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

Yes, and that is the purpose of my posts. I am sorry if others felt that my posts were personal attacks. Furthermore, I once held similar beliefs when I was a Melkite Catholic. Soon, I felt and realized my beliefs were in error and then I became Orthodox. I am not trying to belittle Eastern Catholics on this forum...just tyring to express the Orthodox Faith, while presenting, in contrast, what the Catholic Church truly teaches.

Thanks for your support Alex...and thanks for presenting the Catholic Faith on this forum.

Where does he say this? Even Vatican II reiterates Vatican I stating in the Decree Concerning the Pastoral Office of Bishops October 28, 1965:

---"2. In this Church of Christ the Roman pontiff, as the successor of Peter, to whom Christ entrusted the feeding of His sheep and lambs, enjoys supreme, full, immediate, and universal authority over the care of souls by divine institution. Therefore, as pastor of all the faithful, he is sent to provide for the common good of the universal Church and for the good of the individual churches. Hence, he holds a primacy of ordinary power over all the churches."

How, along with the dogmatic pronoucement of Vatican I, can this be up for discussion?

Again at Vatican II, the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church November 21, 1964 states:

---"This Sacred Council, following closely in the footsteps of the First Vatican Council, with that Council teaches and declares that Jesus Christ, the eternal Shepherd, established His holy Church, having sent forth the apostles as He Himself had been sent by the Father;(136) and He willed that their successors, namely the bishops, should be shepherds in His Church even to the consummation of the world. And in order that the episcopate itself might be one and undivided, He placed Blessed Peter over the other apostles, and instituted in him a permanent and visible source and foundation of unity of faith and communion.(1*) And all this teaching about the institution, the perpetuity, the meaning and reason for the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and of his infallible magisterium, this Sacred Council again proposes to be firmly believed by all the faithful. Continuing in that same undertaking, this Council is resolved to declare and proclaim before all men the doctrine concerning bishops, the successors of the apostles, who together with the successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ,(2*) the visible Head of the whole Church, govern the house of the living God."

Later on...

---"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."

Rome has spoken. The case is closed.

Herbigny wrote:

Simply wrong and it leads Catholic lurkers to believe that this may be the teaching of the Catholic Church, which it is clearly not.

Greg

Greg is right.

The Papacy is not "up for discussion."

The belief that it is "up for discussion" is a common misunderstanding of JP2's overtures to the Orthodox.

He asked the Orthodox patriarchs what their theologians said about the Papacy, to see how compatible it was with Catholic dogma. If there was some way that it could be worked out, then great. He did not indicate that the Catholic Church was open to revising its immutable Teaching on the Papacy.

The teaching of Vatican I on the Papacy, by the way, is pretty much the same as that of St. Maximos the Confessor, so I don't know why EC's would be ashamed of it.

LatinTrad

Alex,
If you check the emoticons, I only found your congratulatory comment confusing. Nothing to calm down about. I did nothing to endorse the "convert mentality" idea, rather I endorsed your comment. But felt that in the context of other posts, it needed to be amplified and compared to similar comments to which ytou reacted in an altogether different fashion.

Sometimes period and sometimes not; sometimes you call shame on them for saying it; sometimes you offer congratulations.

djs --

Why don't you offer your thoughts on my questions?

Hardly. The only thing one can come away with from all of these threads is that Eastern Catholics have an identity crisis. Some accept Catholic teaching, others don't. Just state what you believe. Yes or no. It just sounds like you don't want to answer the questions.

I asked five questions...that's all.

Another question is this: Why be Catholic when no one seems to what to defend the Catholic Faith? If communion with Rome is so important and wonderful, why don't you embrace the Faith and defend it?

Greg

Of course, your authority to declare what the Catholic Church teaches is nil. Moreover, as evidenced by your equating "subsists within" with "is" any claim to grasp of nuanced meaning of the items that you quote is dubious. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion of what the text mean, but it is really inappropriate for you to claim that your presentation is "what the Catholic Church truly teaches".

You might also seek to temper your ideas about the meaning of jurisdiction, with the reality of its operation. And compare and contrast such operations within Orthodoxy. For example, on another forum it was quipped that the Pope could arbitrarily close the Melkite Patriarchate. It seemed to go unnoticed that such has not happened; on the other hand, these machinations are a unmistakable part of Orthodox history. Likewise by contemplating the Orthodox situation in Ukraine, or Estonia, or Macedonia, you might better understand friction between Rome and particular churches, and realize that such problems are not specific to the Unia.

Gregory, Here is a lovely sentiment on this problem, mutatis mutandis, from an Orthodox priest

http://www.cin.org/archives/cineast/200402/0001.html

An interesting comment, from one who has tumbled from one group to to the next, and has been with the OCA for over two whole years. Either you have been changing identity, or, if you claim that that this tumbling has been done while holding fast to your identity, then you have been shopping for a group that suits your own ideas. Either way, there is an nice irony to your comment.

Again, you are in no position to arbitrate what is or is not Catholic teaching.

As I mentioned to you before, I think people would defend the Catholic Faith from a threat. Your vain disputations are not in that category.

Gregory,

I don't have time to answer all the points you raise. At one time I thought that the evidence of the First Millennium was conclusive and supported what some Orthodox polemicists say. After further research I have come to the conclusion that the are varying strands of belief on the papacy in the First Millennium Church. The concepts in Vatican I (and II) can be traced to the First Millennium Church. This is not to deny that there are opposing strands of belief or the growth of papal claims beyond the First Millennium model. I used to have a knee-jerk reaction every time Vatican I was mentioned. I don't any longer. Certain aspects of the papacy are troublesome. After all, popes are human and do sin and make mistakes. But, all in all, the papacy has also been a great blessing to the Church. (I thank God every day for Pope John Paul!!) From my perspective, Humanae Vitae forcefully illustrates its divine leading. (A rather bold stand when most of the rest of Christendom--Protestant and Orthodox--changed their views on artificial contraception after the introduction of the Pill.)

As to some of the other issues you raise. I would say that for us Byzantine Catholics the First Seven Councils are of first importance. Other councils are of a secondary nature. I'm not denying them in any way. I think we can make a distinction between the councils just as we can speak of deutero-canonical books of the Bible. And I think we also have to take into consideration that our Coptic and Armenian Catholic friends would have to affirm fewer councils as of first importance.

Your question on the Immaculate Conception is puzzling to me. What is dogmatic for Catholics is not Latin theology on Original Sin but that the Theotokos was holy and pure from the moment of her conception (and this is affirmed by many Orthodox). The argument that since the papal definition is couched in Latin theological concepts it canonizes those Latin theological concepts is not worthy of credence. The Catholic Church has worked out doctrinal accords (for example with the Assyrians and others on Christological issues) on disupted theological concepts and it does not insist on acceptance of terminology or a particular theological form in order to reach an agreement.

Are Byzantine Catholics Orthodox? If you mean "Eastern Orthodox," no. "Orthodox" does not just mean "Eastern Orthodox." The Copts claim that title, as do Armenians and Assyrians. It's a title in use in the Latin Church as well. We would limit ourselves if we only used that term in the sense used by Eastern Orthodox today. We are "Orthodox" in the sense honored in the First Millennium Church.

You know, djs, you are right. That is why I have used direct quotations from Vatican I & II to support my argument. Or, could it be that what the Catholic Church teaches does not fit within your "idea" of the Catholic Church?

Yes, Orthodox bishops can and do overstep their jurisdiction which is wrong. This is clearly against Orthodox ecclesiology. I admit that the Orthodox Church errors from time to time in terms of Her bishops overstating their jurisdiction. However, it is not DOGMA, and that is a big difference.

Okay, if you don't want to engage in a discussion, then say so. If you feel my questions are idle curiosity, then say so. I believe that they are honest questions.

My journey has led me to the Orthodox Church. I guess I have changed my identity...shouldn't we all. If we come into contact with God or come into the truth of His Church, shouldn't we change our lives? And not form God or His Church into our own opinions or ideas? I have admitted that I was wrong when I defended papal infallibility...I honestly thought that papal infallibility was historically, scripturally, and theologically true. But I was wrong.

Translation: I (djs) cannot defend my beliefs so I will paint Greg's arguments as "vain disputations".

You still have not answered the five questions. It really is amazing since you said: "Instead of asking us - who we are, what are our beliefs and practices, what is our church and its history, you make declarations, with implict answers to questions that you really - it is clear -should be asking.". Now that I am asking the questions, you claim that my questions are idle curiosity and you won't answer the questions. Truly unbelievable. :rolleyes:

Greg

The idea that by giving a quote you have elucidated the truth is not a wise one. While you may say that the Catholic church truly teaches what is quoted, you cannot say that this is the Truth of Catholic teaching. Proof-texting is not a genuine method for elucidating truth.


What is "it"", in this sentence: the potential for exercise, or the exercise? I have no problem with the former; and see the latter as Chick-like fanatsy.

On the contrary: I see this comment as real engagement. I am still unclear what category your questions fall within. Hence some ambivalence about making long answers. Answers already given by others do not seem to be taken by you as informative but as grist for your polemical mill.

Fair enough. ISTM that you write sincerely on this point, and I apologize for doubting your sincerity. Perhaps you might also like to withdraw you psychoanalysis of members of my church?

:rolleyes: As I noted above, I like Father Seraphim's answer the best, but also concur in the answers of incognitus and Administrator. I like also DTB's comment on OiCwR. But since this term seems to offend certain EO's, I use the term only for craziness.

There's some people (usually not Orthodox) that seem offended if Catholics do not append "Roman" in front of Catholic. I think they should be ignored.

Same goes for those who want to tell us we can't use "Orthodox," IMO. Do they tell the Copts or Armenians they can't? After all, some of these folks are the same ones who seem offended by our very existence.

It's time to stop the word games (as in "Christians of the true faith"--to me, that's even more insulting to our Orthodox brethren...it implies they don't share in the "true faith") and just follow our liturgical texts. We are, according to the Liturgy, "oO0rthodox Christians" (depending on your capitalization).

These are direct quotes from Vatican I & II. Papal Infallibility is a dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church; hence, it needs to be believed by all Catholic faithful. It is an article of Faith. If I provide textual proof from an offical Catholic document I am cast as proof-texting. If I don't provide a text to my argument, it is then my personal opinion. I guess I can't win.

"It" is the dogma of Papal Infallibility. The potential is there in the Catholic Church because it is a dogma proclaimed by the Catholic Church at Vatican I & II. The actual exercise is there by evidence of...well, there is just too much evidence of how Rome gets her hands into everything.

Please spare me. You don't want to answer the questions. I have a good feeling (and please correct me) that you don't accept Papal Infallibility defined in Vatican I & II. Therefore, you are stuck. You would end up admitting that you do not believe in a dogma pronounced by the Catholic Church.

It is nothing personal. It is just a fact that some Catholic members here have expressed beliefs contrary to what the Catholic Church teaches. They want to be more Orthodox than they are allowed to be. But if it makes you feel better, mea culpa.

Greg

Gregory,

I don't know what djs believes. You are right, however, that some Catholics (both EC and RC) deny Vatican I and II and what it has to say about the role of the papacy. And you are right that they are exhibiting a major flaw.

As for myself, after much reflection (and some earlier denials) I do affirm the teaching of Vatican I and II on the papacy. I don't think the final chapter on the subject has been written however. I don't mean to say the teaching will be reversed but further clarified. As I said earlier the strands for a high view of the papacy are there in the First Millennium Church (despite what some zealous Orthodox polemicists that follow in the trail of Abbe Guette may say).

Do I believe the current model of primacy (where Rome micro-manages everything) should be continued? Definitely not. But, neither do I believe that each Bishop or Metropolitan or Patriarch should become their own little pope. Papal power can be(and has been, regrettably on occasion) abused. But the potential for abuse is greater if every head of a local Church becomes their own little pope.

Gregory, you might in a similar vein quote the US constitution as though its meaning were self-evident. You might also like to consider, however, that, experience makes it clear that meaning is not self-evident - hence endless discussions on 1st, 2nd, etc. amendments. If it is within your experience to make some written epitome of a non-trivial Truth, you would realize how difficult the task is, and therefore, how careful one should be in reading texts.


What are you trying to win? But if this problem puzzles you go back to Fr. Seraphim's comments

Oh I thought you were discussing jurisdiction, not infallibility.

The short answer is that you are incorrect. The longer answer is this: I honestly cannot say for sure without a fully fleshed out understanding of the definitions - except to say that I would ultimately accept the teaching of the Church in any case. There are certainly some interpretations that I would have difficulty with, and as part of the Church might speak against, in the pre-causa finita est stage. The texts on infallibility are, however, pretty circumspect, notwithstanding various extreme extrapolations.

Again, you are not in a position to arbitrate the teachings of the Catholic Church, let alone judge others adherence to it. This behavior is, as incognitus put it, rude. And apparently incorrigible.

As I remarked earlier, the original questions raised are not of the variety which is easily resolved by sound-bites. However, Gregory's comments (with apologies to Gregory, who, it is safe to say, will not enjoy this comment - so he might wish to stop reading right this second) remind me of an experience that I had several years ago. I was lecturing somewhere in the English-speaking world, and I noticed in the audience a priest who was, I knew, Eastern Orthodox and who had been such for several decades - since well before Vatican II, in fact - but had been ordained in the Catholic Church, where he had received his education at a time when the sort of "theology" dished out to seminarians consisted mostly of memorizing quantites of Latin tracts. His sudden conversion from Catholicism to Orthodoxy was attributable to cause which is better left unmentioned.
Anyway, came the question period and he accused me of misleading the audience, and offered to state the "real Catholic teaching" on several issues. I invited him to do so (suspecting what he would do - he fulfilled my expectations nicely) and he responded by reeling off endless paragraphs of Church Latin! I very much doubt that anybody in the auditorium other than myself even stood a chance of understanding this gobbledygook, which would have been bad enough in English - but let us thank God that the poor man did not attempt to translate it on the spot. Anyway, I apologized profusely that alas, the Catholic church c. 1980 AD was not utterly identical in every minute detail to the body that he remembered having belonged to about forty years previously. That made him livid, so I pointed out that other people also wanted the floor, and probably wished to discuss matters of more general interest. Nasty of me, I'm sure.

Incognitus