The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Melkite4Life, son of the desert, chchannel, OrbisNonSufficit, SergLts
5,657 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 160 guests, and 141 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Byzantine Nebraska
Byzantine Nebraska
by orthodoxsinner2, December 11
Church of the Holy Trinity (UGCC) - Brazil
Church of the Holy Trinity (UGCC) - Brazil
by Santiago Tarsicio, March 17
Papal Audience 10 November 2017
Papal Audience 10 November 2017
by JLF, November 10
Upgraded Russian icon corner
Upgraded Russian icon corner
by The young fogey, October 20
Russian Greek Catholic Global Congress
Russian Greek Catholic Global Congress
by likethethief, June 12
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics34,881
Posts412,878
Members5,657
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 5 of 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12 13
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
I
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
Originally Posted by Fr. Deacon Lance
Originally Posted by Roman Interloper
Why can I not share the body and blood }of the Lord with them? They acknowledge, after all, that my church, like their own, has the same true sacraments initiated by the Lord Jesus. The very same. They acknowledge, therefore, that I really and truly have been fed with the body and blood of Jesus Christ, just as they have. That I have been marked with the chrism of the Holy Spirit, just as they have. That I have received the forgiveness of God in the Sacrament of God's mercy, just as they have. So what's the problem?


For starters your assumption that they acknowledge what you claim. The vast majority do not. They will state that the Orthodox Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church outside of which they prefer not to speculate on the grace of other's sacraments. They know Orthodox sacraments are grace-filled. They do not know if Catholic sacraments are, so best to play it safe. A minority will agree with you, while an equal minority will disagree vehemently, stating Catholic sacraments are empty rites devoid of grace.

Just to state from the Orthodox side, Deacon Lance accurately states the Orthodox case here.

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 848
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 848
Originally Posted by StuartK
1. Right to appoint bishops throughout the world without interference from Rome.

2. Right to ordain married men to the presbyterate throughout the world, according to the Tradition, without interference from Rome.

3. Restoration of the authentic theology and discipline of marriage, even to the point of allowing remarriage by non-sacramental rite after divorce, and a limitation on three marriages per lifetime.

4. Commemoration of the Pope only in Patriarchal liturgies, and commemoration of other Eastern Catholic Patriarchs at same.

5. Right to erect eparchies, archeparchies, metropolia and even patriarchates, without prior permission from Rome.

6. Right to elect metropolitans and patriarchs without prior approval from Rome (i.e., without the need for selecting from a list of "suitable" candidates).

7. Right to vote in Papal elections without belonging to the College of Cardinals.

8. Establishment of a standing Synod of Patriarchs, consisting of all the Eastern Catholic Patriarchs and the Partriarch of the West.

9. Abolition of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, AKA the Colonial Office, AKA the Congregation for the Oriental Churches.

10. End of mandatory ad limina visits to Rome for Eastern Catholic bishops.

Ten was good enough for Moses, it ought to be good enough for us.


Good list Stuart. To this I would add freedom to preach to Eastern Christians against things which make no sense in their theological tradition, such as IC. How they can understand their tradition when it can't be explained to them properly how it differs is beyond me.

Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Originally Posted by StuartK
4. Commemoration of the Pope only in Patriarchal liturgies, and commemoration of other Eastern Catholic Patriarchs at same.

You should read the earlier discussion about that possibility:
Originally Posted by Fr. Deacon Lance
Originally Posted by Peter J
Originally Posted by Fr. Deacon Lance
Originally Posted by Peter J
It doesn't say that the rest of the Catholic patriarchs must be commemorated ... but that doesn't mean that we couldn't.
What is in the liturgicon? That determines what we could and couldn't do.
Isn't it up to Patriarch Gregory and the Melkite synod to determine what's in the Melkite liturgicon (with certain exceptions, like CCEO Canon 209 requiring the Pope to be commemorated)?
Exactly.

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 848
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 848


CCEO 209 can say what it likes. Whether it reflects correct ecclesiology is a completely different matter.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Quote
Good list Stuart. To this I would add freedom to preach to Eastern Christians against things which make no sense in their theological tradition, such as IC.

I have to say that, in seventeen years this Sunday as a Greek Catholic, I've never heard anyone say anything from the Ambo about the immaculate conception. We discuss the significance of the Theotokos in the divine economy of salvation, particularly at the Feasts of the Annunication and the Dormition, but never one word about the immaculate conception. And not all Greek Catholic Churches in the U.S. celebrate the Feast of the Maternity of St. Ann on 9 December, or call it the Feast of the Immaculate Conception.


Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Dear brother StuartK,

Thanks for your suggestions. There are some in your list I have thought about, and some I never thought of. Of those I have pondered, there are some I am not certain counts as "papal interference." Permit me to comment on your list:

Originally Posted by StuartK
1. Right to appoint bishops throughout the world without interference from Rome.

Disagree, for several reasons.

(1) In the early Church, when a group of Christians of a particular Tradition moved to another jurisdiction, they simply adopted the customs of the local Church. When the group grew large enough, the local bishop or head bishop would provide for the liturgical needs of that group from the other Tradition, but there was no question that such a group was under the jurisdiction of the local bishop or head bishop, not the bishop of the original Church from which the group came. The fact that we even have jurisdictions in the Traditional Latin territories is due to a great act of oikonomia by the bishop of Rome. No head bishop of a particular Church in the first millenium had a right to appoint bishops in another head bishop's territory. The proper issue is not that your head bishops don't have the right to freely appoint bishops anywhere in the world; rather, it is that the Pope of Rome has the right to freely appoint bishops for Latin Christians in the Traditional non-Latin patriarchal territories. The remedy for an Eastern (Byzantine) Catholic is not for your head bishops to insist on a right to freely appoint bishops throughout the world, but for your head bishops to also have a say in the appointment of Latin-Rite bishops in their own jurisdictional territories (the matter, I believe, is different for Oriental Catholics).

(2) The idea of personal jurisdictions within territorial jurisdictions is unknown in the EOC, so I am not certain how you, as a Byzantine Christian, can easily justify this position. On the other hand, that reality has existed in the OOC for many centuries already (granted it is a development), and I admit I would be more willing to hear the argument from an Oriental Catholic rather than an Eastern Catholic. Please forgive me for the bias.

(3) I don't really grasp how Rome is "interfering" with the selection of our bishops. Papal involvement comes in two forms - "appointment" and the papal assent. Regarding appointment: Rome does not really "appoint," for that term signifies a unilateral action; Rome does not select our bishops unilaterally (if he did, then I would call that interference). Our Churches select the candidates, and the bishop of Rome selects one of those. Further, if the Pope of Rome selects a person not on the original list of candidates, the Synod has a right to challenge, and the process can start anew. Also, this "appointment" does not occur in the Traditional Patriarchal and Major archepiscopal territories. Furthermore, For the papal assent: It is basically a rubber stamp for new bishops as far as the non-Latin Churches are concerned. Its main (but not sole) purpose is to protect the Church against the enchroachments of the secular power, so it's never been an issue AFAIK among the sui juris Churches since it is not an interference in the rights of a local Church, but rather strengthens those rights. The papal assent has been in the spotlight recently in the Chinese Church, where the government seeks to control the local Church.

Originally Posted by StuartK
2. Right to ordain married men to the presbyterate throughout the world, according to the Tradition, without interference from Rome.

Agree, with caveat. I don't believe this is a matter of interference from Rome. Cum data fuerit has never been renewed after it expired in 1949. That there is a severe restriction on the ordination of married men rests with the collegial authority in the territory at issue - it's just that such territories where the issue is prominent just happens to have mostly Latin bishops. I believe the notion that Cum data fuerit is still in force is just propaganda by some Latins (certainly, not all) who want to make it seem like there is direct papal approval for the restriction of married non-Latin clergy. We should not give in to that propaganda. The solution to this is not to complain about the papacy, but to increase the education and exposure of the local Latin Churches to married clergy.

There was an occasion when a Cardinal (the Prefect, IIRC) of the Congregation for the Oriental Churches tried to restrict Eastern married clergy in Poland, but the attempt came to naught since it was insisted by other Latin Cardinals that the Eastern Tradition had historical presence in Poland. (Though in that instance, the Congregation worked correctly, I believe it would have been better if the Congregation was not involved in the matter in the first place - i.e., the Congregation should not have such legislative/executive authority).

Originally Posted by StuartK
3. Restoration of the authentic theology and discipline of marriage, even to the point of allowing remarriage by non-sacramental rite after divorce, and a limitation on three marriages per lifetime.

Somewhat agree. Fr. Schmemman (IIRC) points out that divorce and remarriage was not practiced in the Church until the 10th century - is "restoration" really the proper term? There needs to be a better application of oikonomia in the Latin Church in this matter. At the same time, I believe the standards for permitting remarriage after divorce by certain EOC's is too lax. As far as the theology, I don't see what is wrong with the Latin theology on marriage, just as there is obviously nothing wrong with the non-Latin theology.

Originally Posted by StuartK
4. Commemoration of the Pope only in Patriarchal liturgies, and commemoration of other Eastern Catholic Patriarchs at same.

Disagree. I believe the commemoration of a local bishop indicates that the local parish is in communion with all other parishes in the eparchy/diocese. Commemoration of the Patriarch indicates that the local parish and diocese is in communion with all other eparchies dioceses in the Patriarchate. Commemoration of the Pope of Rome indicates that the local parish, diocese, and patriarchate is in communion with all other patriarchates in the universal Church. I am also not aware of any restriction for a particular Church to commemorate all other Patriarchs in a patriarchal liturgy. That's really up to the local Patriarch.

Originally Posted by StuartK
5. Right to erect eparchies, archeparchies, metropolia and even patriarchates, without prior permission from Rome.

In Traditional Latin jurisdictions, disagree. However, I agree that our Churches should have a right to establish exarchies anywhere in the world, after consultation with the patriarchal authority in the territory where the exarchate is to be established. In the Traditional Eastern and Oriental jurisdictions, I am not aware that Rome's permission is required. Rome is only informed and/or consulted, AFAIK.

As far as patriarchates in particular, I agree, only as long as it is recognized that such new patriarchates do not have the same standing as the original Pentarchy established by the Ecumenical Councils.

Originally Posted by StuartK
6. Right to elect metropolitans and patriarchs without prior approval from Rome (i.e., without the need for selecting from a list of "suitable" candidates).

Disagree, for two reasons (first, a clarification - our Churches do not select from a list of suitable candidates; rather, our Churches are the ones that select the list of candidates and the Pope chooses one of them).
(1) Patriarchs are elected without papal approval. What happens for a Patriarch is that after election, he must request explicit communion from the Pope of Rome. A Patriarchs is, upon enthronement, the legitimate Patriarch of his Church, and that status has nothing to do with any papal approval. Prior to the receipt of the explicit acknowledgement of communion from the bishop of Rome, he can do all things that belongs to a head bishop (perform DL anywhere in his Patriarchal jurisdiction, hear confession anywhere in his Patriarchal jurisdiction, bless holy myron, convoke tribunals for hearing and judging appeals, etc. etc,) except two things - convoke a synod, and ordain other bishops.

(2) Every Metropolitan must be situated within the jurisdiction of a Patriarch, and their election requires the approval of their patriarchal head bishop. Metropolitans of sui juris Churches have the bishop of Rome as their patriarchal head bishop, and thus their election requires his approval. Likewise, Metropolitans within Patriarchal Churches have the Patriarch as their head bishop, and thus their election requires patriarchal approval (not the bishop of Rome's approval).

Originally Posted by StuartK
7. Right to vote in Papal elections without belonging to the College of Cardinals.

Agree.

Originally Posted by StuartK
8. Establishment of a standing Synod of Patriarchs, consisting of all the Eastern Catholic Patriarchs and the Partriarch of the West.

Agree. Currently, such a structure exists since V2, but only at the beck and call of the bishop of Rome. Such a Synod should be permanent on a defined, periodic basis (maybe, once a year, or once every two years, etc.), and the Patrarich of the Latins would be as much obligated to attend as all the other Patriarchs. If this is established, the ad limina visit would actually be merely redundant and can disappear.

Originally Posted by StuartK
9. Abolition of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, AKA the Colonial Office, AKA the Congregation for the Oriental Churches.

Mostly agree. I strongly believe that the Congregation is the most expedient way for the Pope to provide for the financial needs of other Churches on an as-need basis. This is a very Traditional role of the bishop of Rome. The Congregation should be merely consultative on all other matters, and should not have any executive, legislative, or judicial powers with respect to the Eastern and Oriental Churches.

Originally Posted by StuartK
10. End of mandatory ad limina visits to Rome for Eastern Catholic bishops.

Disagree, with caveat. The ad limina visit is analogous to the requirement of bishops in metropolitan provinces to meet with their head bishop at certain fixed periods for the sake of the well-being of the entire province, as well as to address local issues with the head bishop. Though the bishop of Rome is head bishop (i.e., Patriarch) of the Latins most of the time, he is also the head bishop of the Church universal. I fully recognize that the ad limina visit is a development, but I don't find anything particularly wrong with it - for the specific purpose of the universal Church's head bishop to ascertain the well-being of each local Church (as noted earlier, a permanent, periodic Synod of Patriarchs would render the ad limina visit suprefluous). However, there is one aspect of it to which I do object - the idea that it is for the purpose of honoring the papacy as the head bishopric of the Church universal. I strongly believe such a purpose is wholly superfluous and even somewhat condescending, given that the Pope is already and constantly commemorated in the Liturgy as such. Further, as long as the Congregation for the Oriental Churches exists in the same capacity as it does today, even the correct purpose for the ad limina visit becomes utterly unnecessary. The correct purpose for the ad limina visit should be acceptable, but only on the condition that the said Congregation ceases to function in the way it does today.

So I believe the ad limina visit is acceptable for its proper purpose OR it can be replaced by a permanent, periodic Synod of heads of sui juris Churches.

Blessings

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Originally Posted by Otsheylnik
To this I would add freedom to preach to Eastern Christians against things which make no sense in their theological tradition, such as IC. How they can understand their tradition when it can't be explained to them properly how it differs is beyond me.

I agree with this. The IC should not be discussed or presented in Latin theological terms if such terminology is bound to only create confusion.

Blessings,
Marduk

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,623
Moderator
Member
Offline
Moderator
Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,623
Quote
Hmm ... I don't know, Bob. Maybe you're one of those at whom Jesus is going to stomp his foot and shout "basta!"


Peter J:

Christ is Born!!

I think you miss the point that the Church--the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church has never practiced what can be called "open communion," i.e., an open invitation to anyone who happened to be present. We can see the historic vestige of that in the Russian practice of the catechumen litany where those who are not fully initiated, that is full members of the Church, are dismissed before the Creed is even sung. The Eucharist was never shared except with those who were known to be full members. And it was so because there were many sects out there that did not have the same beliefs about so many things. Since the schisms that we are all so very much aware of, the issue of being in agreement on each and every point of doctrine seems to have become something new, but it's actually part of the Apostolic approach to guarding that which is holy--the Lord's Gift to us of His Body and Blood.

I'm very much appreciative of the charge given to Byzantine clergy, whether Orthodox or Catholic, that they are to guard the Holy Gifts and not be afraid of the civil authority in that sacred trust. While this may not seem to be something that is important in this age of relativism, it has been very important to the Church and her practice throughout the ages. It wasn't so long ago that the Catholic Church was this strict about admission to Holy Communion. It's only been since the papacy of Pope Pius X in the early part of the 20th century that things began to be loosened and begin to move us to where we are today. Some time ago I read the biography of a saint who, as a child, went to confession regularly but who had to ask her pastor if she could receive, even after she'd been to confession; often he refused ont he grounds that too much familiarlity with the sacrament was not good spiritually. While that may sound extreme to us today, it was Catholic practice in some places as late as the mid-19th century. So is it so difficult to understand a strict practice of guarding the Holy Gifts in this era when we have no immediate experience of the strict stance that the Church has had from the beginning concerning what this her most precious gift entrusted to her by the Lord?

Bob

Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Originally Posted by theophan
Quote
Hmm ... I don't know, Bob. Maybe you're one of those at whom Jesus is going to stomp his foot and shout "basta!"


Peter J:

Christ is Born!!

I think you miss the point that the Church--the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church has never practiced what can be called "open communion," i.e., an open invitation to anyone who happened to be present. We can see the historic vestige of that in the Russian practice of the catechumen litany where those who are not fully initiated, that is full members of the Church, are dismissed before the Creed is even sung. The Eucharist was never shared except with those who were known to be full members. And it was so because there were many sects out there that did not have the same beliefs about so many things. Since the schisms that we are all so very much aware of, the issue of being in agreement on each and every point of doctrine seems to have become something new, but it's actually part of the Apostolic approach to guarding that which is holy--the Lord's Gift to us of His Body and Blood.

I'm very much appreciative of the charge given to Byzantine clergy, whether Orthodox or Catholic, that they are to guard the Holy Gifts and not be afraid of the civil authority in that sacred trust. While this may not seem to be something that is important in this age of relativism, it has been very important to the Church and her practice throughout the ages. It wasn't so long ago that the Catholic Church was this strict about admission to Holy Communion. It's only been since the papacy of Pope Pius X in the early part of the 20th century that things began to be loosened and begin to move us to where we are today. Some time ago I read the biography of a saint who, as a child, went to confession regularly but who had to ask her pastor if she could receive, even after she'd been to confession; often he refused ont he grounds that too much familiarlity with the sacrament was not good spiritually. While that may sound extreme to us today, it was Catholic practice in some places as late as the mid-19th century. So is it so difficult to understand a strict practice of guarding the Holy Gifts in this era when we have no immediate experience of the strict stance that the Church has had from the beginning concerning what this her most precious gift entrusted to her by the Lord?

Bob


That's all good and well. I was just referring to the fact that you dared to disagree with what Roman Interloper said. If I understand it right, that'll make you part of the basta/foot-stomp crowd.

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 848
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 848
Originally Posted by mardukm


Originally Posted by StuartK
4. Commemoration of the Pope only in Patriarchal liturgies, and commemoration of other Eastern Catholic Patriarchs at same.

Disagree. I believe the commemoration of a local bishop indicates that the local parish is in communion with all other parishes in the eparchy/diocese. Commemoration of the Patriarch indicates that the local parish and diocese is in communion with all other eparchies dioceses in the Patriarchate. Commemoration of the Pope of Rome indicates that the local parish, diocese, and patriarchate is in communion with all other patriarchates in the universal Church. I am also not aware of any restriction for a particular Church to commemorate all other Patriarchs in a patriarchal liturgy. That's really up to the local Patriarch.


What you describe does not reflect Orthodox ecclesiology. As a member of the Russian Orthodox Church, I am in communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople, who is senior to my Patriarch (and depending on your understanding has "the primacy" in the Orthodox Churches). I am also in communion with bishops of other Orthodox Churches who are in the same city as me (Serbian, Greek, etc.) The Patriarch of Constantinople is not commemorated in my liturgies, nor are any of the hierarchs of other Orthodox Churches who abide in my city. This is because non Russian hierarchs have zero role in the management of my Church. This is as it should be. It does not mean we are not in communion, it just means we are autonomous.

Last edited by Otsheylnik; 01/08/13 09:25 PM. Reason: Spelling
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 421
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 421
In the original 85 basic Orthodox Canons There could be no other Bishops in your city ... period!

I realize that this is impossible and modern times has obliterated this situation but it is by it's very nature uncanonical.

The state of Orthodoxy in the United States in my humble opinion is a mess. (starting with the Bolshevik revolution and continuing today)

How good Christians can go around anathemetizing and excommunicating each other is un christian at it's core.

The common question asked by Orthodox is as bad as what the Pope and Latin Catholicism put down - What Jusrisdiction are your from?

This question I believe Jesus would have rejected wholeheartedly. It is by it's very nature - un christian.

(by the way I am leaning Orthodox - just a pet peeve of my about the state of Christianity in the world today)

Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 421
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 421
I read an article that the OCA accepts Latin Rite Priests without a formal ordination - recognizing all their Mysteries as Valid ...

Accepted quickly - without much fanfare and once accepted - as valid as Priest with 20 and 30 years in Orthodoxy.

I interpreted this to mean that they do view Latin Catholic Sacraments as valid

Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 357
C
Member
Offline
Member
C
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 357
Originally Posted by haydukovich
I read an article that the OCA accepts Latin Rite Priests without a formal ordination - recognizing all their Mysteries as Valid ...

Accepted quickly - without much fanfare and once accepted - as valid as Priest with 20 and 30 years in Orthodoxy.

I interpreted this to mean that they do view Latin Catholic Sacraments as valid


And I read that as the sad state of affairs that the OCA has become.

Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 978
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 978
Quote
And I read that as the sad state of affairs that the OCA has become.


Then what of the Russian Orthodox Church who also accept Latin/Byzantine Catholic priests through vesting only?

What is the practice of the Greek Orthodox? I believe it also through vesting.

Now the acceptance of a priest through vesting doesn't necessarily mean that the OCA accepts all Catholic sacraments as valid. Most Catholics, as far as I understand, are Chrismated when they enter the Orthodox Church including the OCA. This would mean that the sacraments that one received prior were lacking and the fullness of them is given in the Orthodox mystery.

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 576
B
Member
Offline
Member
B
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 576
Guess I am simple minded in my beliefs but I believe that the validity of sacraments transcends the validity of this or that pope or patriarch because all that is political and not sacramental. Sacraments come from God, hierarchs come from the organization, and real unity will only come from and through the sacraments. This probably makes no sense to those here.

Page 5 of 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12 13

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2020 (Forum 1998-2020). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5