www.byzcath.org

EC vs. EO view of RC "Marian" Doctrines and Papal Infalibility

Posted By: Dave in McKinney

EC vs. EO view of RC "Marian" Doctrines and Papal Infalibility - 07/12/10 12:21 AM

Wife & I are have many discussions of late. We came back to (Roman) Catholic Church in last few months after several years in Protestantism.

Wife enjoys reverence but having issues with "coldness" during Mass, Immaculate Conception (sinless person other than Christ), Papal Infalibility, etc...

How do EC and EO compare and differ on those doctrines?

And my wife really hates the way the RC church is "arrogant" yet is embroiled in so much scandal...
Posted By: Herbigny

Re: EC vs. EO view of RC "Marian" Doctrines and Papal Infalibility - 07/12/10 01:54 AM

dear Dave:

To quote the eminent Vatican expert in all things Eastern Churches (and professsor emeritus of the Pontifical Oriental Institute of Rome), the Mitred Archimandrite Robert (Taft, s.j.):

"we are Orthodox in all things, and the only difference is that we are in Communion with Rome"

Does that help?

Have you visited any of the Eastern Catholic Churches in your area? We have reverence too (rather different in aspect, but no less profound).
Posted By: bkovacs

Re: EC vs. EO view of RC "Marian" Doctrines and Papal Infalibility - 07/12/10 04:11 AM

Than why do allot of Eastern Catholic Churches still have latinizations. Revised Divine Liturgy comes to mind, no Saturday Evening Vespers or Sunday Orthos, replaced by Saturday Evening Divine Liturgy, which follows the Roman Catholic praxis, as well as other things. I find that the model church of Byzantine Catholics or UGCC should be St Elias in Canada. That parish is truly all things Orthodox but in communion with Rome. Also why do Orthodox parishes seem to have more active youth programs than Eastern Catholic Churches. And don't take this wrong, but when I look at what Eastern Orthodoxy has to offer, in terms of learning the Byzantine praxis, it still boggles my mind why Eastern Catholic parish websites don't link to these great resources. Iv'e been to plenty of EC/EO parishes and I find that Eastern Orthodox parishes present the Byzantine tradition way better. I wish we could intercommune. It also appears that in the not so distant future Orthodox Christians will be even more united than ever in terms of jurisdictions. I just wish that Eastern Catholics could also be part of that. An Ecumenical Council of all the Eastern Orthodox Patriarches will be meeting in Council. Byzantine rite Catholics can be united with Rome, but Byzantine Rite Catholics, should be equally united and working side by side with the Eastern Orthodox.
Posted By: aramis

Re: EC vs. EO view of RC "Marian" Doctrines and Papal Infalibility - 07/12/10 06:10 AM

The Ruthenian rubrics strongly recommend for Saturday evening DL to incorporate vespers; it's an expansion of a usage that, in EO use, is 2 or 3 times a year, on specific feasts. It's done to match more closely to Roman praxis, but it is encouraged to be done with vespers (and doing so only adds 15-20 minutes, if that, as it replaces a good chunk of the liturgy with vespers, specifically, the parts that overlap.).

Likewise, parishes, at least in Van Nuys neé Protection of the Mother of God of Phoenix, are being encouraged to hold matins or third hour before Sunday DL's. We use 3rd hour; we used to use Matins.
Posted By: StuartK

Re: EC vs. EO view of RC "Marian" Doctrines and Papal Infalibility - 07/12/10 10:49 AM

bkovacs makes invidious comparisons. One could just as well ask why so many Eastern Orthodox parishes not celebrate Vespers on a regular basis, or Orthros prior to the Divine Liturgy (at least on Sundays). Kyr Kallistos wrote ruefully of describing the beauty of Vespers to a group of Catholic priests here in the States, and then being unable to find a parish in the city where it was actually being celebrated.

One can point to other common Orthodox practices as well, such as the use of stained glass in place of canonical icons, a lack of popular participation in the Liturgy, the employment of organs and other musical instruments--one can go on at some length.

We should follow the advice of Father Robert Taft and not compare the pristine ideal of our own confession against the grubby reality of someone else's.

Aramis evades the key point regarding the Ruthenian attitude towards liturgy, which is characterized both by minimalism (do the least with which you can get away), and what I call "Cracker Jack sacramentalism"--the attitude that no liturgy is worth attending if the Eucharist is not offered. I encountered that early in my life as a Ruthenian, when I suggested that someone come to Vespers with me at another Greek Catholic church. He responded, "Why? They're not offering Communion."

Some years later, I asked the pastor if he would consider offering Vespers on Saturday evenings, at least during the summer, when attendance fell off sharply due to people attending Roman Mass on Saturday evening (Ah, the Seventh Day Adventists Catholic Church) in order to get an early start for the beach (or maybe it should have been named "Our Lady of Perpetual Convenience). I pointed out that the Liturgical Instruction said attendance at Vespers or the Vigil could substitute for the Divine Liturgy in fulfillment of the "Sunday Obligation". This was done specifically to advance the restoration of the Liturgy of the Hours in Eastern Catholic worship.

He told me "Our bishops have not received that particular teaching of the Instruction. They believe that it is not consonant with the Eucharistic spirituality of the Ruthenian people".

Translation: If we did it, they would not come, so why bother? Of course, it is the job of the bishops and the presbyters to educate the people so that they will not only know why they should come, but will want to come. However, the bishops have a very low opinion of the faithful, and the faithful obediently try to live down to those expectations.
Posted By: griego catolico

Re: EC vs. EO view of RC "Marian" Doctrines and Papal Infalibility - 07/12/10 01:39 PM

Originally Posted by Herbigny
"we are Orthodox in all things, and the only difference is that we are in Communion with Rome"


Here is what Bishop John Elya, retired eparch of Newton for Melkite Catholics, says about Orthodox in communion with Rome

Quote
Are we Orthodox united with Rome? - Several different people have written in asking some variation on this most fundament of questions. Since each question was directed in a slightly different way, Bishop John has chosen a rather more complete answer.

Bishop John's Answer - Sometimes I think that the Melkite Catholic Church, as well as other Byzantine Catholic Churches, enjoys the best of two worlds: Orthodoxy and Catholicism. We rejoice in the affirmation of the good Pope John XXIII that "what unites us is much greater than what divides us."

When the Patriarchate of Antioch was divided into two branches in 1724, one branch kept the name Orthodox and the other branch which sealed its union with the Holy See of Rome, kept the name Melkite given to it since the Sixth Century and called itself Catholic. It became known as the Melkite Greek Catholic Church. In the Middle East, although both branches claim orthodoxy as well as catholicity, however being Catholic means not Orthodox and being Orthodox means not Catholic. To be a Catholic Christian means that one accepts the primacy of the Pope of Rome, because he is the successor of St. Peter. To be an Orthodox Christian means that one does not recognize the primacy of the Pope of Rome, but considers him as "first among equals."

According to the Catholic teaching, Christ did not create a church with five heads of equal importance. He established One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church whose invisible head is the Lord, but whose visible head is the Pope of Rome.

The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches states it in these terms: "The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in a special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise." (Canon 43 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches)

If an Orthodox subscribes to the Canon quoted above, he/she can be called Catholic and be considered "united to Rome" or in full communion with the Catholic Church.

An illustration may help: Is the Province of Quebec a province of France united to the British Crown through Canada, or a Canadian province with special relations to France? Is the Melkite Church a hundred per cent Catholic with special relations with the Orthodox Churches or a hundred per cent Orthodox with special relations to Rome. Certainly, the first case is true:

The Melkite Church is a hundred per cent Catholic, but not a hundred per cent Orthodox.

Independence and sovereignty or dependence on another Church? Such a decision is difficult to make. However, the Melkite Church has chosen dependency as a price for unity, in order to comply with the will of our Lord who prayed repeatedly "that all may be one." (John 17)
Posted By: Gabriel

Re: EC vs. EO view of RC "Marian" Doctrines and Papal Infalibility - 07/12/10 05:46 PM

I've always admired Sayidna John's forthright catholicity.
Posted By: Phillip Rolfes

Re: EC vs. EO view of RC "Marian" Doctrines and Papal Infalibility - 07/12/10 05:56 PM

Bishop John's comments don't really jive with the comments of Patriarch Gregorios III (Laham) that we are "Orthodox with a plus" (i.e. Orthodox in communion with Rome). Nor do they jive with the official declaration of the Melkite Greek Catholic Synod of Bishops that states: "I believe everything that Orthodoxy teaches. And I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as first among equals according to the limits recognized by the Greek Fathers in the first Millenium before the separation." Nor do Bishop John's comments jive with the affirmation of Pope Benedict XVI that, in the event of reunion, Rome must not demand more from Orthodoxy than what was agreed upon in the first millenium, nor may Orthodoxy condemn as heretical the developments that have taken place in the West.
Posted By: Gabriel

Re: EC vs. EO view of RC "Marian" Doctrines and Papal Infalibility - 07/12/10 06:11 PM

Sadly, some Eastern Catholics in high places seem to want to throw out the baby (catholicity) with the bathwater (latinization). Pardon me if I'm less than eager to see them succeed.

Posted By: StuartK

Re: EC vs. EO view of RC "Marian" Doctrines and Papal Infalibility - 07/12/10 06:57 PM

Quote
Bishop John's comments don't really jive with the comments of Patriarch Gregorios III (Laham) that we are "Orthodox with a plus" (i.e. Orthodox in communion with Rome). Nor do they jive with the official declaration of the Melkite Greek Catholic Synod of Bishops that states: "I believe everything that Orthodoxy teaches.


Nor do they jibe with the statement of Patriarch Lyubomir of Kyiv-Halich, to whit, "Between the Orthodox and the Greek Catholics, there are no theological differences".

Quote
Sadly, some Eastern Catholics in high places seem to want to throw out the baby (catholicity) with the bathwater (latinization). Pardon me if I'm less than eager to see them succeed.


It is more sad that some people see catholicity as congruence with the theological speculations of the Latin Church.
Posted By: griego catolico

Re: EC vs. EO view of RC "Marian" Doctrines and Papal Infalibility - 07/13/10 12:07 AM

Originally Posted by Phillip Rolfes
Bishop John's comments don't really jive with the comments of Patriarch Gregorios III (Laham) that we are "Orthodox with a plus" (i.e. Orthodox in communion with Rome). Nor do they jive with the official declaration of the Melkite Greek Catholic Synod of Bishops that states: "I believe everything that Orthodoxy teaches. And I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as first among equals according to the limits recognized by the Greek Fathers in the first Millenium before the separation." Nor do Bishop John's comments jive with the affirmation of Pope Benedict XVI that, in the event of reunion, Rome must not demand more from Orthodoxy than what was agreed upon in the first millenium, nor may Orthodoxy condemn as heretical the developments that have taken place in the West.


Jive?! Never thought I would see that word used here. smile

You have made some errors in your statement that need correction.

First, regarding what you stated...
Quote
Nor do Bishop John's comments jive with the affirmation of Pope Benedict XVI that, in the event of reunion, Rome must not demand more from Orthodoxy than what was agreed upon in the first millenium, nor may Orthodoxy condemn as heretical the developments that have taken place in the West.


It was not Pope Benedict XVI who made that statement but then Professor Josef Ratzinger who said:
Quote
Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium...Reunion could take place in this context if, on the one hand, the East would cease to oppose as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millennium and would accept the Catholic Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she had acquired in the course of that development, while on the other hand, the West would recognize the Church of the East as orthodox in the form she has always had.


You left out that important phrase "with respect to the doctrine of primacy".

Waht was Professor Ratzinger's personal opinion then changed when he became Cardinal Ratzinger and head of the CDF. Here is his response to the Zoghby Initiative:

Quote
As to the Greek ­Melkite Catholics declaring their complete adhesion to the teaching of Eastern Orthodoxy, it is necessary to take into account the fact that the Orthodox Churches today are not in full communion with the Church of Rome, and that this adhesion is therefore not possible as long as there is not a full correspondence in the profession and exercise of the faith by the two parties...

...We know that the doctrine concerning the primacy of the Roman Pontiff has experienced a development over time within the framework of the explanation of the Church’s faith, and it has to be retained in its entirety, which means from its origins to our day.


Now as Pope Benedict XVI, he caused a stir among the Orthodox Churches when he dropped the title "Patriarch of the West". So, it is inaccurate to say that what Professor Ratzinger thought then is what now Pope Benedict XVI thinks today.

Therefore, the Zoghby Initiatve didn't and still doesn't jive with Rome or the Antiochian Orthodox Church.

For further reading on this, I suggest Are the Ratzinger Proposal and Zogh...ndam Fidem for Eastern Catholic Identity
Posted By: Rybak

Re: EC vs. EO view of RC "Marian" Doctrines and Papal Infalibility - 07/13/10 12:46 AM

Wow. Sometimes I am just stunned as to how quickly a thread can get off topic around here.

Dave is asking some big questions which require . . . answers.

Dave, try reading the book "101 Questions and Answers on the Eastern Catholic Churches" written by a Melkite deacon - his name escapes me right now. Paulist Press is the publisher. Its a good place to start and covers a lot of the basics.
Posted By: griego catolico

Re: EC vs. EO view of RC "Marian" Doctrines and Papal Infalibility - 07/13/10 02:01 AM

Originally Posted by Rybak
Wow. Sometimes I am just stunned as to how quickly a thread can get off topic around here.

Dave is asking some big questions which require . . . answers.

Dave, try reading the book "101 Questions and Answers on the Eastern Catholic Churches" written by a Melkite deacon - his name escapes me right now. Paulist Press is the publisher. Its a good place to start and covers a lot of the basics.


It's by Fr. Deacon Edward Faulk and the book can be previewed here: http://books.google.com/books?id=Gs...=0CDcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Posted By: Ung-Certez

Re: EC vs. EO view of RC "Marian" Doctrines and Papal Infalibility - 07/13/10 07:51 AM

Originally Posted by StuartK
Quote
Bishop John's comments don't really jive with the comments of Patriarch Gregorios III (Laham) that we are "Orthodox with a plus" (i.e. Orthodox in communion with Rome). Nor do they jive with the official declaration of the Melkite Greek Catholic Synod of Bishops that states: "I believe everything that Orthodoxy teaches.


Nor do they jibe with the statement of Patriarch Lyubomir of Kyiv-Halich, to whit, "Between the Orthodox and the Greek Catholics, there are no theological differences".

Quote
Sadly, some Eastern Catholics in high places seem to want to throw out the baby (catholicity) with the bathwater (latinization). Pardon me if I'm less than eager to see them succeed.


It is more sad that some people see catholicity as congruence with the theological speculations of the Latin Church.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I recently experienced a very similar anti-ecumenical example of this kind of thinking among Roman Catholics concerning Eastern Orthodox/Eastern Catholics vs. the Western Church (i.e. the Latin Particular Church). I recently attended or "attempted" to attend a 7:00 PM Sunday evening liturgy (still scratching my head on how canonical is a 7:00 PM Sunday evening liturgy) at one Roman Catholic Church in Monroeville, PA. This particular Roman Catholic Church was built in that classical post-Vatican II, very bland, auditorium style, ultra-modern style church. I had never attended this particular church in the past. I never would have believed that any Roman Cathlic priest in the Greater Pittsburgh area would ever say such comments because of the numerous Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic and Ukrainian Byzantine Catholic churches that exist in and around Pittsburgh. I'll cut to the chase of this very bad ecumenical "faux pas" that this particular Roman Catholic priest made this past Sunday evening. He began his homily this particular "7:00 PM Sunday evening liturgy" by saying that he was invited to attend and officiate a wedding in the South Hills area of Pittsburgh. This priest went on to state that the bride was a Roman Catholic (born and raised) and that the groom was originially raised "Russian Orthodox", but was inatiatied into the Catholic Church via the "Byzantine Rite" as a compromise between a "mixed marriage" couple (i.e. Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox couple). What came out of the mouth of this particular Roman Catholic priest next made me very ill. He stated something like:

"The groom became a Catholic convert by entering the "Byzantine Rite" Catholic Church, I don't know why he would want to join the "Byzantine Rite", he should have just joined the Latin Rite ..."

There are so many things wrong with the above statement, I don't know where to begin. Now being a cradle member of the Ruthenian-Byzantine Catholic Particular Church, I was very, very offended and disapointed with these very derogatory and inflammatory off the cuff remarks made by this Roman Catholic priest. He clearly doesn't read his copy of Canon Law concerning the intiation of Orthodox Christians into the Catholic Church. If he did, he would've known that Orthodox Christians who join the Catholic Church, are iniatied into what ever "Particular Church" tradition that corresponds to the convert's liturgical tradition. So if the convert is "Russian Orthodox", they are to join any of the various branches (Ruthenian, Melkite, Russian, Ukrainian, Greek, etc.) of the Constantinopolitan Particular Church in union w/Rome churches and not the Latin Particular Church.

I personally could not stay to be further insulted by this Roman Catholic priest. I stood up and promptly bowed (from the waist) and crossed myself (x3, from right to the left) and exited the building.

Now this is a Roman Catholic church in Monroeville, PA in Allegheny County. This is the Greater Pittsburgh area where there are at least over 15-20 Ruthenian and Ukrainian Byzantine Catholic parishes, and not the deep South, the Atlantic states or the Mid-West. This is Pittsburgh, where the print media and TV news stations just covered the death and funeral of our late Metropolitan Basil. How can any Roman Catholic priest in the Greater Pittsburgh area in the year 2010 be so uneducated and so ignornant of such Canon Law issues?

This is but another example of the obvious need for education of clerics and laity of the Latin Particular Church concerning their fellow Eastern and Oriental Orthodox and Eastern/Oriental Catholic brothers and sisters.

U-C
Posted By: Fr. Deacon Lance

Re: EC vs. EO view of RC "Marian" Doctrines and Papal Infalibility - 07/14/10 04:00 AM

U-C,

Write Bishop Zubick, I am sure a corrective letter will be sent at once.

Fr. Deacon Lance
Posted By: Ung-Certez

Re: EC vs. EO view of RC "Marian" Doctrines and Papal Infalibility - 07/14/10 08:57 AM

I think I just might. The ironic part is that my pastor, Fr. Joseph, has been working closely with all of the Roman Catholic priests of that particular Monroeville parish over the last ten years. This is 2010, not the 1890's or the 1930's. Such anti-Eastern Catholic bigotry by Roman Catholic priests should not exist.

U-C
Posted By: griego catolico

Re: EC vs. EO view of RC "Marian" Doctrines and Papal Infalibility - 07/14/10 09:21 PM

Ung-Certez,

Following what Matthew 18:15-17 states, I would recommend that you speak with this priest first and inform him that you were offended by his remark. Give him the opportunity to explain his comments and then take the opportunity to educate him. If this fails, then have your pastor, Fr. Joseph, contact him. If this priest makes further offensive comments, then write to his bishop.
© 2020 The Byzantine Forum