www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West What Do You Believe?

From another topic, djs wrote:

So, my questions to djs or any other EC's are:

1) As Eastern Catholics, do you claim to be Orthodox in communion with Rome?

2) Do you accept all of the Ecumenical Councils (all 21 or so) of the Catholic Church?

3) Do you accept the ex cathedra statements of Vatican I concerning papal infallibility, which as a Catholic (of any rite) you are bound to? That the Roman pontiff has immediate jurisdiction over all Catholic churches of any rite? Not just in terms of faith and morals, but in liturgical matters also?

4) Do you accept the dogma of the Immaculate Conception?

5) Do you believe that the Catholic Church ALONE is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church?

Greg

Well, Greg, I'm not going to impose on my Eastern Catholic brethren, but as a soon-to-be Roman Catholic, I definitely assent to all five!

Logos Teen

Greg,

You seem to have a need to draw harsh lines between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, much harsher than the Churches draw themselves. It looks very much like you have a continuing need to remind yourself that Catholic teaching is really very much false.

I only have a few minutes this afternoon to respond, but maybe my responses to your questions can provide the foundation for a good discussion.

1) As Eastern Catholics, do you claim to be Orthodox in communion with Rome?

Yes. Eastern Catholics are by definition Orthodox Christians who have entered into full communion with the Church at Rome.

2) Do you accept all of the Ecumenical Councils (all 21 or so) of the Catholic Church?

Byzantine Catholics accept Seven Ecumenical Councils. We liturgically celebrate the memory of the first six Ecumenical Councils in July, and the Seventh Council in October and again on the Seventh Sunday of Pascha. Also, the celebration of the Sunday of Orthodoxy (commemorating the restoration of icons) is an indirect celebration of the Seventh Ecumenical Council.

We further acknowledge that there are what Pope Paul VI called �General Councils in the West�. They are not of the same qualitative level as the Seven Ecumenical Councils but we accept their teaching as Orthodox even though most of them had no effect upon us. Acknowledging that the Latins have come up with a legitimate cookbook, however, does not mean that we throw away the Greek cookbook.

3) Do you accept the ex cathedra statements of Vatican I concerning papal infallibility, which as a Catholic (of any rite) you are bound to? That the Roman pontiff has immediate jurisdiction over all Catholic churches of any rite? Not just in terms of faith and morals, but in liturgical matters also?

Tough question. We acknowledge the authority of Peter but much of was taught at Vatican I needs refinement. Pope John Paul II has noted that the current way the papacy functions is not the best for a reunited Church. He has placed the whole question of the papal ministry up for discussion.

4) Do you accept the dogma of the Immaculate Conception?

If one starts with the Latin definition of original sin then the theology of the Immaculate Conception makes sense and I have no problem assenting to it. But since we don�t start with that understanding of original sin our theology is necessarily different.

5) Do you believe that the Catholic Church ALONE is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church?

Depends on what you mean by �alone�. We believe that the Catholic Church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. We also believe that the Orthodox Church (not in communion with Rome) is almost completely one with us and that it would be wrong to conclude that it is outside of or not part of the Catholic Church.

Admin

Amen! to what the Administrator said!

Ditto for me too!

Herb

ps:

I accept that the Orthodox (not in Communion with Rome) are true and Orthodox Christians, with all the fullness that that implies.

I accept that if the Orthodox want to call themselves Orthodox Catholics, Ok, I've no problem.

We consider ourselves Orthodox (in Communion with Rome) because we hold the same beliefs, dogmas, liturgy, etc. as the Orthodox.

We realise that this (how we style ourselves) may not sit well with many Orthodox, for various reasons, and I feel that that is too bad, but there's not much I can do about it.

And yes, we've some ways to go before we recover the fullness of our Orthodox heritage and Tradition, but we're "come a long ways baby" - and we're moving as fast as our sinfulness and God's mercy allow.

But we are who we are and we believe and pray as we do, and that is just the facts.

Dear Friends,

This is all wonderful!

However, it would be untrue to say that all EC's share with the Administrator and with Herb that:'

1) Only the first Seven Councils are normative for EC's - even Anthony Dragani would not dare say that on EWTN. I don't want to think about what my parish priest would say to me if I said this. There is no agreement among EC's about this, as the discussion between the Administrator and Dragani bore out.

2) Whether or not EC's accept the theology behind the RC Immaculate Conception doctrine - we cannot say that it is heretical and we accept that the Mother of God was conceived in holiness as a DOCTRINE. The Orthodox accept this, but have not elevated this to the level of a doctrine. Therein lies an important difference. In addition, many EC's accept BOTH the Augustinian view of Original Sin AND the RC view of the IC. Again, no agreement across the board as there would be in the Orthodox Church.

3) It is difficult for any EC to deny Vatican I's papal doctrines. Excommunication would be the result. The Administrator's view, while honourable and understandable, is far from normative for most EC's and EC clergy. It is, at best his own view, shared by a group of EC's.

4) "Orthodox in communion with Rome" is a problematic title for many EC's for a number of reasons. Has even ONE Ruthenian or other EC EVER written this title as a name for its parish (rather than "Byzantine Catholic" and the like)? Many EC's see being Orthodox as constituting a refusal to hold certain Catholic doctrines such as papal infallibility et al. that differentiate Catholics from Orthodox. This view is, as well, a view shared by a very "Eastern" "Vostochnyk" group among EC's - far from normative across the board. I will say that I largely share it - but would be very careful about sharing it with most other EC's.

Finally, I categorically disagree with our revered Administrator's notion that Gregory's desire to determine the differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy relate to some sort of convert mentality (as I read his comments to imply).

Greg's concern for this comes from that of the Orthodox Church itself and her understanding of the integrity of her theology and praxis.

We EC's on the other hand have yet to explain how we can be fully "Eastern" and yet accept a Western theology that is NOT integral to ours and whose conclusions would not naturally flow from Eastern theological a priori's.

We EC's have largely taken the train that says "Orthodoxy" and we've gotten off at the station that says "Papacy."

When we did that, we've had to accept a doctrinal development that stems from the Papacy, whose integral relationship to Eastern, Patristic theology has yet to be demonstrated.

Greg wants us to affirm who we are as Catholics over and above the ecumenical mirage that tends to cover-up real differences between us.

And I think we owe Greg a debt of gratitude for so doing.

I, for one, congratulate him.

Alex

Alex,

Please forgive me if I disagree with you some of these issues, but I stand by what I have posted.

It is good, however, to find that there are some issues that you are not on both sides of.

Admin

Gregory has posed some question which are perfectly legitimate in themselves and would make a good agenda for several book-length responses. However, four out of the five questions do NOT lend themselves to sound-bite replies.

1) As Eastern Catholics, do you claim to be Orthodox in communion with Rome?
Answer: yes. that's the easy question!

2) Do you accept all of the Ecumenical Councils (all 21 or so) of the Catholic Church?
Answer: the Administrator has already responded that we certainly acceptthe Seven Councils and that the General Councils of the West are another discussion (nobody has ever held liturgical commemorations of them, for example). The Roman Catholic Church does not have a completely official list of these, by the way, contrary to a popular impression. There is also the matter of the Eighth Council, often called the Double Council. But this would/will be a long discussion.

3) Do you accept the ex cathedra statements of Vatican I concerning papal infallibility, which as a Catholic (of any rite) you are bound to? That the Roman pontiff has immediate jurisdiction over all Catholic churches of any rite? Not just in terms of faith and morals, but in liturgical matters also?
Answer: the cheap answer is to point out that "papal infallibility" is an expression not to be found in the decrees of Vatican I. The more serious answer is to suggest a thorough discussion of the decree *Pastor Aeternus*, in a genuine effort to determine what that document does and does not say. [What, for instance, does "jurisdiction" really mean, in Scripture and Holy Tradition?] Forgive me, but it is not the best of good manners to presume to tell people of "another Church" what teachings they "are bound to".

4) Do you accept the dogma of the Immaculate Conception?
Answer: Rome is quite happy with what is set forth in the traditional Byzantine liturgical books (in Orthodox editions) on this topic. Does Greg find anything to object to in those same liturgical texts? We could discuss those texts and their patristic background at length.

5) Do you believe that the Catholic Church ALONE is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church?
Answer: Catholic teaching has just been mis-represented; Vatican II tells us that the One Church SUBSISTS IN the Catholic Church.

All of which leads me to suggest that the Administrator's responses are correct - and to repeat that questions 2-5 each would need a lengthy and thorough consideration.

Incognitus

Alex,

St. Michael's Byzantine Russian parish in NYC for a long time styled itself, on it's website, as "St. Michael's Russian Orthodox Church in Communion with Rome". I notice that the nomenclature on its recently re-designed website's title page [stmichaelruscath.org] is "St. Michael's Russian Catholic Church"; however, the phrase "Welcome to our Russian Orthodox parish in communion with the Holy See of Rome" (emphasis mine)appears immediately above the parish name.

Many years,

Neil

Brother Alex,

Once again your questions are ones I asked myslef a time or two. I could'nt answer then and I can't now. Part of why I became Orthodox. Thanks for the thoughts in writing. Blessed Great Lent Alex.


Brother Gregory, thanks for bringing the questions up for all to read.

Michael

The Orthodox definition of Orthodoxy and the definition conveyed by those in communion with Bishop of Rome differ. An Orthodox argument could be since we are Orthodox we comprehend Orthodoxy and live and define our Orthodox Christian lives and faith from that perspective. If one wanted to be an Orthodox Latin Catholic one would do that so long as one adhered to the teachings of the Orthodox Church which would include exclusion of communion with the Bishop of Rome because Rome is believed by the Orthodox Church to have fallen into the error of heresy. As such, the Orthodox Church is not in communion with the Bishop of Rome. The teachings of the Orthodox Church are not the same teachings as the Roman Catholic Church on all matters. Hence there is a conflict known as a schism. It seems to me that one would have to exclude everything that has been developed or added to after the seven Ecumenical Councils.

"Never let anyone try to tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must
also be eastern. The West was fully Orthodox for a thousand years; and her
venerable liturgy is far older than any of her heresies."
- St. John (Maximovitch) the Wonderworker, on the Ancient Orthodox Liturgies
of the West (Western Rite)

It has been difficult for me to understand how in a schism (a formal division in or separation from a church or religious body) one can be on the one side and claim to be on the other side as well. It would seem to me like rather uncomfortable reasoning resulting in a likewise position. Schisms don't have middles. Hence thinking is sometimes searched and articulated in this forum such as (technically there is no schism) is considered or embraced for justification purposes.

I think at some point the realization that obedience to Rome and Orthodoxy at the same time is not working. Unfortunately, it seems like continuously suffering and sorely vexed position. The question I find myself asking is who is suffering? Certainly, Byzantine Catholics are, as well as many Orthodox who have relatives that are Byzantine Catholics especially in the Ukraine. The issue has caused much termoil within many families. Certainly Orthodox who don't have relatives in the Ukraine but consider the unnecessary plight of our slavs brothers. I don't know, but perhaps the matter is quite heavy on the Popes heart and those within the Vatican. Would it be unthinkable for Byzantine Catholics and the Pope of Rome to consider transfering BC's to the Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem, or something along those lines. I suppose I might be a bit in the can someone do something already realm.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

I think that Administrator and incognitus especially answered the questions posed very well. But I also mention to Gregory that a search will provide extended threads on a number, perhaps all, of your questions.


Alex, the impetus of Gregory's questions, if you were looking at the other threads, does indeed hinge on that last phrase of yours: "the Orthodox Church itself and her understanding of the integrity of her theology and praxis". But Gregory goes from this point to question the legitimacy and fruition of the ECC's.

This point and perspective, however, is no different than the EP's - and many other Orthodox P's in writing in response to Kasper's letter to the MP - who concluded that these problematic churches should not be promoted but diminished. Or as Gregory has suggested just abandon your particular patrimony and join Orthodox churches. The position of Gregory is the position that you lashed out at on another thread; and here you congratulate it.

I cannot provide a source for this bit of knowledge, but I know that within the last year I read somewhere that the Catholic and Orthodox have agreed that there is nothing dividing the two which is sufficient to interfere with salvation. I know that my words here are not exactly right. I believe the source is in the documents that have come out of ecumenical negotiations. I will look for the source and post it later, if someone doesn't beat me to it.

Dear Neil,

Thank you for that reference!

But, as St John Damascus once said, "Because one sparrow has sung does not mean that spring is here!"

God bless,

Alex

Dear djs,

First of all, please calm down.

Secondly, I disagree categorically still that Greg is motivated by a convert mentality.

I know convert mentality and I don't like it in anyone, Catholic, Orthodox, what have you.

What Greg is saying is simply what traditional Orthodoxy would say - if we don't like it, then we don't like it, period.

Theologically, the issues that divide Catholics and Orthodox are very real and we need to overcome them.

They will not be overcome by pretending they aren't important, or that they are different ways of saying the same thing etc.

AND many of our own EC people would simply disagree with the Administrator and Incognitus (and yourself if you agree with them) concerning those differences.

And they would be horrified at the thought of being identified as "Orthodox" of any kind.

That is all I'm saying.

I do disagree with Greg since I'm an EC. But that doesn't mean that we can't talk to one another about theological clarity and critique religious obfuscation caused by fuzzy ecumenical perspectives that don't help anyone on the road to true unity.

So calm down and stop being so defensive.

Alex

Dear Administrator,

Thank you!

But what I wrote, Sir, had NOTHING to do with what I personally believe.

I could write about that, but I won't bore the forum with that. I would say that I personally would agree with you.

I'm simply making some observations about what I perceive to be the theological "camps" in the EC Churches.

Most of our EC parishioners aren't as theologically advanced as you and I .

Many of them, including many clergy, are really into Purgatory, indulgences, the Filioque etc.

Let's not pretend that they are not.

And let's not speak about ECism as if it were homogeneous in terms of a pure Eastern Christian perspective.

It is most certainly not.

Greg is more than correct in the stance he has taken.

He has asked us to define who we are via Rome AND Orthodoxy - sans wishy-washiness.

Alex