www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Infallibility and Primate of Jurisdicion - acceptable by EC?

Can the Pope's infallibility and primate of jurisdicion be acceptable by Eastern Catholics, or are they deviations of the Church tradition, not being true dogmas?

Are you upset over the latest encyclical?

The former is moot, the latter deeply resented.

There is a Church that uses the fullness of the Byzantine liturgical and monastic tradition, where Papal Infallibility is not accepted and Papal jurisdiction considered to be a fantasy. It is called the Orthodox Church.

Again -- and I mean this with all respect -- if one believes exactly as the Orthodox do, and considers Rome to be disrespectful and oppressive, then why not become Orthodox? This is the great and nagging question that I have always been asking in this Forum, never getting a good answer. I'm sure that some of the Orthodox commentators and observers in this forum are asking the same thing.

What is better: stay within the Catholic Church and molder in endless resentment against the "oppressive" and "deviant" Latin Church, or just jump and be Orthodox?

I'm firmly Catholic but I do think that if one is convinced inside and out of the truth of Orthodoxy, then that one ought to be Orthodox, because there is simply no point in that person remaining Catholic. That is the reason why I never opposed the conversion of one of my aunts to Coptic Orthodoxy.

You will have to take this up with our patriarchs. In the meanwhile, our purpose as Eastern Catholics is to live the fullness of the Eastern Traditions of our particular Churches while maintaining communion with the Church of Rome. In those instances where the current doctrine of the Church of Rome runs contrary to the ancient and venerable Tradition of our Churches, it is our obligation to stand up for the Tradition--otherwise we have no reason to exist.

As Father Lawrence Cross wrote in Eastern Christianity: The Byzantine Tradition,


Back to Asian Pilgrim:


The vocation of the Eastern Catholics is to bear witness to the ability to be fully Orthodox and in communion with Rome. If we accept anything less, then we have no purpose. Under those circumstances, you--and the Orthodox who echo your sentiments--would be correct: we would have to choose, to be Latin or to be Orthodox. But we cannot be the tertium quid--ritually Byzantine and theologically Latin. That is what you demand of us, and rightfully, we reject that.


What, precisely, does being "Catholic" mean to you? And why would you think that Orthodoxy is not true? Why would you be happy about your aunt leaving the Catholic communion for the Coptic Church, unless you believed that the Coptic Church likewise is true? Would you have your aunt fall into error? You need seriously to consider the implications of your positions and evaluate them in light of the teaching of the Holy See regarding the Eastern Catholic Churches for the past century and a half, as well as statements by the leading hierarchs of our Churches--all equal in grace and dignity with even the Church of Rome itself.

If I believed Orthodoxy to be true, I would have become Orthodox long ago. I mean, why live in a Roman Catholic Church that is so deracinated by modernism, were it not for the fact that I still believe her doctrine to be pure? And no, I am not happy that my aunt became Orthodox -- I just came to accept that she had spiritually rejected her Catholic roots, and there was no point in arguing with her at all. Besides, she was impressed by the austerity of the Copts, their worship and asceticism, and I had no way of counter-acting that. So I simply said that I will not oppose her conversion.

Stuart, tell me: do you consider the Orthodox and Catholic Churches to be equally true?

Precisely my point as well. In the ByzCath Forum I read of Eastern Catholics who consider Rome to be in grave deviance from the Tradition of the Fathers and who believe that Rome shows no respect for Eastern theology, Church life and spirituality. So....

Again, a fundamental question, and this time I hope to get a good answer: why remain in communion with Rome if you believe that Rome has abandoned the Tradition of the Church? I mean... if I believe that Rome has abandoned the Tradition, I won't remain one second in union with her!

The whole point of being Eastern Catholic is to restore the respect for the variety of Traditions that marked the undivided Church of the first millennium. Once upon a time, under the concept of "uniatism", our purpose was seen as luring the Orthodox into communion with the Church of Rome. Today, our purpose is to demonstrate the ability to be faithful to the Orthodox Tradition in its entirety while maintaining communion with the Church of Rome.

It is a work in progress, and our relationship with Rome remains fraught with myriad ambiguities, contradictions and shortcomings. But, unless we succeed in our vocation, there will not be reconciliation between the Church of Rome and the Orthodox Churches. So we stick at it. It's our job--a dirty one that nobody at all seems to appreciate very much.

?

I consider the Latin Church to be the continuation of the undivided Church in the West. I consider the Orthodox Churches to be the continuation of the undivided Church in the East. I consider that both have maintained the fullness of the Apostolic Tradition, each in accordance with its own unique modes of expression, worship, spirituality, theology, doctrine and discipline. Both, therefore, are equally true, but neither has the right to impose its own Tradition upon the other.

Which brings us to the question of, what does it mean to be in communion with a See? Even if you keep the Tradition in its entirety, can you be in communion with a See that has officially violated and mutilated the Tradition? I think that this is what both the Orthodox and Roman Catholics agree on.

Well, that's what we are hammering out, day by day. As I said, a work in progress, with the situation in the first millennium seen as normative. And even in that regard, it is important to remember that the Church of the First Millennium "never knew true unity, but bore witness to it".


I don't see Rome as "having violated or mutilated the Tradition". I see Rome, rather, as having tried to elevate its own unique Tradition as normative for all Christians, which is an entirely different thing. I have no problem with Latins doing their Latin thing, as long as we of the Byzantine Tradition can do our Byzantine thing without judgment or interference or attempts to impose elements from one Tradition upon the other. By the same token, I don't think the Orthodox are correct when they attempt to impose elements of the Byzantine Tradition on the Latin Church (or, to delve into their history, on the Armenian Tradition, the Syrian Tradition, the Coptic Tradition, etc.). A useful place to start in this area is Father Robert Taft's seminal Kelly Lecture, Anamnesis, Not Amnesia [web.archive.org]

As an Eastern Catholic I reject both points.

In a conversation with another acquaintance, also a Roman Catholic traditionalist, I was accused of the heresy of "Zoghbyism". I rather like the sound of that. Maybe write a book about it: Touts Zogbyistes?

Perhaps referring your question to recent statements by the Magisterium would be appropriate; Unitatis Redintegratio is quite clear on this:
If it is part of the "full Catholic and apostolic character of the Church" as the Church herself teaches, your question is nonsensical.