www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Why are you Catholic?

Helo:


Strictly speaking, this claim is correct. The Maronites never issued a formal declaration withdrawing their Communion with the Roman See.


The main reason is because the Monothelite heresy is found in some early Maronite literature.

We have to bear in mind that the Maronites were isolated and for many years were not aware of the 5th and 6th Ecumenical Councils, when the doctrine of the "Two Wills" was formally defined and proclaimed as dogma.

So, even as the literature show the Maronites to have been material heretics, they never were formal heretics. As soon as communication was re-established between the Maronites and the Romans, the Maronites affirmed the Catholic faith and their communion with the See of Rome.


My take is that heresy can only break eclessial communion if it is formal. The Maronites explored a theological pathway that was not the right one, but got back on track as soon as they became aware of the situation.

This is a brilliant example of the Petrine minitry at work. The Maronites have since been notorious or their loyalty to the Pope and are the only non-Roman Catholic Church that doesn't have a "Unia"-like process in its history.

Regretfully, it is also true that the Maronites are one of the most Latinized non-Roman Catholic Churches.

A curious side note. I am a Roman Catholic and my parish is St. Jude the Apostle in Westlake Village, CA. Our parish is blessed by Our Pastor, Fr. Bill and a full time associate, Fr. Pierre. Fr. Billl and Fr. Pierre are actually Maronite priests with bi-ritual faculties to serve in the Latin church (yes, I know it is usually the other way around!).

In fact, Fr. Bill is a Chor-Bishop of the Maronite Church and a Mitred Monsignior of the Latin Church. And he is a very good priest. I barely know Fr. Pierre, he arrived just a couple of weeks ago.

Shalom,
Memo.

Dear Memo,

The interesting thing about the Monothelite heresy is that it brought the entire Church together in harmonious unity but on false theological grounds.

Even the "Nestorian" Patriarch of the Assyrians came into communion with Rome and Constantinople on the basis of the Monothelite heresy that seemed, for a while, to be a "one size fits all" construct that appealed to more than one Soteriology.

The witness to Orthodox Catholic truth provided by St Maximos is all the greater when we consider that he went against not one Patriarch, but the entire reunited Church that seemed allied against him.

His witness is truly that truth can never be sacrificed for the sake of a "false union."

Alex

Anastasios,

I have not made any presuppositions about the primacy of Peter. I have made my conclusions after years of considered study and have considered the opinions of the very good arguments made by the theologians you have mentioned. [I suggest that you also consult an excellent book on the matter written by a Byzantine Catholic priest, Fr. Seslinski, and published by SVS Press.] The evidence of the early Church clearly supports the primacy of Peter being more than one of honor but less than that currently claimed by the Roman Catholic Church. Eucharistic ecclesiology uses the Eucharist as its measuring stick and I do understand the cases presented and accept that they are powerful. One must, however, also take into account many other factors, including the historical account of how the early Church did defer to Peter (his primacy was more than one of honor). One must also acknowledge that the Eucharistic argument of Metropolitan John Zizioulas is flawed because it does not take into account the Oriental Orthodox (Non-Chalcedonian). One cannot simply ignore the evidence one does not agree with. This is clearly a complex discussion with no easy answers. Nothing in my prior posts indicates that one must necessarily conclude that the Orthodox are schismatics. One can have a flawed ecclesiology without necessarily being schismatics. I have stated that both current Orthodox and Roman Catholic ecclesiology is flawed. The Orthodox Churches lack nothing except the communion with Peter they had in the first millennium. I ask you not to presuppose certain conclusions on my part and that attack them as if these conclusions were mine.

It is certainly true that where the bishop is there is the Church - entire and complete. It is also true that Orthodoxy accords a certain primacy to the patriarchs and to the elder sees - especially Peter. The question here is about the nature of this primacy. Your quote from Paul is good but, since you have used a Scriptural argument, you must also consider that it was Peter's voice at the Council in Jerusalem that settled the disagreement. [James, as the local bishop, presided - as was correct - but Peter's council clearly settled the matter.] There is such a thing as "universal Church". It is the collection of local Churches that singly and together make up the "one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church".

Moose

Dear Moose,

Your last sentence raised an interesting point concerning the historic meaning of "Catholic."

And certainly both East and West, at one time, shared a common "Eucharistic" meaning of this word, that in each local Church was THE CHURCH present with the presence in it of the Episcopate, the Sacraments, the Apostolic Faith and the Word.

So just as in Communion Christ is present in the tiniest Particle, so too is Christ wholly present in the smallest local Church with the presence of the above in it.

You are entitled to be in favour of the Roman doctrine, as you are, and as Byzantine Catholics REALLY are when they are in union with the Rome of today.

Again, so much is determined by our own ecclesial identity and history.

To our Orthodox brothers and sisters, when we say we are "Orthodox in union with Rome" it is like someone who would say they are "Catholic in union with (the Archbishop of) Canterbury."

That is why this term shocks them so and is, in fact, confusing.

We see ourselves as perfectly "Orthodox" with our union with Rome as part of our "Orthodoxy."

But that is in our eyes alone.

The Melkites (the "M-Church" ) have been warned by Rome not to call themselves big "O" Orthodox Catholics but "orthodox Catholics."

This was contained in a letter to their bishops from Cardinal Ratzinger.

Alex

Moose,

First let me say sorry if I appeared to be attacking you or assuming you believed certain things.

But if you believe there is such as thing as a universal church made up of all local churches, they you DO presuppose certain RC ecclesiological POV.

To repeat, I simply do not believe in a "universal church" composed of all local churches. Each local church is the Catholic Church in its fullness.

I will try and digest the rest of your post tonight when I am not at work, and respond. Also I am going to look for the book you mentioned.

In Christ,

anstasios

I would like to know if you've read what Cardinal Walter Kasper declared this Monday. He said some things that are interesting:
- There's not a single Orthodox Church but many orthodox churches and it's hard to make agreementes with them. (It took a long time for ome to discover that)
- The "traditional" Primacy of the EP is now a questionable thing for some National churches and sometimes it's rejected, specially by the Church of Russia.
- Ecumenical dialogue between the RC and the Orthodox churches has had a different development with each church: with the Churches of Romania and Gruzija, relations have been established in a normal way with great results, with the Church of Greece the dialogue has almost been re-established with probable good results, and with the churches of the Middle East (Antioch) there's almost a full communion and unity. Unfortunately between the MP and the RC, the dialogue is broken because of "political" interests.
- It's been proved that the model of union that has been used in the past (unaitism) and confirmed by the agreement of Balamand is not the right way to find the unity of the Church.

After the sad conflicts between the MP and that Roman Church, I'm glad to see that there's a real interest among catholics (and orthodox), at the Mexican Catholic Channel (Claravision) orthodox prelates have been invited and they've discussed about this several times and people are really interested. That's good.

Moose,

On second reading of both my post to you and your response, I do not see where I attacked you. Please retract that statement as I only posed certain questions and then myself offered my POV.

I am guilty of making assumptions about your presuppositions, though.

In Christ,

anastasios

Dear Anastasios,

None of my business, of course, but Moose never said you were attacking him, but certain presuppositions attributed, wrongly or rightly, to Moose.

In other words, Moose felt he was, well, on the "horns of a dilemma."

Have a good evening.

Alex

Could someone clarify what exactly a "eucharistic ecclesiology" entails? I mean, I understand that where the bishop is, there is the whole Church. What place does that afford for hierarchies within the system, where one may be bishop of Anyplace, yet one may have to be under some sort of authority from the Patriarch of Anylargerplace? What place do the other bishops hold within that kind of ecclesiology? If one bishop alone in a local Church makes up the whole Church, where do other bishops come in to play? And if one has a legitimately ordained bishop, and he has his own local Church, and yet he isn't recognised by the others, he isn't considered canonical by them...but why would he need to be? Help?!

Of course, we have been taught from childhood that the papacy broke ranks with the Eastern Patriarchs.

That is the other side of the coin.

But this thread is not for Orthodox.

All of you have made this a very interesting thread and a real eye-opener for non-Catholics.

ER

Alex,

One can accept the current Roman ecclesiology as the price one must pay to maintain communion with Peter while acknowledging that it is a flawed ecclesiology. Even Pope John Paul II has acknowledged its flaws with his request that the Orthodox help him to redefine the petrine role for a reunited Church. We choose to maintain communion with him while these difficulties are resolved. I respect those Orthodox who believe that they cannot enter communion with him until they are resolved.

I understand your concerns about our using the term "Orthodox in communion with Rome" and I do appreciate that those Orthodox not in communion with Rome do not appreciate our use of this term. Nevertheless - that is exactly what we are.

It is interesting that you mention the Melkites. Rome came down on them only for initiating ecumenical discussions at the local level. Rome has not asked them to withdraw their proclamation that that professes everything that Orthodoxy professes.

--

Anastasios,

Your "attack" was not something I considered personal, but rather a strongly worded refutation. I chose my words poorly and apologize.

--

Alex,

Antlers and horns are two different things!

--

Mor Ephrem,

Your questions are excellent. Once cannot really do justice to the concept of Eucharistic ecclesiology in just a few words but the essence of this is that it is the theology of the way the Church functions based upon the Eucharist. A bishop who is the head of a local Church exemplifies the Church - whole and complete. Yet he and his local Church do not exist in isolation but rather as equals within a much larger family. In this larger family there also exists a particular order for the good of the entire Church. It is the nature of this particular order that is the subject of disagreement between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

Why does the local bishop need to be recognized by others? For the same reason that we cannot be a Christian outside a Christian community (even though we teach that Christ died for every individual). I'll try to think of a better way to put it into words.

Moose

Alex,

this is the statement to which I was referring.

anastasios

Moose,

Thanks a lot, I appreciate it, and reiterate my apology for making assumptions per your POV.

In Christ,

anastasios

Justin,
I happen to disagree with you here. The question is neither fair nor right. As you do not have a right to ask this question of me.

I take this to be like, back when I was in elementary school, when talking with friends and I said that I "loved" something and one of my friends would come back with "If you love it so much why don't you marry it."




These two things are not the same. One is you questioning my faith, the other is a person questioning the Deposit of Faith.

One is questioning my loyalty to the Holy Catholic Church, the other is questioning the Teachings and Traditions of the Holy Catholic Church.

What this boils down to, is as I said. You do not have a right to know let alone ask such a question. This is between me, God, and my spiritual father.

David

Dear Moose,

You are absolutely right, of course.

And that is my point exactly, that our ecclesiology is most certainly flawed given what we've discussed.

The Pope is someone who is a true leader, inspired by the Spirit, who is asking the ground-breaking questions.

Never since AD1054 has a Pope called upon the Orthodox to help him redefine his role.

The Orthodox have every right to be wary of such an invitation and to be cynical about it.

But I think we're at a crossroads here and new perspectives at least have the promise that they will be made known and experimented with.

After all, our Byzantine Catholic Churches represent an experiment that everyone today agrees went wrong.

Alex