Not too long ago, I received the news that my request for canonical transfer of rite from Byzantine Ruthenian Catholic to Roman Latin Catholic had been approved, making me a full-fledged Roman Latin Catholic for the first time in my life. In a sense, I feel as though it has been a long time in the making and a long time in coming.

While this may not measure up to the politeness and ecumenical/inter-rite nicieties that are customary on this forum, I do feel compelled to make some blunt, sober and candid assessments regarding the Byzantine Catholicism that I have departed from, as my transfer was not done lightly nor out of personal preference, but actually out of genuine necessity in order to pursue my rights and fulfill my obligations as a Catholic.

Given the fragmented and chaotic nature of our times, I suppose I cannot make any assumptions, so for the sake of clarity, I would start with the following postulates:

I converted to Catholicism in order to be a faithful Catholic who affirms and adheres to Catholicism.

Not to be Orthodox in communion with Rome.

Not to be an adherent of Byzantinism.

Not to be an adherent of Easternism.

Not to have my weekly parish bulletin repeatedly lecture me that I’m supposedly an ‘Orthodox Christian’ who has a ‘Byzantine Faith’ and needs to undergo ‘Eastern Christian’ education without any recognition of my Catholic faith and affiliation and what that distinctively entails.

Not to seek to establish a common faith with certain non-Catholics, while, in effect, undercutting the common faith I’m supposed to have with my fellow Catholics.

And certainly not to attack and cast aspersions on any of the immutable, de fide, normative, infallible teachings of 2,000 years of Catholic teaching.

So as naïve as I realize I can be, how is one, upon being received into the Catholic Church and the fullness of the Catholic faith, to respond, what was I to think, when witnessing the following in my own Byzantine Catholic parish:

- A priest who more than once stated in public worship that the last ecumenical council was Nicaea II and that those who held otherwise simply didn’t know what they were talking about.
- And when I approached him privately to challenge him in light of Church teaching, including the Eastern Catholic Code of Canon Law, he made clear that he couldn’t care less what canon law said, as it was to be dismissed as a flawed, tainted Latinized document?
- To hear the same priest talk about at coffee hour that when one comes to a true, authentic understanding of what Byzantine Catholicism should entail, one will come to realize just how little one has in common with a Roman Latin Catholic.
- To find that, not too long ago, my parish predecessors thought nothing of taking pens and defacing books of sacred prayer in order to deliberately blot out a printed reference to the Incarnate Son of God who supposedly lay at the center of their religious faith.
- To watch a bookstall go up in my parish which included material written by a non-Catholic attacking the Catholic faith, denigrating infallible Catholic dogmatic teaching, and blaming the riches of Roman Latin theology as a cause of the problems besetting some contemporary non-Catholics. And that when I pointed this out to others, I was met with little more than shrugs of indifference and a mindset that seemed focused on a priority of knowing how to stick it to the West.

What is one supposed to say and think in response to such an atmosphere? While there may be any number of things that could be said, ‘Catholic’ is certainly not one of them. No Catholic should have to encounter in their Catholic parish the anti-Catholic tone that I faced in my Byzantine Catholic parish.

Upon setting out on an 8-month period of intense research, including correspondence with any number of Byzantine Catholic priests, deacons, and thinkers, I found that the situation in my parish was far from an isolated exception. And my participation and observations during the past year on this forum have also, in great measure, further reconfirmed what I witnessed in my parish.

In carefully reviewing the specifics of what I was finding in Byzantine Catholicism with Roman Latin Catholic priests of unimpeachable scholarship and fidelity to the faith, I was told by all of them that nearly everything I was raising a concern about was indeed unCatholic and that no Catholic – absolutely none, regardless of rite – had any right to espouse such things.

So it’s not the easiest to maintain high regard for a form of Catholicism where apparently so many of its adherents, including no shortage of deacons, priests, and bishops, seem intent on ignoring, defying, rejecting, tampering with, deconstructing, distorting, or forensically bifurcating infallible fundamentals of the Catholic faith that they subjectively disapprove of, infallibles that are clearly spelled out by the Magisterium. All the while being ever intent on seizing upon any ambiguity that has cropped up over time to contort them into being a weapon to be used against that which is specific, exact, and authoritative.

Watching Byzantine Catholic disrespect directed towards Roman Latin Catholicism has also been a dismaying sight to behold. Such as when folks say that they will not recite the filioque when attending a Roman mass. So much for having regard for the liturgical tradition of others, not to mention affirmation of infallible Catholic dogma. Or to hear when somebody who demands respect for anything and everything Byzantine thinks nothing of declaring that mandatory celibacy for priests is just plain wrong and unconscionable. So much for respect for the disciplines of others. Although, magically, mandatory celibacy for bishops is not a problem.

Also rather disturbing was the specter of watching how Greek/Slavic Christians like Demetrios Kydones and Metropolitan Isidore, ones who came to embrace Catholicism and stood by it at great personal sacrifice and expense, are roundly ignored, if not ridiculed, while prominent material schismatics are opened hailed and celebrated.

I don’t think I’m under any illusions as to what the current situation is like for Roman Latin Catholicism. But I do know that I can find parishes, priests, and apostolates in association with I can affirm and live out the immutable fullness of the Catholic faith, which is both my right and my obligation.

In Roman Latin Catholicism, as Augustine once beautifully put it, ‘all that is true is ours’, a far cry from subjecting everything to a myopic, narrow, provincial Latin litmus test.

In Roman Latin Catholicism, I can finds works, even including rigorous pre-Second Vatican Council works like Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, that are chock full of numerous, mostly positive, references to Chrysostom, Basil, Athanasius, the Cyrils, the Gregorys etc. and how their ideas supplement, compliment and augment ones Catholicity. Is there any scholarly Byzantine Catholic work out there that in any way elaborates upon the riches bequeathed to us by singular figures like Hilary of Poitiers, Jerome, Ambrose, and Augustine, and how they enrich one’s Catholicism?

In Roman Latin Catholicism, I don’t find any sneering disregard for iconography simply because its genesis is not Latin, and one can find icons in all sorts of Roman Latin Catholic settings. How many Byzantine Catholics have developed any meaningful, respectful understanding or participation in Western statuary? The only time I recall the subject ever arising was when a member of my Byzantine Catholic parish was doubting whether he could in good conscious accept Western statues as a licit form of Catholic art.

One paradoxical byproduct of my experience with Byzantine Catholicism has been something of an increase in respect of mine lately for the Eastern Orthodoxy that I converted out of when I became Catholic. While I developed a definite set of problems with Eastern Orthodoxy and felt and I could no longer remain as a faithful member, I can honestly look back and say that I was never genuinely scandalized by the Eastern Orthodox clergy, religious, or educated, committed faithful. Good for them. To the Eastern Orthodox who will get to read this: a belated, but sincere ‘thank you’.

During more recent months, I must confess that I have begun to ponder the question as to whether a true, viable, faithful Byzantine Catholicism is even possible at this point of Christian history with the particular churches that are presently in the Catholic communion. I must confess that I am growing increasingly skeptical.

There can be no benefit to my continued participation here, and, as a result, this will be my last post on the Byzcath forum as a Catholic layman, so I ask the administrators/moderators to please revoke my robster userid.

Robert Barnett

Dear Robert,

We wish you well in whatever tradition brings you closer to God.

Remember that human beings are sinners, and that as sinners, we will always scandalize someone by our actions--or be scandalized by someone's actions...no matter what our faith tradition or patriarchal allegiance is. Our goal should be the kingdom of God, but we all have different ways of attempting to attain that goal. Try not to be so upset by this and/or by that. Trust me, as someone who has gone through those emotions, they are not worth it for the soul. Shrugging your shoulders and accepting that as Christians of a certain faith, we will find some whom we agree with completely, some whom we will agree with partially, and some who we will downright disagree with--It is when we find the peace to accept that this will always be the case, and not to judge others (for they may be feeling the same way about our ideas too!) but to seek our own salvation, that it will be then that we will be much happier.

Be well,
Alice, Moderator

Robert

I'm sorry to hear of the problems you encountered in your former church. I remain a Traditional Latin who attends a UGCC parish, and my own experiences have been quite the opposite. At my church, there's a crucifix in the vestibule, statues on the iconostasis, cards where candles are lit containing prayers for the Souls in Purgatory, people saying the rosary before the liturgy, homilies about Fatima, Lourdes and LaSalette, and to my knowledge, no one calls themselves "Orthodox in Communion". Doesn't mean they hate the Orthodox (we must have had over 40 people at the Orthodox picnic down the street) it's just that if they wanted to be Orthodox they'd just go join that church down the road.

It is possible that many of the problems we see with one rite or another can be localized to the parish we use as a touchstone. It is difficult to appreciate the qualities of one's own rite when we focus on what bothers us.

"But I do know that I can find parishes, priests, and apostolate in association with I can affirm and live out the immutable fullness of the Catholic faith, which is both my right and my obligation. "

This is an excellent pursuit when performed in wisdom.


"I don’t find any sneering disregard for iconography simply because its genesis is not Latin, and one can find icons in all sorts of Roman Latin Catholic settings."

I have found that some in the Latin Church fail to appreciate icons as much as deserved. Though I am very glad that there's a blessed icon at my parish, I have stepped into various parishes which lacked an icon. I would not blame the priest or parishioners. They respect the saints. That cannot be doubted.

It’s easy to paint with a broad brush, especially when angry or frustrated. It’s even easier to research our way to misunderstanding, but then that a problem with what the end of the research is. Truth is simple only to God. We humans tend to complicate matters. I hope you find and are blessed with peace, truth, and wisdom on your path to the Latin Church.

Terry

Christ is in our midst!! He is and always will be!!

robster:

May I suggest that you may find the mirror image of the problems you encountered in the Byzantine Church in the English-speaking Latin Church in the U.S.? Many of the clergy openly disregard anything that comes out of Rome as "interference" and many have bishops who say the same thing--many publicly.

We Catholics seem to have internalized a general attitude of dissent that sprang up after Vatican II in various quarters and which blossomed into full blown rebellion in many such quarters after the publication of Humanae Vitae in 1968. So while many Byzantines may grouse about Rome and some of the things that they have been subjected to--and I believe that there are many valid grievances--there is a mirror image in the Latin Church that you have yet to encounter. You may even find people who ask you if you "really" believe all that stuff in the CCC. You may even find laymen who believe every modernist teaching that comes down the pike. And you may find all kinds of liturgical shortcuts and irreverent practices all done in the name of "the spirit of Vatican II."

Each of us has to put down his roots and bloom where we are planted. Each of us is sown in a field that has a good growth of tares as well as faithful fellows. We all have to remember that it is our own commitment in the midst of the suffering we are dealt for that commitment that is the fruit Christ is looking for when we meet Him one-on-one to give our accounting. When it comes down to where the rubber meets the road, Christ is counting on each of us one at a time.

In Christ,

BOB

Robb,

Thank you for your post. I for one agree with what you've written about the current condition of the Byzantine Catholic churches.

Please be assured that there are some who choose to remain in the Byzantine Catholic churches who do not buy into either latinized uniatism or Neo-Byzantinism.

I am also a convert from the Byzantine schism (to be distinguished from the Orthodox particular churches in a real but imperfect communion with the Catholic Church). I wanted to find true Catholic Orthodoxy, the crown of which is perfect communion with Rome. I found something different, neither truly Catholic nor truly Eastern. But alas, such is the age in which God has been pleased to let us live.

I only expect things to get worse until the requests of the All-immaculate Theotokos at Fatima are fulfilled.

Let us stand together with the Mother of God by the Cross.

Gabriel

May God bless you, and may you find peace in your new spiritual home.

I hope and pray that you will now find peace

Anhelyna - who went from West to East and has found peace

Greetings and salutalions from southern Colorado!

I wanted to thank theophan for his reply to robster, it touched my heart, I have saved it for later reflection and renewal of my spirit.

since moving from the east coast to southern CO almost a year ago I have been searching for a parish home. It is quite a distance to the one lonely Ruthenian parish in Denver and, with gas prices what they are, has been made nearly impossible on a week-to-week basis (at least for me sadly).

I, like robster, am a convert to Catholiscm but in the reverse of him...I started as Latin-rite and changed rites to Byzantine whilst still back east many years ago. I found so much rich, colorful and spiritual "food" in the Byzantine-rite and am now having a very difficult time adjusting to the fact that I will have to participate back in the Latin-rite in order to "go to church on sunday" so-to-speak.

I am not here to address any rite differences just to, again, thank theophan. Your post has done more to heal my heart and spirit than any other thing I have read over the past months. When you said "Each of us has to put down his roots and bloom where we are planted. Each of us is sown in a field that has a good growth of tares as well as faithful fellows. We all have to remember that it is our own commitment in the midst of the suffering we are dealt for that commitment that is the fruit Christ is looking for when we meet Him one-on-one to give our accounting. When it comes down to where the rubber meets the road, Christ is counting on each of us one at a time." you convicted me and have given me the "kick-in-the-butt" that I've needed to get moving and find that parish here locally (yes, it will be Roman-rite) where this Byzantine-rite Catholic (my nature now not just what it says on any paper) can "put down my roots and bloom" once again. I have laid on the soil too long bemoaning the loss of my beloved, it is time for me to get up and get on!

Thank you theophan...you have done more than you know this blessed a.m.! Christ is INDEED with us, wherever that may be!!!

~Emmaus

Emmaus, I was reflecting on your last sentence, "I have laid on the soil too long bemoaning the loss of my beloved, it is time for me to get up and get on!"

I was thinking about how tempting it could be for someone in that position, having come to a new parish, to look at his fellow parishioners (or the priest) with disregard so as to presume the quality of their faith. It is easy to approach the altar with the prayer of the Pharasee, "'God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get'" (Luke 18:11-12). But that attitude does not help us bloom. Approach these new parishioners with the Love of Christ and let Him do the judging.

Maybe your strengthened interior life can help guide your new friends in their walk. The bloom is not only an interior blossoming, it can open the spiritual eyes of those who reflect on He who dressed the lily in the field.

Terry

Yes, Terry, you have hit my problems "nail" right squarely on its head...bravo! I have been doing, to my private and, now, public shame, exactly what you so eloquently described. It is what has mainly kept me from enjoying my Catholiscm, whatever rites church I may have been at over these past months of searching.

After reading theophan's post my heart and spirit were pricked and convicted of my unjust assessments and selfishness. I repent of them now and will endevour to redeem myself with simple love and longing for my Lord and Savior in the love and celebration of His Sacraments - no matter the "rite" church.

With humility and gratitude for your wisdom,
~Emmaus

I've been pondering this comment. I can see where there may be truth to this observation, particularly in the U.S., and other parts of the "Diaspora". However, in recent days I've had a lot of contact with young Greek Catholic priests from Ukraine-one married priest from Halych, and one celibate priest from Zakapartia. Both of them are demonstrably Eastern, but also profoundly Catholic. The Greek Catholic Churches in Ukraine and environs are packed-almost every day, and they are "real". Our problems here are, ultimately, rooted in the rotting cultural environment in which we are situated.

Dn. Robert

Emmaus and Terry:

Some years ago my spiritual father put to me a Lenten question. I was to relfect on it, pray about it, wrestle with it, and let him in in the interior dialogue as the weeks went by.

The question is, "How would you live, how would you witness, how would you practice the Faith if you were the only Catholic in the area--assume a 100 mile radius)?"

I developed a set of questions that are not exhaustive and I'd be glad to hear other takes on this interior questioning:

Would you act differently? Would you give up? What is your real commitment? Are you on the surface? Are you a Pharisee? Is this faith walk and the practices you adopt as part to it about you or is it about your commitment to Christ? Are you working on the inside where you need to root out pride and vainglory and all the other "thorns" that threaten to strangle the Life of Christ within you?

These questions still make me squirm.

We have a real task here. No matter where we find ourselves, we must witness to what we have been taught, what reverence we have been inspired to have and express (really, not as outward motion but an expression of a real interior conviction). I will be judged by what I've done, what I've witnessed to, and Who I've pointed to. If this is about me and being "religious" I may be doing more damage to Christ's message than building it up. For me, this is part of my ongoing conversion of life. Accusing myself and not worrying aobut others until I get it right myself.

There will be Catholic Christians to witness to, Orthodox Christians to witness to, and unchurched people to witness to--all looking to me to see what makes me tick and I hope I am pointing to the One "in Whom I live and move and have my being."

In Christ,

BOB

I just dont see these things as problems. The Eastern Catholics after all were enjoined upon by the Pope to clean up there liturgies and to de latinize.
One can be Orthodox and in Communion with the Apostolic See of Rome, after all they have the fullness of faith too!
What needs to be accomplished is to express the same doctrines in genuine and ligitimate ways that are according to each perspective Sister Church.
Stephanos I

Robert,

Since I was the one who set up the bookshop you mentioned, I'm curious about the anti-Catholic text you mention. To the best of my recollection, no such work was included under my watch.

As to your transfer, apart from some of the dramatics of your final post (including your public renunciation of your userid), I wholeheartedly support your move to the Latin Church. I think that this has been your true home spiritually and intellectually for some time. I am saddened by the impressions that you have of Eastern Catholicism, though, and I think certain things you cite may reflect the behavior and commentary of particular individuals and not the positions of particular Churches. I think your characterization of Eastern Catholicism and its myriad of forms is for the most part unfair and unbalanced - rather more like a caricature, than a true portayal.

I think now that you have entered Latin Catholicism and continue to desire (presumably) to be fully Catholic, at some point you need to reconcile yourself to the Catholic East as it truly is, rather than as you may have experienced it or perceived it to be. This has been taught by the concilar and papal Catholic Magisterium, so there is no escaping it, despite the nature of whatever uber-Latin enclave into which you happen to immerse yourself.

For my part, I regard you as my Catholic brother and wish you all the best in your 'new" (but altogether not so new) home.

In ICXC,

Fr. Deacon Daniel (Gordo)

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.

Father Robert Bishop, CMF is an excellent biritual priest and is very devout.

Francis, I'm not sure I do see a difference. The entire Catholic Church took part in the last fourteen ecumenical councils. The Catholic Church and all those sui iuris Churches in Communion with Rome constitute the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Schismatic bishops and Churches presence would, naturally, not be a requirement for a council to be considered ecumenical.

I mean, if that's the case, then why are the fourth-through-seventh "ecuemnical" councils ecumenical, in your opinion? The Oriental Orthodox were not invited to those and did not take part in any of them, and yet you recognize them as ecumenical.

I will, of course, let you speak for yourself, but to me it seems that you are operating under the same principles as I in one respect (in regards to ECs #4-7) and yet not so in another (in regards to ECs #8-21).

Alexis

this becomes a question of ecclesiology. If we believe that the Great Schism has never been complete, and that in some sense Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism are fundamentally one church, then an "ecumenical council" to which one side or the other is exclusively invited is not an ecumenical council.

If it will make anyone feel any better, the Orthodox were invited to Vatican I, and declined to attend.

On the other hand, the Anglican bishops of the period were invited to Trent and declined to attend - and I certainly would not say that the Anglicans stood in the same relationship as the Orthodox do to Rome, or vice versa.

In the case of Vatican II, the first Eastern Catholic to say that this was not an authentic ecumenical council was none other than Metropolitan Elias (Zoghby), of thrice-blessed memory. Nobody attempted to push him out. On the other hand, it's a moot point, since Vatican II of set purpose did not define dogma, but rather was a pastoral council.

Fr. Serge

I found one of my earlier posts which provides a quote from then Cardinal Ratzinger on precisely this point, what was intended and its subsequent misinterpretation.



I for one accept the (then) good Cardinal's analysis. Presumably this has not changed since becoming the Vicar of Peter.

God bless,

Fr. Deacon Daniel

To say that a Council of the Western Church is not precisely the equivalent of one of the Seven Councils is not to say that a Council of the Western Church is not authoritative.

Fr. Serge

Alexis,

How dare you find the weakness in my argument!

Seriously, I think you bring up a good point about ECs #4-7.

On the one hand, I do not think that "the entire Catholic Church took part in the last fourteen ecumenical councils", as the Catholic Church itself recognizes the validity of the Orthodox Churches as "Churches" (not just "ecclesial communities" like the Protestant groups). If they are truly "churches", then they must be in some way part of the "entire Catholic Church", even if imperfectly. Thus, I think the argument can be made that the Western Councils were just that - Western Councils and not ecumenical.

However, the problem is with the fact that apostolic churches split after the 3rd council, so why doesn't my argument apply to them as well, as you wonder?

I think because of the difference between the various schisms. In the case of the schisms after the 3rd and 4th councils, we have a clear case of churches breaking off from the Great Church due to perceived doctrinal reasons declared by a legitimate council of bishops. The Great Schism however, had no such break. There was no rejection of the others dogmas until after a long period apart, and the "schism" itself was not really a formally declared schism. Thus, as Fr. Serge stated, the Schism was never really completed, and therefore both Catholicism and Orthodoxy are part of the full "Catholic Church" and needed to call a true ecumenical council.

Fr. Deacon Daniel,

Yes, I don't think you can take Cardinal Ratzinger's words further than he intended. I doubt he questions the ecumenical status of the General Councils of the West.

However, his willingness to let the Orthodox maintain the legitimacy of their own developments of the 2nd millennium, without recourse to the Western Councils, does seem to necessitate putting the 7 Great Councils on a different level than the Western Councils. What exactly this means, I do not know, but I think it is something to contemplate.

Father Serge,

Father Louis Bouyer argued the same thing in his treatise on the Church.

I have often thought, as a Byzantine especially, that one should ascribe a "primacy of honor" to the first seven, who also seem to have something of a hierarchy within themselves (the first 4 - compared by St. Gregory the Great to the "Four Gospels"). The later councils addressed themselves principally (but not exclusively in certain cases) to matters of interest and necessity in the West and therefore have little application to the East. I think whatever their authoritative nature (and I do hold to them as ecumenical), their value is in defining certain doctrinal or dogmatic boundaries that most of us within the East would not even consider crossing.

In ICXC,

Fr. Deacon Daniel

Francis,

Thank you for making a distinction. While I understand parts of your reasoning, I still have trouble with other areas.
First of all, no one can in good conscience any more deny that the Catholic Church defines itself as THE definitive Church of Christ. While others separated from Her have elements of the True Church, sometimes so many elements that they themselves can legitimately be called Churches (the EOs, OOs, Assyrians, etc.), it has been consistently taught (and recently clarified in a much-delayed official Vatican explanation of what, exactly "subsistit in" means) that, to put it in a mathematical forumula, the Catholic Church = the One, Undivided, Church of Christ.

I do not hate or despise people who disagree, but by my conscience and by the clear teaching of the Church I am bound to believe that they are in serious error and denying a truth of the Faith. I can't see how those who would attempt to come at the issue honestly could disagree, but there you have it. I believe that some people *want* something so badly, that they will stop at nothing to believe in it, official pronouncements, clarifications, etc. having little to no affect. I'm not saying that's what's happening with you, but I think it happens to many people on a variety of issues.

Ok, enough of beating that dead horse...moving on...
You make the argument that since the Eastern Orthodox Churches are "truly 'churches'," that they must be part of the entire Catholic Church, and since they didn't take part in the last 14 "Western" councils, that these councils cannot be deemed ecumenical.

Huh?

Aren't the Oriental Orthodox Churches "truly churches" as well, according to Catholic teaching, just as much so as the Eastern Orthodox? The answer, of course, is yes. How then, in light of the reasons you have posited, can "ecumenical councils" #4-7 still be considered ecumenical? Despite however a departure occurred (in the case of the OO, rejecting what they saw to be a false, non-ecumenical council trying to force on them unOrthodox terminology, and in another case a gradual, but clear ecclesial rupture between the EO and the Catholic Church), the fact of the matter remains that for those councils, four through seven, "true Churches" are not participating in any way in these ecumenical councils.

Now, that's not a problem for me, in the least. But it seems to be for you, at least in regards to the last 14 councils.
What, in this respect, is the difference for you?

Alexis

I agree very much. But I never said that any of the councils were "precise equivalents" of each other.

Alexis

Alexis,

Just to be clear: I do believe that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church. I have no dispute with this, and I accept that all other Churches have some type of imperfection in their communion with that one Church.

However, I still am troubled by equating the later Western Councils with the original seven of the undivided Church. Clearly some type of breach occurred in the Church after the 11th century. In the old days, we would have just said, "the schismatics left us, and too bad for them". That is clearly not acceptable in light of recent Catholic teaching. This breach has had an impact not only on the Orthodox, but also upon us - we are missing something constitutive to our being as the Body of Christ. Because of this, it is difficult for me to see how we can simply look upon the councils after the Great Schism as being on the same level of the first seven. As I said previously, I'm not sure what this means as regards to the exact authoritativeness of the Western Councils.

Regarding the difference between #4-7 and #8-21, my only explanation is the one I gave before. I do think the circumstances of the breaches make a difference - in the case of the breaches after #3 and #4, we have churches leaving over doctrinal issues and after conciliar debates (while maintaining apostolic succession). But in the case of the Great Schism, we have no actual event that causes the schism. To paraphrase Fr. Congar, we simp