Being, as I am, a believer in freedom of religion, I have only one thing to say to someone who leaves us for the Latins: Godspeed!

Fr. Serge

Father,

I think that is as close as it comes to "Keep warm and well fed!"

In ICXC,

Fr. Deacon Daniel

Originally posted by: StephanosI
What needs to be accomplished is to express the same doctrines in genuine and ligitimate (sic) ways that are according to each perspective Sister Church. (underlining mine)

Granted. But when you have Byzantine Catholics who say that the Councils of Florence, Trent, and Vatican I are not truly ecumenical (?!), you can understand the angst of a sincere Catholic like Robert.

Pope Paul VI used the expression "the general councils held in the West" to distinguish these councils from the Seven Ecumenical Councils. If that disturbs anyone, complaints should be addressed to Pope Paul VI.

Fr. Serge

General = Ecumenical. Doesn't matter where the council is held.

Quite frankly, I think that the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church share the same substantial faith, be it Latin or Byzantine, Western or Eastern.

I am not unaware of the real controversies that separate us; but as far as I am concerned, our faith in a Common Creed, Scriptures, fathers, Sacraments, and our understanding of Salvation, are so much more substantial than our differences.

And for the word "ORthodox"- my understanding is, that many of our Greek Catholic Ruthenian anscestors in faith still called themselves "pravaslavny" even up to the time of Alexis Toth.

Gabriel,



A few things to note:

1) Pope Paul VI referred to the Council of Lyons as the "Sixth of the General Councils held in the West". Both the limitation of "in the West" as well as calling it the "sixth" clearly distinguish the "Western" councils from the first seven ecumenical councils. And "General" does not equal "Ecumenical" - it would be an oxymoron to limit an ecumenical council to a specific geographic region.

2) Pope John Paul II once stated that everything "essential" to our shared Faith was defined in the first 7 ecumenical councils. This seems to imply that the other councils did not define anything "essential" and therefore might not be ecumenical in nature.

3) Cardinal Ratzinger once wrote that unity should not demand that the Orthodox accept anything after the 1st millennium. If the Western Councils are truly ecumenical, and therefore binding on the whole Church, how could he have written that?

4) Nowhere does the Catholic Church list exactly which councils are ecumenical. It is just assumed that the list generated by St. Robert Bellemere is a legitimate one. There have been plenty of councils that self-identified themselves as "ecumenical" which the Church rejects, so self-identification is not really sufficient.

Note that I do not reject the teachings of the Western councils. As a Roman Catholic, I believe they were, in general, necessary councils to keep the Catholic Faith in the West. However, I'm not sure I think they should be considered as ecumenical, and therefore, binding on all Christians - both East and West.

Francis,

I think sometimes we are apt to forget that even Popes can express their private theological opinions without it being infallible or somehow immutable Catholic teaching. In fact, that happens quite a lot. As a private theologian, a Pope can err just as badly as the next Catholic. I do sometimes find it ironic that things like Papal Infallibility are often castigated or down-played by the same people who would then seek to take a Pope's private theological opinion or off-the-cuff comment as somehow being God-sent dogma. Isn't that odd?

As far as the ecumenical councils go, I agree! That's why I don't consider the first seven "ecumenical councils" really ecumenical at all, since they almost completely dealt with Eastern/Byzantine issues and heresies, necessary to keep the Catholic Faith in the East. However, I'm not sure they should be considered ecumenical, and therefore, binding on all Christians - both East and West.

Alexis

Oh, and concerning Robster's comments, I can understand where he is coming from. Not having lived as a Byzantine Catholic (nor ever having the desire to do so), I would never be so bold as to confirm what he says, but I can tell that he is a searching, honest, and troubled heart, distressed at what he deems to be, rightly or wrongly, the rank-and-file rejection of Catholic and Orthodox Teachings in many corners of the Byzantine Catholic Church in America.

And while Bob is correct that one will undoubtedly come across many in the Latin Church who also reject Orthodox Catholic dogma, I don't often hear bishops actually speak out or openly deny dogma. I think they have more of a problem with leaving things undone rather than with actually spewing heresy. And I think it's certainly possible in most Latin dicoeses in the country to find areas of orthodoxy --- though I wouldn't bet on Los Angeles or St. Petersburg!

Alexis

Alexis,



You read way more into my remarks than I intended.

I never stated, or even implied, that the three Popes' statements were infallible or immutable. My point is that the ecumenical status of the Western Councils is clearly not a defined point of Catholic dogma, or else those popes - all faithful Catholics - would not have spoken about them in such a way. Does this mean that they are definitively NOT ecumenical? No. But the question is open.



I realize you are joking somewhat here - but it is not the same situation. The Western councils, other than Florence and Lyons, didn't even invite the Eastern Patriarchs and bishops. The 7 councils, however, did include the entire (i.e. "ecumenical") Church - either by attendance or acceptance. One cannot say that about the Western councils. This doesn't make the Western councils meaningless, but it puts them more on the level of local councils than ecumenical councils.

I think the implied statement here is that people must accept the Latin side of every dispute between two Catholic churches in order to be "sincere" Catholics. I cannot accept such an implication. Such an implication would mean that the opinions of non-Latin churches were virtually meaningless in doctrinal disputes. At least in some cases, disputes should be resolved in council, not by blind acceptance of Latin theology. Further, why is it that Latin theology, even in nondoctrinal and unreolved areas, should serve as superior to Eastern? Cannot both sides, where appropriate, be considered "Catholic."

By the way, I am glad to have Robster's original post. His comments were essentially constructive and we could learn from him. I am not endorsing his views, but I think we should think about what he has said and ask ourselves why he felt the way he did.

"Cannot both sides, where appropriate, be considered 'Catholic.'"

Can the mystery of God be fully plumbed? The more I expose myself to the theology and spirituality of the East and the West, the more I am convinced that the answer is a sound "No".

What first brought me here was a personal reflection on how I can can both respect and admire the mind and the mission St. Thomas Aquinas developed as well as the spiritual poetry that St. John of the Cross painted. At first the two approaches to theology seem to clash and contradict, but then with a deeper consideration they don't. For both of those saints were blessed with an enormous faith and a deep communion with God. If those two saints who were so different in form but unified in essence can both be valid, why not others?

Terry

Well said!

Originally posted by Logos Alexis: I wouldn't bet on Los Angeles

For the Tridentine Mass, go to Santa Terecita in Duarte on the second Sunday of the month; Father Robert Bishop - who also knows our Byzantine Rite and has celebrated it in Slavonic - is one of the best priests I have ever known.

For the Byzantine-Russian Liturgy, go to Saint Andrew Russian Catholic Church in El Segundo.

In either liturgy you will see the identical reality: The Kingdom of Heaven on earth.