www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West New Curial Document on Nature of the Church

There's another side to that coin.

It does look like at least one person has been upset by all of this.


http://www.kyivpost.com/bn/26935/

I posted this at Fr. Maximos' blog as a part of an ongoing discussion with Gordo on the recent Vatican "clarification", but thought I would post it here as well:

Gordo,

The problem is that the Roman view of the primacy has morphed into something that is not Catholic (in the true sense of that term). Instead, the Roman Church has embraced a modern doctrinal innovation of the second millennium in connection with the primacy, and -- of course -- the Orthodox will never accept papal primacy as it has been defined and lived in Catholicism over the course of the last few centuries. As I see it, the sooner that Eastern Catholics accept this fact, the better, because it is only then that we (i.e., Eastern Catholics) can become what we truly are, Byzantine, and not merely Latins pretending to be Byzantine.

I have a great respect for the present Pope, and for the papal office in general; nevertheless, the Pope is not above the patriarchs (as the Melkite Patriarch has made clear), nor is he above the rest of the bishops either; in fact, he is simply a bishop, possessing the fullness of Episcopal authority, like every other bishop. That said, it is true that he has an historic primacy, which he shares with the other two patriarchal sees that are connected historically to Peter (i.e., Antioch and Alexandria), as St. Gregory the Great himself pointed out. But the petrine ministry itself is possessed by all the bishops, because all the bishops are "successors" of Peter in the unity of Episcopal consecration, as the Orthodox Churches have always held.

Now it is clear to me that we are not going to agree on this topic, because (as an Eastern Catholic) I hold the Orthodox faith; and so, I cannot accept the doctrinal innovations created by the Roman Church during the course of the second millennium. My theology (ecclesiology) is Byzantine, not Roman; and so, as far as the primacy is concerned, I hold the Orthodox faith as it was formulated and lived during the first millennium.

Finally, I do not believe that there is anything "defective" in the Eastern Orthodox Churches, because they are true Churches, and since they are true Churches, they -- by definition -- manifest the Catholic Church, because "catholic" does not mean "universal," and so it has nothing to do with the legal and political notions of "jurisdiction" presently held by the Roman Church; instead, it means "according to the whole." That said, as a matter of divine faith I hold that the Eastern Orthodox Churches are the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church in its fullness, because they profess the Orthodox faith in its entirety during the celebration of the Eucharistic memorial, and in doing so they manifest the whole (catholic) Church, i.e. they are a realization of the one true Church in its entirety.

God bless,
Todd

P.S. - As far as the center of unity is concerned, Christ is the center of unity, not the Pope, nor even the Roman Church, because the Church has but one head.

P.P.S - As I said in another post on Fr. Maximos' blog: "The ecclesiology of the Orthodox Church is not lacking in any sense. In fact, the Eastern Orthodox accept a Patristic ecclesiology of communion, which sees each local Church as the full realization of the universal (catholic, i.e., according to the whole) Church through the profession of the Orthodox faith during the celebration of the liturgy, and -- of course -- this theological viewpoint is incompatible with the Roman universalist ecclesiology, which divides the Church into pieces that are only later juridically united through a concept of hierarchical communion with the bishop of Rome."

I would respectfully suggest the Romanian patriarch, at a minimum, at least match the Catholic ecumenical generosity of the past 45 years before he starts hurling criticisms.

Let he and his synod formally repudiate the Pan-Orthodox decrees of 1755, and declare that Catholic churches are at least genuine particular churches with valid sacraments.

If he won't do that, then any other statements on this subject simply ring hollow.

Best,
Robster

I do not really see why anyone would be offended by the CDF document, because there is nothing new in it. It simply reiterates what the Latin Church said at Vatican II.

Todd,

With all due respect, I would briefly submit that Eastern Catholics are suppose to be Catholics, first and foremost, and that Catholicism is their religion, not Byzantinism. Byzantine thought - to the extent that it can even be clearly defined - is not infallible, salvific or sacrosanct. Only the Catholic faith is.

What the Catholic faith consists of has been defined through the ages, and what Eastern Catholics should be adhering to is authoritatively outlined in both the 1990 Code of Canons for the Oriental Churches as well as JPII's 1998 apostolic letter Ad Tuendam Fidem. I would hope that Eastern Catholics would move their attention to these sources

Best,
Robster

Yes, I agree Robster. With all due respect to the Romanian Patriarch, I found his comments to be a bit hysterical (or at least they sounded that way to me). The CDF document is "brutal?" That is a bit too much.

Joe

Robster,

You have a right to your opinion, but I do not share it. The documents that come out of the CDF normally reflect the views of the Latin Church, and rarely take into account the theology of the East. That said, I refuse to identify being Catholic with being Latin. Sorry if that offends you.

May God bless you,
Todd

P.S. - The Roman imposed CCEO does not reflect the canonical tradition of the Eastern Churches, and basically is identical with the CIC.

Todd,

What distinguishes your view from that of Orthodox Christians not in communion with Rome?

Joe

Nothing really, and that is my point. Eastern Catholics should be liturgically, spiritually, and doctrinally Orthodox, and the Roman primacy should be accepted as it was formulated and lived during the first millennium.

Todd, so is your position that Eastern Catholics should be in communion with Rome, while believing exactly what Orthodoxy believes, and then wait to see if you all get kicked out by Rome?

Joe

I would not put it quite that way, but I suppose your comment conveys my position to a certain degree.

To state my position more positively: I simply believe that Eastern Catholics should hold to their own doctrinal tradition, and not allow themselves to be Latinized.

Todd, thanks. I wasn't trying to bait you. I was just trying to understand. So, would you say that Eastern Catholics should consider this CDF document to be in error or to be just one expression of the doctrine of the Church that is not binding?

Joe

Joe,

I think that the CDF document expresses the modern Latin view of the situation.

That said, I must admit that I see theological problems with the position taken by the Latin Church at its most recent particular synod (i.e., Vatican II), because the idea that a Church could be a "true" Church without being fully Catholic at the same time is contrary to the Tradition of both East and West. Let me put it this way, a Church cannot be "somewhat" true, or "somewhat" Catholic, it is either a real Church or not a real Church, and if it is a real Church, then it follows that it is wholly Catholic.

Now, as anyone familiar with the doctrine of the Eastern Church knows, Byzantine ecclesiology is Eucharistic and Trinitarian; and so, just as the whole Christ is present in the Eucharist (i.e., in every particle of the consecrated elements), so too the whole Church is present in each true particular Church. Of course the same truth is evident in the Triadological doctrine of the Church, because divinity is not broken into pieces in the tri-hypostatic God. In other words, the whole Godhead is present in each person of the Trinity. This is true also of the uncreated divine energies, which are indivisibly divided among all those who receive them.

Finally, I do not believe that the CDF document is heretical; instead, it simply presents a confused vision of the Church, and one that is not based upon the doctrine of the ancient Fathers.

God bless,
Todd

In my opinion he is talking nonsense. The Russians have had the most reasoned replies.