In light of various recent threads, in which argument has ensued over the degree to which Eastern Catholics are obliged to 'accept' Roman magisterial teaching, I must admit to being shocked by the positions of some on this forum.

With certain members making claims such as all Eastern Catholics in communion with Rome are obliged to accept the 'whole', or be considered disobedient (to say the least), makes me wonder about the prospect for any sort of reunification in future.

With ultramontanism like this, how is it possible for any rapproachment between East and West?

What I would like to know from those who have repeatedly asked for textual confirmation of an Easterner's position when the said Easterner has expressed a different take on Papal dogma than that expressed, for example, by the first Vatican Council, is where in the first millenium they find precedent for their own understanding of communion with Rome.

The historic, apostolic Church simply proffers no precedent for the complete subordination of one church's theological expressions and ideas to another's - even Rome's (barring fundamental Christological and Trinitarian formula, together with episcopal sturcture, of course).

If that is what is directed at me, I wouldn't say my position is ultra-montane (for a start I'm Orthodox). I think my position is that the Catholic and Orthodox Communions of Churches have diverged significantly in some areas, and I would consider those areas to be significant enough to decide whether one wants to belong to one or the other. Certainly, these areas have been sufficient enough for the Orthodox and Catholic Churches to break Communion. It therefore seems odd to me to argue for Communion with the latin catholic Church if you feel that it's position is wrong. And far from being detrimental to dialogue, I think this sentiment is positive to dialogue. The current position of some eastern Catholics that "I disagree with everything Rome has done since the schism but I'll stay in communion with them anyway", is frankly, damaging to dialogue, totally weird to Orthodox people who break communion over much smaller things than that, and if your position is that Rome is wrong, it does nothing to get this across to them, because it sends the message that "see, the Orthodox will come around. The ECs get along OK with us and they don't agree with us".

Regarding the submission of one Church's opinion to another, that is not at all what we are talking about. I'm not talking about members of the UGCC, say, submitting to a Roman catechism. I;m talking about them submitting to their own. And if we're talking VI or VII it is a mistake to say that they represents only the opinion of the Roman Church. It represents just as much the opinions of the eastern Catholic Churches. They were there, they contributed, they agreed. Therefore the definitions of Papal Primacy, in say, VI, are not Rome's opinions. They are the views of the entire Catholic Communion of Churches - Roman, Coptic, Greek, Ruthenian, etc. They were all there. I'm not sure what is so difficult to grasp about that? People can debate whether they like them or agree with them, but it's simple fact.

Some of the most ultramontane people I know are Orthodox. They have a far more elevated view of the power and perquisites of the Papacy than does the Pope himself. They need an ultramontane Catholicism to create the appropriate straw man for use in their polemics.

That's why I would consult the CCEO if I really wanted an answer.

I also think the answer to the other thread is "yes".

In regard to the CCEO, I think it's important to regard it as a starting document.

Each Autonomous Church is supposed to have it's own Canons according to her particular laws and Traditions.

The CCEO as it stands today is a generic start based on the Latin Code, it probably will not be anything like what each sui iuris Church will create on her own in due time.

Is it a different take, or is it something to the effect of, "it has no bearing on me, so I can completely ignore it as some crazed innovation".
I see the latter, not the former, expressed here by some. I think that is highly problematic because it comes entirely from the POV of politics and gamesmanship rather than being of the Spirit of God.




I can agree with that. On the other hand, what also happens is that Easterners simply brush away Rome's theological expressions as having no importance or bearing at all. It is as if catholicity only exists in one's own expression, the others are just quaint ideas.
Easterners rightly point out when Rome gets this way.
But from my POV as a Latin, I see a whole lot of it among Easterners too.

Until both sides begin to view catholicity as a gift, that something of the part is intended and gift for the whole, there will be no unity. Both sides are going to have to give something up. Rome as well as the East. Neither side is willing to move all that much. From my perspective, the East isn't willing to move at all, and it seems that their position is that Rome can come back when they come to their senses and come on their knees. (unfortunately, some Pope's have had this bad attitude too, in the past).
Maybe others see it differently.

As an Eastern Catholic of the "easternizing" variety, I think you raise some interesting points. TBH I struggle frequently with the question of why continue to remain in communion with Rome when the Tradition of the East seems to conflict so strongly with the Papal dogmas and innovations introduced over the years. The Pope has some sort of role in Christian unity, or in the unity of the Church, but is it really worth holding onto that ideal core of unity at the expense of unity with our mother churches and our Tradition?

If I remember correctly from Kyr Zoghby's famous work (Tous Schismatiques?) that the East is no longer true to itself because it lacks Rome, and that likewise that Rome is no longer true to itself because it lacks the East. That the two need each other as a corrective, but Eastern Catholicism (at times) seems like an ant attempting to push back a mountain. I don't know. I apologize for rambling.

In the meantime however, it's at least what I know to consult to ascertain what the Catholic Church believes about itself. It also contains statements that transcend the canons and laws of any one particular church in regards to the supreme authority of the church as understood in Catholicism.

I think that's a very salient point and is part of the reason why trying to base Eastern Catholicism on what the Orthodox do is not smart, considering that the Orthodox churches are themselves deformed by the effects of the schism. You're basing what it is to be Eastern on a caricature whose current form is based substantially on polemics.

What Catholics of the "easternising" variety are trying to pull off is a bit like Labour governments in Australia and the former UK trying to mesh the free market with big government, without fully realising that the free market position is at least in part formed by polemics against big government. It just doesn't work, as the manifestly dysfunctional and poor Labour governments in Australia and the UK in the last ten years have shown.

It's really not hard, as long as you don't over-think it.

I think it can become difficult when you look for approval or validation from others.

I completely agree with this. A pick and choose approach would also have to be employed.

Sorry, but you can't.

Wow, I never thought of it in that light (i.e. the 'strawman'), but what you say makes sense in terms of the arguments I have had over the years with some of my, shall we shall, more 'extreme' Orthodox brethren.

No, just Pastor Aeternus. And history.

Take for instance the installation of Gregory the Bulgarian as Metropolitan of Kiev in 1458. The Holy Synod of All Rus' had deposed Isidore as Metropolitan, and elected and consecrated St. Jonas in his place. EP Gregory Mammas had resigned and thereafter was deposed by the Holy and Sacred Synod of Contantinople in Standing Synod with the Pope of Alexandria and the Patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem. Following that, Met. Jonas' jurisdiction was recognized over the Orthodox by the Grand Duke of Lithuania and King of Poland (who had not recognized Isidore), the GP of Kiev Alexander Vladimirovich (an Orthodox Lithuanian Gediminid related to his lieges), and the Orthodox bishops under their dominion (including Bp. Daniel, ordained in Constantinople by EP Gregory Mammas and Isidore for Vladimir-in-Volhynia and Brest), Novgorod, Tver, etc.

But the Vatican treated both Gregory and Isidore as in good standing, had them succeed the "Patriarch of Constantinople" that the Crusaders set up in 1204 to surplant the episcopate set up there by St. Andrew the First Called, and in that office (their "reigns" overlapped) ordain Gregory the Bulgarian as the Metropolitan of Kiev in Rome, and issue a papal bull that overturned half a millenium of canonical tradition and divided the Metropolitanate of All Rus', and ordering the GD of Lithuania,the King of Poland and the GP of Moscow to turn the Church over to Gregory and refuse recognition of Met. St. Jonas (who is derided as "the son of perdition"), orders issued in a synodal vaccuum (the Roman Curia doesn't count) to fill a see which wasn't widowed and never subject to Rome. And this is presented as perfectly canonical.

Pastoral Aeternus vitiates Canon 8 of the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus. No way around that.

They should be more worried about the devolvement of a church shaped around the patristic vision (which is neither Eastern or Western) to one consumed by division, rivalry and nation. Maybe they also just need a good hobby to keep them busy.

Otsheylnik is right to point out the deformity because it is real. He is also right to point out the wholesale adoption model means inherent contradictions and inconsistencies. There is no model to even adopt, there are various models which within Orthodoxy are themselves chosen and pursued.