The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
James H Hess, Palamite, Chaz_G, Lee Tuck-Leong, CorneliusAugustine
5461 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 43 guests, and 100 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Papal Audience 10 November 2017
Upgraded Russian icon corner
Russian Greek Catholic Global Congress
OL EuroEast II (2007) Group
Portable Icon Screen
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics34,456
Posts410,314
Members5,461
Most Online2,716
Jun 7th, 2012
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
#417485 - 09/24/17 08:28 PM Eastern Catholics and Recent Correction of Pope Francis  
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 74
TonyM Offline
Member
TonyM  Offline
Member

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 74
Canada
A group of prominent clergy and professors have issued what amounts to a list of heresies seemingly promoted by Pope Francis, specifically as regards Amoris Laetitia. It reads like a 'correction' of the Pope himself. It seems that the Eastern Catholics, be they clergy or otherwise, are absent from the list. Do readers here want to propose reasons why? Is it that the Eastern Catholics agree with the direction of this papacy? Or is it out of fear of retribution that Eastern Catholics are not involved?

This is not meant to be provocative or inflammatory, it just seems like a news item of importance that can't be dismissed on mere grounds that the signatories are 'traditionalists.'

http://www.correctiofilialis.org/

http://www.correctiofilialis.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Correctio-filialis_English_1.pdf

#417486 - 09/25/17 06:47 AM Re: Eastern Catholics and Recent Correction of Pope Francis [Re: TonyM]  
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 295
JLF Offline
Member
JLF  Offline
Member

Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 295
Fairfax, VA, USA
My guess is that the group who organized and wrote this letter to His Holiness are not aware of Eastern Catholics, or did not consult any of them, or those they did consult agree with Pope Francis because they may have the similar pastoral views as the Orthodox with regard to annulments/divorce of failed marriages. I recall that Archimandrite Robert Taft stated at the OL XX Conference (via video recording) that because of the Pope's comment "Who am I to judge", Taft said "we've got a new kid on the block, and things will never be the same!"

Jack

#417487 - 09/25/17 12:36 PM Re: Eastern Catholics and Recent Correction of Pope Francis [Re: TonyM]  
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 199
SwanOfEndlessTales Offline
Member
SwanOfEndlessTales  Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 199
USA
I was under the impression that Eastern Catholics had completely adopted the Latin discipline on divorce and remarriage.

#417492 - 09/25/17 01:38 PM Re: Eastern Catholics and Recent Correction of Pope Francis [Re: TonyM]  
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,241
theophan Offline
Moderator
Happy Birthday theophan  Offline
Moderator
Member

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,241
Hollidaysburg, PA
Christ is in our midst!!

I can't seem to make the link work that would show the signatories.

The "High Petrine" interpretation of the Lord's instruction to St. Peter would say that there can be no heresies in Pope Francis' teaching. OTOH, St. Paul is clear is the Epistle known as the Communion Epistle (Cor 11:23-32).

I have neither the position nor the authority to make a judgment or accusation. As the admonition in the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom says, I approach "in the fear of God, with faith, and with love." What another does is his responsibility. I fear for those who teach that there is nothing to be fearful about in an indifferent reception of the Holy Mysteries, given the terrible price Our Lord paid to give them to us. Too, there is the psalm that tells us to "put not your trust in princes, in sons of men . . . "

I have enough to answer for in regard to daring to approach the Holy Mysteries. I will let the Lord be the Judge of what is and is not to His liking on the Great Day when He comes.

I also thank God on my knees and with forehead to the floor that I am not responsible for His Holy Body in this age when it seems the awe of Who He is and what the Holy Mysteries are seems to be evaporating.

Bob

#417501 - 09/26/17 09:11 AM Re: Eastern Catholics and Recent Correction of Pope Francis [Re: TonyM]  
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,241
theophan Offline
Moderator
Happy Birthday theophan  Offline
Moderator
Member

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,241
Hollidaysburg, PA
Christ is in our midst!!

" the approach to the divorced and remarried that is practised (sic) in Cardinal Schönborn’s diocese, where they are
permitted to receive communion."

What I find interesting about this tidbit is that Cardinal Schonborn was instrumental in the development of the Catechism of the Catholic Church which was written specifically to lay to rest many questions that arose after Vatican II, including this present one about those eligible to receive the Mysteries. If His Eminence, after a mere few decades after its publication, can practice what is proscribed in it, of what value is any of it? And if everything is up to be reviewed and changed to suit the whim of the current occupant of the Chair of St. Peter, how is one to know what to believe and practice?

Bob

#417502 - 09/26/17 10:43 AM Re: Eastern Catholics and Recent Correction of Pope Francis [Re: theophan]  
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 199
SwanOfEndlessTales Offline
Member
SwanOfEndlessTales  Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 199
USA
It's wonderful how the authority of the Chair of Peter prevents any of the doctrinal confusion one sees among the Orthodox.

#417503 - 09/26/17 06:23 PM Re: Eastern Catholics and Recent Correction of Pope Francis [Re: TonyM]  
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 68
Protopappas76 Offline
Member
Protopappas76  Offline
Member

Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 68
State of Washington
t is an eternal and revealed truth that Christ alone is the head of His Church. With all due respect for the current occupant, as well as past and future occupants, of the chair of St Peter in Rome, it is not Rome that defines doctrine but the "concensus fidelium" of the whole Church.

Greek-Catholic (Melkite) bishops have. in many cases, continued to quietly grant ecclesiastic divorces and permission to remarry. I know, because as a parish priest I saw them. Yes, we are in communion with the Maronite, Chaldean, and Roman Churches etc, but it is communion of love and respect but not subservience. I have the greatest respect for the Roman tradition of the Church - so much respect in fact, that I don't believe that they should be alllowed to impose and thus impoverish the other traditions of the Church. Once again, "primus inter pares" not "Roma uber alles." We must continue tp stand firm in love as we have on the question of married priests.

#417504 - 09/27/17 10:07 AM Re: Eastern Catholics and Recent Correction of Pope Francis [Re: Protopappas76]  
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 199
SwanOfEndlessTales Offline
Member
SwanOfEndlessTales  Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 199
USA
Originally Posted by Protopappas76
t is an eternal and revealed truth that Christ alone is the head of His Church. With all due respect for the current occupant, as well as past and future occupants, of the chair of St Peter in Rome, it is not Rome that defines doctrine but the "concensus fidelium" of the whole Church.


If you really believe this, why would you remain in communion with a church that has long taught, and continues to teach, its supremacy as a dogma? Is openly and dogmatically contradicting "an eternal and revealed truth" not an obstacle to communion for you?

Quote
Greek-Catholic (Melkite) bishops have. in many cases, continued to quietly grant ecclesiastic divorces and permission to remarry. I know, because as a parish priest I saw them. Yes, we are in communion with the Maronite, Chaldean, and Roman Churches etc, but it is communion of love and respect but not subservience.


This seems contradictory to me. If you were not subservient, there would be no need for your bishops to "quietly" grant ecclesiastic divorces and permission to remarry. Doing such things "quietly" indicates you are still afraid of the Boss. Likewise, the Melkite liturgy always commemorates the Pope. In the Byzantine liturgical tradition, outside of hierarchical divine liturgy, one only does this for the local primate and ruling bishop. That's a very clear indication you believe the Pope has jurisdiction over you.

Last edited by SwanOfEndlessTales; 09/27/17 10:08 AM.
#417505 - 09/27/17 02:51 PM Re: Eastern Catholics and Recent Correction of Pope Francis [Re: SwanOfEndlessTales]  
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 68
Protopappas76 Offline
Member
Protopappas76  Offline
Member

Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 68
State of Washington
One particular Church's formulations and explanations of doctrine and dogma (i.e. the Roman) is born of their own tradition of faith, may not be the same in another particular Church born of her own tradition of the true faith. Examples are the Immaculate Conception or the Filioque. Both formulations, although problematic for an Orthodox Christian (both those in communion with the Church of Rome and those not) I will argue with Eastern Orthodox critics:

The Roman doctrine of the Immaculate Concepton is born of an Augustinian understanding of Original Sin. Blessed Augustine teaches that man inherits Original Sin. Consequently, in the mainline Roman theological understanding one must be able to deal with the Holy Theotokos. Both East and West agree that the Blessed Theotokos is without sin - afterall, how could the Son of God be born of a sinner? For the Greek East this is not a problem inasmuch as our understanding of original sin is a bit different - men do not inherit original sin, rather we have inherited the effects of that original sin. Consequently, none of us are born with original sin but instead are born with the effects of Adam's sin - including sickness and death. Notice that we have no problem. After all, the Theotokos died (Holy Dormition). The mainline Latin theological tradition, however, is very much dependent upon the teachings of Blessed Augustine - once again, that man inherits Original Sin itself.

The "filioque" is another example. It is a formulation based upon a defense again Arianism and other heresies regarding Christ. It is not an element of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed for us. We never use it. It is an exceedingly unfortunate addition. But, at the same time, the Eastern Orthodox need to understand that it was born of a genuinely sincere attempt to defend against a serious heresy. May I also point out: (1) that, in the West, Rome itself was the last hold-out agaist its use, and (2) even in St. Peter's Basilica it has been dropped from the singing of the Creed on a number recent occasions, i.e. feast of Pentecost and the of St. Peter and Paul (when Eastern Orthodox delegations have been present), check it out.

As for the statement: "This seems contradictory to me. If you were not subservient, there would be no need for your bishops to "quietly" grant ecclesiastic divorces and permission to remarry. Doing such things "quietly" indicates yare still afraid of the Boss." I suspect that you do not understand the Middle Eastern ethos and thought pattern. Exasperating as it is to the western mind, basically one never directly says "no." To do so is seen as exceedingly impolite and even insulting. (I know, I've lived in Saudi Arabia the Gulf States) Instead one says "Oh, is that right?" or "We'll see" but never a direct response. Frankly, it probably comes from living under the Ottomans where a direct yes or no could lead to the loss of one's head. Ambiguity of response, allows both parties to be satisfied. Besides, why pick fights over words. lol Westerners want direct answers but, frankly and as exasperating as it is, the middle eastern mind sees direct answers as inpolite and insulting.

You mention, as well: "Likewise, the Melkite liturgy always commemorates the Pope. In the Byzantine liturgical tradition, outside of hierarchical divine liturgy, one only does this for the local primate and ruling bishop. That's a very clear indication you believe the Pope has jurisdiction over you." Not quite true, up until quite recently (within, the last 10 - 15 years) in the Greek tradition, and unlike the Slav tradition, a priest would only commemorate his immediate hierarch. A bishop commemorated the Holy Synod and Patriarch, and the patriarch commemorated the Pope of Rome (and on certain occasions those other patriarchs with whom he is in communion). On first becoming a Melkite (almost 40 years ago) I was astounded by this and asked our then Archbishop JOSEPH: "Sayedna, why don't we commemorate the pope?" His response to me was a question: "Oh, are you a bishop?" He then showed me the Greek edition of the Divine Liturgy published by Rome. Lo and behold, the Roman printed Greek "typical edition" has the priest only commemorating his own immediate hierarch! Check it out. Outside the patriarchal territory and in recent years, we now do commemorate the pope as well as the patriarch (but in the Divine Liturgy only, and only once). And, then again take careful note of the official formulation: "Among the first, O Lord, remember His Holiness FRANCIS, Bishop of Rome; our holy patriarch JOSEPH...." "Primus inter pares" and nuanced again.

I refocus you on even the documents of Vatican II that speaks of the "equality" of the individual Churches comprising the Catholic Church, it does not speak of "subservience."
i
And, back to the original concerns: f the Pope of Rome or the Roman Church oversteps the line, we need to speak up - charitably and with due reverence, but firmly. If St NICHOLAS could "punch-out" Arius for heresy, then it is perfectly acceptable to ask for clarification of teaching or even admonish the Bishop of Rome.

#417508 - 09/28/17 08:54 AM Re: Eastern Catholics and Recent Correction of Pope Francis [Re: Protopappas76]  
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 199
SwanOfEndlessTales Offline
Member
SwanOfEndlessTales  Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 199
USA
Thank you, father, for your thoughtful reply.

Originally Posted by Protopappas76
One particular Church's formulations and explanations of doctrine and dogma (i.e. the Roman) is born of their own tradition of faith, may not be the same in another particular Church born of her own tradition of the true faith.


You used the phrase "an eternal and revealed truth." So I did not think you were merely speaking of formulations arising from particular traditions in the Christian church. I am sure you agree that eternal and revealed truths do not vary according to locality, and that, for instance, Arianism would not be a legitimate variation in Christian tradition that orthodox Christians could share communion with. If we believe something to be an eternal and revealed truth, and therefore a universal truth, what are we therefore to make of a body that contradicts this eternal and revealed truth with their own dogma, which they hold to not only as a local tradition but demand of everyone in communion with them?

Quote
Examples are the Immaculate Conception or the Filioque.


Perhaps you might be surprised to learn that I, as an Eastern Orthodox, am quite able to see how these doctrines are compatible, when understood a certain way, with Orthodoxy. I think something akin to the immaculate conception was believed by Eastern fathers. As for the filioque, it can be Orthodox, based on Saint Maximus' interpretation. I am not an anti-ecumenical zealot or Byzantine chauvinist. So yes, I am open to the understanding that different, equally valid Christian traditions can produce varying formulations that fundamentally agree.

But the discussion here is about Papal supremacy, a doctrine that, in its universality and force, does not permit of regional interpretation. You claim it is "an eternal and revealed truth that Christ alone is the head of His Church." This obviously is in contradiction to what Rome teaches as an eternal and revealed truth, namely, that the Pope of Rome is the vicar of Christ on earth, possessing supreme universal jurisdiction over every church, including yours.

Quote
As for the statement: "This seems contradictory to me. If you were not subservient, there would be no need for your bishops to "quietly" grant ecclesiastic divorces and permission to remarry. Doing such things "quietly" indicates yare still afraid of the Boss." I suspect that you do not understand the Middle Eastern ethos and thought pattern. Exasperating as it is to the western mind, basically one never directly says "no." To do so is seen as exceedingly impolite and even insulting. (I know, I've lived in Saudi Arabia the Gulf States) Instead one says "Oh, is that right?" or "We'll see" but never a direct response. Frankly, it probably comes from living under the Ottomans where a direct yes or no could lead to the loss of one's head. Ambiguity of response, allows both parties to be satisfied. Besides, why pick fights over words. lol Westerners want direct answers but, frankly and as exasperating as it is, the middle eastern mind sees direct answers as inpolite and insulting.


That's an interesting point you make about middle eastern mindset. Having little experience with this culture myself, I'll take your word for it. Nonetheless, the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch does not hesitate to state its policy on divorce and remarriage. The procedures are not hidden from the faithful or anyone from the outside who inquires. Why should the Melkite Catholics, who are supposed identical to their Orthodox brothers in all things apart from the communion with Rome, not take the same position?

And I can think of one case where Melkite bishops publicly disagreed with each other on a matter, contrary to the general trend you note about middle eastern culture. When Bishop Elias Zoghby opined at Vatican II that divorce and remarriage might be allowable under certain circumstances, he was publicly contradicted by Patriarch Maximos IV who reiterated his firm adhesion to the Latin stance. So the Patriarch was not afraid to publicly disagree with his synod brother in public; moreover, he did not merely refuse to contradict the Latin dogma, but forcefully reiterated it. Does this mean that Patriarch Maximos IV, in giving a direct answer in disagreement with Bishop Zoghby, was insulting him?

Now, I understand that the stance of a single patriarch does not necessarily speak for the entire church. Perhaps Patriarch Maximos' position was unique to himself among the Melkites, in which case, I'm sure there must be evidence, apart from personal anecdotes, that the Melkite church has actually adopted a position different from the Latin one on the question.

One other thing- you state that the non-contradicting attitude "probably comes from living under the Ottomans where a direct yes or no could lead to the loss of one's head." This seems to me, again, to hint at subservience, as if the Roman church, like the Ottoman authorities, possesses authority over the Melkites, to remove their heads (figuratively). But if the Melkite church is equal to Rome, what need for this deference?


Quote
Outside the patriarchal territory and in recent years, we now do commemorate the pope as well as the patriarch (but in the Divine Liturgy only, and only once). And, then again take careful note of the official formulation: "Among the first, O Lord, remember His Holiness FRANCIS, Bishop of Rome; our holy patriarch JOSEPH...." "Primus inter pares" and nuanced again.


Whether you regard your Patriarch and the Pope as equals, this commemoration clearly indicates that you believe the Pope has jurisdiction over you.

Quote
I refocus you on even the documents of Vatican II that speaks of the "equality" of the individual Churches comprising the Catholic Church, it does not speak of "subservience."


Thank you, father, for this refocus. I have followed your advice and turned to the document titled the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, or "Lumen Gentium", which was approved by Vatican II with only 5 dissenting votes. It states the following:

"But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope's power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head. This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church, and made him shepherd of the whole flock; it is evident, however, that the power of binding and loosing, which was given to Peter, was granted also to the college of apostles, joined with their head."

But perhaps the English translation of this document, published on the Vatican website, is faulty and the words translated as "full, supreme, and universal power" do not actually say that at all.

#417509 - 09/29/17 09:20 AM Re: Eastern Catholics and Recent Correction of Pope Francis [Re: SwanOfEndlessTales]  
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,577
Michael_Thoma Offline
Member
Michael_Thoma  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,577
Chicago
Quote
"full, supreme, and universal power"


I'd point out, "full, supreme and universal" could even theologically be reconciled with Orthodox theology, but "ordinary" is a much harder fit -- within the Eastern Orthodox ethos, the "ordinary" authority belongs only to the Diocesan/Eparchial bishop and is not shared. It is not so stringent among Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East and Catholics.

#417510 - 09/29/17 09:48 AM Re: Eastern Catholics and Recent Correction of Pope Francis [Re: Michael_Thoma]  
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 199
SwanOfEndlessTales Offline
Member
SwanOfEndlessTales  Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 199
USA
Originally Posted by Michael_Thoma
Quote
"full, supreme, and universal power"


I'd point out, "full, supreme and universal" could even theologically be reconciled with Orthodox theology, but "ordinary" is a much harder fit -- within the Eastern Orthodox ethos, the "ordinary" authority belongs only to the Diocesan/Eparchial bishop and is not shared.


"Full" and "universal" would seem to imply ordinary, no? In any case, the problem is not full, supreme, universal, or even ordinary- it seems to me it would be theoretically allowable for a bishop to have all of these powers, if some peculiar situation called for it. The problem is that this has been defined as a dogma. By making this a dogma, the Catholic Church essentially makes it part of the Gospel itself. In that instance, it goes from being merely a model of ecclesial polity to a falsehood.

#417524 - 10/06/17 02:09 PM Re: Eastern Catholics and Recent Correction of Pope Francis [Re: SwanOfEndlessTales]  
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 74
TonyM Offline
Member
TonyM  Offline
Member

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 74
Canada
This thread sure went off topic.

In any case the list of signatures just keeps growing, although I don't see any involvement from Eastern Catholics.

#417539 - 10/10/17 05:27 PM Re: Eastern Catholics and Recent Correction of Pope Francis [Re: JLF]  
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,404
Latin Catholic Offline
Member
Latin Catholic  Offline
Member

Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,404
Norway
Originally Posted by JLF
My guess is that the group who organized and wrote this letter to His Holiness are not aware of Eastern Catholics, or did not consult any of them, or those they did consult agree with Pope Francis because they may have the similar pastoral views as the Orthodox with regard to annulments/divorce of failed marriages. I recall that Archimandrite Robert Taft stated at the OL XX Conference (via video recording) that because of the Pope's comment "Who am I to judge", Taft said "we've got a new kid on the block, and things will never be the same!"

Jack

I think the Reverend John Hunwick, priest of the Ordinariate of Our Lady Walsingham, one of the signatories of and clearly one of the theological minds behind the Filial Correction, is very much aware of Eastern Catholicism. For evidence of this, just read his blog. Why Eastern Catholics are missing from the list of signatories is anybody's guess. On the whole, I would like to see a lot more signatures!

#417541 - 10/11/17 09:12 AM Re: Eastern Catholics and Recent Correction of Pope Francis [Re: TonyM]  
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 199
SwanOfEndlessTales Offline
Member
SwanOfEndlessTales  Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 199
USA
"Why aren't more Eastern Catholics risking their positions to sign a statement in favor of medieval Latin marriage discipline?"

Page 1 of 2 1 2

Moderated by  Father Anthony 

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 - 1996-2018. All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0
Page Time: 0.032s Queries: 15 (0.005s) Memory: 1.8013 MB (Peak: 2.0297 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2018-01-18 09:41:36 UTC