-a-vis the Roman Tradition vs. the Byzantine Tradition; but one that involves Five Traditions and Three Schools of exegesis.

You answer your question yourself when you state: "'This teaching only applied to the Latin Church and doesn't apply to us' or 'it's a different yet valid view.'" This is a valid understanding of how we as Churches relate to God. To give you an example that is non-controversial. In the East we use icons as a form of teaching while in the West the use statues. Which form is more valid? Neither, both are equal, but different ways to approach prayer, and study.

What you seem to be advocating is for us to interfer in the internal teachings of another Patriarchate when that teaching in and of itself does not violate Orthodoxy. For too long we Eastern Catholics have suffered that, and before that, many Christians in the Middle East suffered the same at the hands of the Byzantines.

To many of us Eastern Catholics, Orthodoxy is having the same beliefs, but not neccessarily the same words of expression.

Poosh BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

Well Yuhannon,

I hope I don�t sound angry, believe me I am not. I just want Eastern Catholics to see how we Orthodox view some of these responses. After reading your answer I am still at a loss; here�s why. When I think back to the first seven Ecumenical councils, none of the participating Bishops dared to say that the Nestorian Christology �heresy� is a teaching that is applicable to the Church of Constantinople (since Nastorius was Patriarch and taught there) and therefore it is not applicable to the other Churches. The other churches that were in communion with Constantinople condemned that teaching, even though that teaching was not spread in their churches. Using some of the responses that are posted in this forum I can see eastern Catholics saying something like this as an example:

�Although Nestorianism may appear to differ from Orthodox theology, it only differs in the way Nestorians view the nature of the union between the Divinity and Humanity of Christ. The existence of the two separate natures in one man is the basis Nestorius� �Mother of Christ only� teaching. Once you understand this you will see that in essence it is the same as the Orthodox belief but it is expressed differently.�

Or they may say something like:

�The teachings of Nestorius are really only applicable to Christians who fall under his jurisdiction. We Eastern Catholics (had they existed at the time) have our own Patriarch and terminology so this teaching doesn�t apply to us�.

Now I know that no Catholic person says this, I just gave this as an example. But this is how the Eastern Catholic defense of Roman Catholic teachings sounds to the Orthodox. It is this type of refusal to condemn a teaching as being non-canonical or even heretical that put the Eastern Catholic in a tough situation. None of the Bishops assembled at any of the counsels every said, �This is a different yet valid view�. When they were in communion, they were in agreement. The fathers never hesitated to condemn a teaching that was viewed as unacceptable. This is why the 4 ancient Apostolic sees did not hesitate to disagree with the see of Rome.

Things like, what Liturgy is used, what specific prayers are used in the liturgy, the colors of the priests vestments, the hymns and languages used can differ from one Apostolic Church to another, but these are not the types of differences that we are talking about.

I often see Eastern Catholics here posting explanations to shows how many of the doctrines that Orthodox and Catholics differ on can be explained from an Orthodox or Eastern point of view and come to the conclusion that these Roman teachings are really in line with Orthodox mentality and there is no conflict. But the truth is, if these explanations were really so straight forward then all Orthodox Churches would have no problem uniting with Rome, since there is no disagreement right? Well, Orthodox Churches have NOT united with Rome until now because explanations like the ones posted on this forum are not acceptable to them and there still remain great differences in teachings between the two Churches. The Orthodox are not able to reconcile the Roman teachings (theology, dogma, cannons) with Orthodoxy.

This is where I think the Eastern Catholics have a hard time. They try to rationalize the Roman Catholic teaching, knowing it is not compatible with Eastern or Orthodox theology.

So my question remains, will there be a teaching that Rome can issue that the Eastern Catholics will say, �This is unacceptable to us, we cannot remain in union with you knowing you believe this�

[ 09-05-2002: Message edited by: Dimitrius ]

Yes. So far, however, it really has not happened.

Dmitri

[ 09-05-2002: Message edited by: Dmitri Rostovski ]

Dmitrius:

Try your analysis again, but instead of Nestorianism, substitute the Christological formula of the Oriental Orthodox Churches. The perceived differences that we (Latin Catholic and EO) are talking about are very subtle compared to the perceived differences between the OO and EO churches. Yet, the Joint Statement from the EO and OO churches uses precisely this kind of language that you dismiss as a rationalization in the context of EO and RC differences.

So "rationalization" of the LC "teachings" is not much of an issue for us. Unless one adopts the perspective (like RumO) that the unity of first millenium is insufficient for unity now, then it shouldn't be much of an issue for the EO's either.

A distinct issue for us is the degree to which LC "teaching" seeps into our manner of thinking. This cross-talk is genereally perceived negatively, to the degree to which we wind up with theological perspectives and liturgical practice that are not supporting each other.

djs

[ 09-05-2002: Message edited by: djs ]

Of course it's not that simple. The Orthodox on this forum would not reject the importance of the the sack of Constantinople to the schism. The significance of that action is not related to theology, dogma, canons. Injustices, real and perceived, have hardened hearts, and have led to great suspicion. If the filioque is deleted, a response from within Orthodoxy is "wolfier wolf in sheepier clothing". There is the "age-long anti-Roman prejudice" that Fr. Schmeemann talks about (see post on Primacy thread) that somehow needs to be overcome.

Finally, acceptable to whom?
If re-establisment of communion is to be accomplished in an all-or-nothing mode, how, given the structure of the Orthodox church, can this be accomplished?

djs

"To many of us Eastern Catholics, Orthodoxy is having the same beliefs, but not neccessarily the same words of expression. Poosh BaShlomo, Yuhannon"

This is very well put Yuhannon (or John) . I totally agree with your analysis.

In Christ's Light,

Der-Ghazarian

"To many of us Eastern Catholics, Orthodoxy is having the same beliefs, but not necessarily the same words of expression. Poosh BaShlomo, Yuhannon"

Has Rome NEVER issued teachings that were contrary to your �orthodox� belief? If and when it will (or has) issued such teachings, was the response not always that such teachings are only applicable to Rome and not to Eastern Catholics? So really Rome can say anything it wants, since they will never be condemned or reproached for it, Why? Because these teachings only apply to Rome. We seem to pick and choose what we like from Rome; What we don�t like is applicable to them only not to us. Isn�t that the way Eastern Catholics have been justifying their position?

I was glad to see a few post here that should Rome issue teachings that are contrary to your �orthodox� belief, Eastern Catholics will have no option but to stand up to Rome, and voice their concern.

What would Eastern Catholics do if Rome said that homosexual men may be ordained to the priesthood? Or that Jews don�t need the salvation of Christ or that the Theotokos is co-redemtrix with Christ?

I know that the catholic Church hasn�t officially declared any of these things, I�m just saying what if that were the case? What would Eastern Catholics do? Would they say that these only apply to Latin Catholics and we Eastern Catholics do not have to accept them, but we will still be in communion with Rome? I guess I�m asking where�s the breaking point?

Dmitrius:

Maybe it's better to look at history.
I don't know of any broad-based swicth to Orhodox churches that accompanied promulgation of the Immaculate Conception, Infallibility, etc. There were however, large movements related to such things as clerical celibacy, temple ownership, calendar and liturgical language changes.
I guess there have been similar events within Orthodoxy, too.

djs

Hi:

I think the question Dimitrius is really asking is: "What is the criteria for "orthodoxy" used by Eastern Catholics?"

And since I am not an Eastern Catholic, I cannot answer this. But I think it is a very good question indeed. I am going to share some thoughts on this as a Catholic, Roman at that.

A teaching is "orthodox", when it is given by the proper teaching authority (depending on scope) and it is in harmony with the previously defined Deposit of Faith.

An orthodox teaching may or may not become part of the definitions of this Deposit of Faith, depending on the scope and matter of the teaching itself, and the intentions and authority of the teacher. This means that as a Catholic, I believe that the Deposit of Faith is all there, but the Church ahs the authority (and duty!) to perfect her own understanding of it and therefore, the definitions of it.

In that sense, I don't see that doctrinal development means the invention of new doctrine, but rather the adoption of new "tools" to "understand" and "use" what God ahs revealed to us about Himself and ourselves.

Now, returning to your question, "What if Rome...?" Well, I think we need to define what is "Rome" here.

If the Pope of Rome, either acting by his own supreme teaching authority when speaking Ex-Cathedra, or when confirming dogmatic definitions from an Ecumenical Council, ever declared as Universal and Irreformable something concerning Faith or Morals that is contrary to my personal beliefs, then I think I have only two choices:

1. I either recognize the teaching authority of the Church and mend my ways.

or

2. I break communion with the Catholic Church.

I think this applies for all Catholics, even Latins like myself.

Has this ever happened? Well, yes, of course. I once believed that it was possible to ordain women to the priesthood. When I learned that the Catholic Church teaches that it is not possible, I had to change my beliefs. The difference is that my previous belief was not in line with the Deposit of Faith.

Now, will "Rome", as defined above, ever go against the Deposit of Faith? As a Catholic I must say that no, it is not possible for "Rome" to teach error.

If "Rome" ever does, then that'd mean that *everything* is suspect and there would be no point in remaining a Catholic. At that point, I'd become Orthodox, or Mormon, or Muslim, or for that matter, Anglican.

Does this mean that everything that comes from Rome (not restricted to the definition) is good? Well no. Even the Pope, when not speaking Ex-Cathedra can make mistakes. Provided that we avoid the wrong of making personal judgements about him (which is contrary to the Gospel), we can disagree in some issues and still remain in Communion.

We can even go as far as obeying in open disagreement, as it seems to be the case with the ordination of married men outside traditional Byzantine territories. We might have differences of opinion in this regard, but I think we all agree that the issue is not *THAT* important as to warrant schism.

Finally, I'd like to say that there are things that come from Rome that apply only to the Latin Church. For instance, our children are not allowed to receive the Body and Blood of Christ until they're about 7 years old and take special religious education classes in preparation for their First Communion. This restriction is exclusive of the Latin Church, Byzantine Catholics can and usually do partake Holy Communion from the day they are Baptized, which is usually in the very early infancy.

Shalom,
Memo.

"where is the breaking point..."

This question suprises me because if comes from an Orthodox christian. Lines of demarkation are foreign to our spirituality really. One might rather ask, how close to full union are we. Eastern theology looks at Theosis on a continuum. That is why even those who would be damned might still attain salvation in the afterlife via the prayers of the faithful and the struggles through the various spiritual toll houses. Sorry, didn't mean to diverge onto a tangent, however, my point is that we shouldn't ask such questions that seeks to establish an us and them. It is these very questions that break down the unity of christians. Minimalism will always lead to complacency and lacadasical mentalities. So again, I appeal to our common heritage; apostolic succession and sacramental validity as those entities which unite us. Yes, theology and dogma might conflict here and there. But isn't it really pride that allows us to focus on that instead of the latter? Finally, I would like to say that the rational of applying a church teaching to a specific church and the THE Church in it's entirty is a product of the split between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. It would certainly be in bad form to impose, as had been done it the past to great detriment, a universal policy. That is why Rome is very reticent to ever do so. Note how many times Ex Cathedra has been used.
So there is some more food for thought perhaps. I appologize if I ramble and for the lack of elequence and learnedness that so many other persons who post here demonstrate and I seem to lack. Pray for me brother.

In peace,
Athanasius

I want to say that the Byzantine Catholics used to be Orthodox Christians that became in communion with Rome (not under, mind you). Now, if the Roman Church is heretical then the Orthodox Christians would never be in communion with Rome.

So, therefore, there's nothing that's heretical to us BCC about the Romans, although maybe a little radical for our thinking. And that's okay.

THEOLOGY means "study of God." Just like we study people or objects...we observe at different angle.

Let me give you like an analogy. If two people were to study a square box. One person is standing there..and another one is standing at other side...looking at the same object...both concluding different studies based on an angle that one is perceiving. But still is looking at the same object. If it's ONE object at different angles...then no one is wrong at all. Both are right.

It's the same way with Theology...we look and study God at different angle...plus having mentality set up by culture, language and background.

SO, I wish that both Roman Catholic Church and Orthodox Church just STOP insisting that one must accept their theology, doctrine, etc.

BOTH the RCC & Orthodox Church is right.

The Byzantine Catholic Church is in the Orthodox counterparts as far as in theology and faith.

The ONLY difference between BCC & Orthodox is on the issue of papacy. BCC understood papacy in the right light. Because papacy is the most misunderstood issue, even among ROMAN CATHOLICS!!!

Sure there are controversies about theology, etc. But it doesn't mean that one is wrong at all! We just have to respect one another's views. Both do not contradict but rather compliments it very well!!! And that shouldn't be a reason to stay divided.

I just wish both RCC & Orthodox stop pressuring each other to accept each other's views. We just have to respect it.

After all, it is God Himself who have chosen not to reveal everything about Him. So, nobody really knows everything about Him. So why don't we just stop squabbling and fussing about who's right and who's wrong. But rather view theology as a tiny part of our understanding (study) of God. (That's like saying that one says the coin is a TAIL and another says it's a HEAD...both arguing and insisting that the whole coin is a TAIL or a HEAD...since we don't see both side of a coin, so we just have to respect another person's view of that coin). Does that make sense here? So all that bickering is just ridiculous.

We are all family after all. Let's all kiss and make up.

Don't anyone here agree??? Hmmmm?

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

PS..as far as being complimentary of each other. It's like mixing salt and sugar...and makes big sparks on your tongue! Yummy! Just think of Orthodox/BCC as sugar...because we're sweet and the RCC as salt...because they are...salty!

Great, I'm craving for German Kettle popcorn now!

[ 09-05-2002: Message edited by: spdundas ]