www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West The Ratzinger Proposal: (a clarification by... Ratzinger)

All of this is wonderful I'm right, you're wrong, anyone who doesn't agree with me doesn't merit my considering that they exist when I write my posts kind of stuff, but all of it fails to deal with the essential point of this thread, which is that the head of your Church (B16) disagrees with you. Beyond contradicting yourself (there is no room for two interpretations on this matter, because we have to reject latinisations, any other opinion is wrong, BUT we can't identify what isn't latinsation in dogma because the latins are confused, so clearly we can't work out what to reject) you have yet to deal with this fact.

As the author of the blog post in question I feel that I should post something.

My intention was/is simple- can some one claim to be Orthodox in Communion with Rome even though Rome says that this is impossible? (Rome says return to authentic Eastern Traditions but where does it say become Orthodox?)

To be Orthodox is more than practicing the fullness of Eastern Traditions it also implies a radically different approach to Primacy than what the (Roman) Catholic Church teaches now.

Or to to be even more specific


This is important to ponder- can two radically different approaches to Ecclesiology exist within the same Communion when the head of that Communion (the Pope) says no? The so-called Ratzinger proposal makes it seem the answer is yes but when one reads Pope Benedict's later thoughts the answer seems to be no.

Just something to think about. (I know I am pondering it)

I think it is clear that Rome has never believed what you do, and I have said so numerous times on here, and any requests I have had for documents from ROme showing that they do believe what you do have always gone unanswered (as in this thread).

It has always been clear to me from reading the much loved Orientalium Ecclesiarum (even without looking at B16s statements here and many other such statements) that it was never envisaged that embracing eastern discipline and liturgical and spiritual traditions meant rejecting Vatican I's definition of primacy, in particular see item 7 of OE:

"By the name Eastern patriarch, is meant the bishop to whom belongs jurisdiction over all bishops, not excepting metropolitans clergy and people of his own territory or rite, in accordance with canon law and without prejudice to the primacy of the Roman Pontiff.(9)"

"(9) Gfr. Synodum Nicaenam I, can. 6, Constantinopolitanam I, can. 3; Constantinopolitanam IV, can. 17, Pius XII, Motu proprio Cleri sanctitati, can. 216; 2, 1"

I await documents suggesting the contrary.

Until I am excommunicated, I believe the answer to that is yes.

I wonder if Pope Benedict has read the Eastern Catholic Light for Life books. They explain the matter of councils simply and clearly as I recall.

You won't get excommunicated. Remember, most of the Catholic clergy and faithful misread all the documents of Vatican II for at least 30 years, such as those who got very disappointed that humanae vitae was not repealed and those who believed that "collegiality" would bring married clergy, women clergy and those that believed that the Tridentine Mass was ever repealed. I believe that the Orthodox in Communion with Rome line has led people to misread (or maybe read what they want into) documents such as OE. The fact that ECs represent a fairly small fraction of the Catholic Church means that Rome has had more pressing concerns to deal with, but I am sure it is only a matter of time before B16 deals with this, as he has progressively dealt with other issues, such as the use of the Tridentine rite. His clarification, as posted here, at least shows he is aware of the fact that the "Orthodox in Communion with Rome" line has led some to consider quite fundamental aspects of Catholic dogma as optional and is concerned about this. I am sure he is aware that "cracking down" will drive some people to Orthodoxy, but in many respects I believe he would see this as a positive outcome, given that the Roman Church acknowledges Orthodox Churches and he wishes to do all possible to aid dialogue with the Moscow patriarchate and others.

Hello:

Originally Posted by Otsheylnik

I am sure he is aware that "cracking down" will drive some people to Orthodoxy, but in many respects I believe he would see this as a positive outcome, given that the Roman Church acknowledges Orthodox Churches and he wishes to do all possible to aid dialogue with the Moscow patriarchate and others.

I was driven to Orthodoxy because the mind set "Orthodox in union with Rome" didn't work for me. One cannot say they are in union with Rome when they don't hold to Romes teachings and one cannot say they are Orthodox when they are willing to submit to the pope. I was truly becoming spiritually schizophrenic.

In Christ:
Seraphim

PS The reason for the PM is that I no longer post much on this forum, I really got burned out with the few who see themselves as mini popes.

As B16 (and to a lesser extent JP2 in later years) has devoted his Papacy to showing, Vatican II was never meant to change the nature of the Catholic CHurch. The documents of the council are an exhortation to do what was already done well better, not an about face.

Unfortunately it came at the same time as various other factors in the western world led baby boomers into rejecting whatever their parents did as old fashioned and out of date, and an awful lot of things became misinterpreted in that light. For a really simple example, how many times have religious said VII asked them to abandon the habit? Yet the documents on the religious life in fact say exactly the opposite.

OE is similar. It is an exhortation, not a repudiation, and it can only be read that way by those with the intent to read it so. In particular regarding primacy, I challenge anyone to see any ambiguity in the quotation I previously posted.

B16, in the extract that started this thread, is merely affirming what OE said about primacy all those years ago for those who wanted to listen.

Hello,

I appreciate everyone's thoughts so far on this. As far as the above comment, are you saying that Rome would no longer view a Catholic who becomes Orthodox as having entered into schism? Is this speculation or have they made a statement on this?
By the way, I was just curious as to whether you are now Catholic or Orthodox? Thanks!

I imagine that whilst it would legally be an act of schism, it would not be viewed as likely to endanger the person's salvation because a) the Orthodox Churches are recognised as true churches with true sacraments
b) God is merciful

THis subject has been discussed in a bunch of threads here previously however, so I won't go into great detail. Definitely legally it is still schism, but I think that we have moved on beyond pharasaical application of canon law and towards a more sensitive understanding of individual's spiritual needs, particularly in this case as opposed to say someone leaving the Catholic Church to become a Mormon etc.

In terms of saying B16 might regard it as a positive, it depends on context, but for example in my own Russian Catholic rite it was abundantly clear for many years that the Vatican would have preferred that we did not exist as it found us a thorn in the side of dialogues with Moscow.

I was Russian Catholic and am now Russian Orthodox.

With respect to the Holy Father, his musings on this topic, while interesting, are not the final say in the matter. Indeed, we are bound by truth. It is interesting that the Vatican website houses the Revenna documents wherein it states that there have only been 7 ecumenical councils.

Is this [vatican.va] the Ravenna document you are referring to?

I was looking for the section that says there are only 7 ecumenical councils. I'm not saying it's not there...just asking if it could be pointed out. Thanks!

The documents of Vatican II aren't true?

Paras 35-39. Read closely.

As far as they went. Vatican II speaks of an Ecclesia semper reformanda, which means the Church is always in the process of discovering the truth and reforming itself in accordance with the truth. Insofar as the Church remains divided, a sin before God and a scandal to the world, the Church is still in need of reform, hence further discovery of the truth.

I'm still interested why the Orthodox would like to erect barriers to reunion on the Catholic side of the ledger, when, of course, they are perfectly capable of erecting barriers on their own.

I'm still interested in the provision of any Vatican document stating that eastern Catholics are not required to accept key dogmas of the Catholic church, specifically primacy, as per my previous posts. Specifically primacy, because a statement to the contrary would seem to contradict B16 but also Orient. Eccles.

So far the only answer I received was that we don't know what the dogmas of the Catholic faith are because Rome is inconsistent, which seems similar to suggesting that although the ball passed the goal posts on the soccer field, it didn't really because the attacking team was offside. Either that of deciding to play soccer then saying it should be played by rugby rules.

I still await.