www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Orthodox in communion with Rome

Bless, Father Anthony,

Khrestos Anesti!

You are so nice! I don't know who I like better - you or Alice!

When I was MC for our graduation on Saturday, each time our Bishop came up to do the prayers, I kissed his hand as I handed over the microphone.

A parent told her graduating son, "Who does that anymore?"

The son (who got a good mark from me! ) said, "Any educated Christian knows to do that, mother!"

It's too bad he won't be around next year so I could give him another great mark!

Say hello to the Administrator for me when you get a chance, please!

Kissing your right hand, I again implore your blessing,

Alex

That title (which began this thread) always worked for me...

Bishop Basil (Losten) proposed "Kyivan Orthodox Catholic Church" some years ago. KOC is taken, but KOCC?
FDD

And that's the rub, isn't it Michael, because the Pope really is greater than the other patriarch with regard to authority. And this is the Truth of the Catholic Faith, and it makes little difference what the Eastern Orthodox say. [/QB][/QUOTE]


I must say, that as an Orthodox Christian, I find this a tad offensive.
I am sorry. That is not what intended. I just was just making a parallel to what Micheal said. He said that it makes little difference what the Pope thinks about his office, and thus I made a sort of parallel with the Eastern Orthodox. It was not intended to be offensive.
Alexandr [/QB][/QUOTE]

I understand that you are not Roman Catholics in Eastern Clothes, but I do understand that you are Catholic. Which, I thought, meant that you must assent to Catholic teaching, including the infallibility and primacy of the Pope. Are Eastern Catholics aloud to reject the first Vatican Council since it teaches Papal Infallibility? Are they aloud to reject the council of Trent because it teaches the doctrine of Purgatory? If they are, then I am very confused. I must assent to these dogmas but you don't have to? I mean, they cannot be true and not true at the same time. If the Church expects me swallow that they are both true and not true, then I cannot accept that the Catholic Church is the true Church. But if that is true, then the only other option is the Easten Orthodox Church. But my studies have shown me that the Eastern Orthodox Church is not at all like the early Church or the Church of the seven ecumenical councils and thus it is not the true Church either. The next option is Protestantism, but, come now, we all know that Protestantism is not true. So, then I must ask myself, did the true Church just disappear? But then that would contradict Christ's promise "the gates of hell will never prevail against it [the Church]". Thus Christ's words are made void and thus there is no reason to remain Christian. I really don't want to lose my faith, but what you say about the Church, if it is true, causes severe doubt.

Dear LatinCat,

I suppose we're talking about two different things here.

As for Eastern Catholics, they have always prayed for the dead which means they have always held to a view of an afterlife where souls are neither in heaven or in hell - doesn't it stand to reason?

"Purgatory" is also a product of Latin theology - it comes across as somewhat legalistic, involving "accounting theology."

As for the Pope, the West has never heaped as many praises on its own Pope as has the East at, for instance, the Sixth Ecumenical Council. We just have the right to rule ourselves, in union with the Pope, and wish to ensure that the Vatican keeps its nose out of our jurisdictional business that has nothing to do with either faith or morals. If you like the Vatican, I tolerate it for a number of reasons. I wish your Vatican would be as pro-Eastern Catholic as it is pro-Moscow etc. But that is another story . . .

But apart from the fact that the Orthodox Churches and the Pope have gone their separate ways - how is Orthodoxy not the Church of the Seven Ecumenical Councils?

How is Rome the Church of the SEVEN Ecumenical Councils of the early Church with the changes it introduced that contradicted the canons of those Councils?

I'm not telling, I'm asking. The charge you've made here is serious and it should be backed up. If you cannot back it up, you really should withdraw it as offensive, unecumenical and counter to the spirit of Vatican II and that of Pope John Paul II.

You DO believe in these last two, don't you?

I think that the points you've raised are worthwhile and we should get it all out on the table.

Cheers,

Alex

Wow, could you be any more condescending. I am having a serious crisis of faith here and rather than helping, it seems that all are attacking me here. But to answer you question, how is Rome more in line with the Church of the seven ecumenical councils?, here is my answer:
Rome maintains the ability to define, explain, and DEVELOP doctrine. This last part is of utmost importance because DEVELOPMENT of doctrine is precisely what the seven ecumenical councils were all about. They developed the Church's understanding of the Trinity, Christ's duel natures, the nature of the Holy Spirit, etc. And we KNOW that these were developments of doctrine precisely because the most holy and orthodox of Church Fathers were often wrong with regard to these teaching. Sts. Justin Martyr and Iraneaus said things about the the three divine hypostatises that would be considered outright heretical if examined in light of the Seven Ecumenical councils. But the Church grew and devloped its understanding of the Trinity. What was implicit in the scriptures and the teachings of the Fathers, developed and became explicite. This is the nature of the Church of the Seven Councils and this is the nature of the Catholic Church, not the ossified Eastern Orthodox Churches. But that does not prove to me that the Catholic Church is the true Church either because what I seem to understand is that the Church teaches contradictory dogmas. In the east purgatory is a false doctrine. In the west it is true. In the east, there are 7 councils. In the west there are 21. In the east there in no transubstantiation. In the west, it is a matter of infallible doctrine. Well, if this is the case, then there is no true Church because Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy were the only viable options. So what I am I to do? If there is no true Church, am I dishonest to remain Christian? Should I leave behind the shackles of Christianity? I do not want to do so, but that seems to be the only option.

Dear LatinCat
Please calm down. It is not the case. Transubstantiation is not a matter of infallible doctrine. The Real Presence is, and is the doctrine of catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthdox alike. Transubstantiaion is an attempt by medieval theologians to explain the Real Presence in the terms of the philosophy of Aristotle. As such it remains an explanation and the Church only offers it as such. I personally do not believe in Aristotle, and I can guarantee that not many people do. The East are quite right not to fetter doctrine to any human philosophy. As a Roman Catholic I feel offended by your slighting characterisation of the Orthodox Church. After all, Rome recognises Orthodoxy as orthodox and for a Catholic that is the highest authority.
Please try to realise that other Christians here are also seeking God in sincerity of heart and none of us has more than a very incomplete understanding.
God bless your quest.

Sorry to be a wet rag about this but it is really time that both the eastern and western Churches get on this distortion of the teaching before we loose the -REAL- meaning of Real Presence to attrition and to a mantra that is not reflective of any Catholic meaning.

I hope there are some here willing to wade into this fray and help to sort it out. I fear that other obligations make it necessary for me to only point for the moment. Perhaps later I will have a moment to do more. For now the best I can do is sound the Klaxon!

Eli

Hi, LatinCat -

I have read your posts in this and other threads and it seems to me that quite a few of the other posters have missed this element of your questions. I do see what your concern is and it's a shame that others have missed it.

I hope they'll cut you some slack now - but please do the same for them. Being new, what you probably aren't aware of is that quite often the Forum is visited by very ultratraditionalist Catholics (like SSPX members), who bring up these very same points you are bringing up, in very offensive ways. Some of your questions have unfortunately been framed in a similar way and that may be why you are feeling so much heat.

That's why I'm isolating your statement above, as I think you are sincere about being in a "crisis of faith", and don't think you are intentionally trying to be offensive.

All I can add to your questions is - there really are only a handful of doctrines that we are required to believe, and quite often those doctrines can be described or named differently - for example, the concept of Purgatory. If you really look at what the Eastern Churches believe, you will find that they DO indeed believe in a place of cleansing and purification after death. They just don't call it "Purgatory" or describe it in exactly the same way.

Please don't hesitate to ask more questions and I hope this will help you a little!

Thank you so much. This is the kindest post that I have seen here, and I truely appreciate your genuine concern. And I assure you, I am not an ultra traditionalist. I would really appreciate an answer to a very important question about transubstantiation. Every good Roman Catholic Priest I know would say that it is a mortal sin to deny the reality of the doctrine of transubstantiation. They would emphatically state that it is a matter of infallibile doctrine. As trent states:"If anyone says that in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist there remains the substane of bread and wine together with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies the wonderful and singular concersion of the whole substance of the bread inot hte body, and of the entire substance of the wine into the blood, the species of bread and wine only remaining, a change which the Catholic Church most fittingly calls transubstantiation: let him be anathema."
Yet, many (i don't know if all or not) Eastern Catholics say that it is not infallible dogma, and Eastern Catholics do not have to believe this. In fact, some have said that it is error. So which is it? Thank you so much for your patience and concern.

Dear LatinCat,

I apologise for my condescending tone above - which reflected my defensiveness about the content of your post regarding the Eastern Churches.

There is more than one theology in the Catholic Church of Christ. There are more than a few ways to define the truths of the faith than those of the Latin tradition. That is all I am saying.

To use another term for "transubstantiation" is not to deny the reality of what it defines.

"Purgatory" is another term - the Eastern Churches in fact pray for the dead very much. It always has prayed for the dead without ever having defined "purgatory" - and has a different understanding of eschatology that has never been condemned by Rome. Rome encourages Eastern Catholics to develop a greater understanding of their theological, canonical and ecclesial traditions etc.

The term "development of doctrine" is a western one that has no relevance for the East.

The 7 Ecumenical Councils did not "develop" doctrine but affirmed the orthodox doctrine handed down by the Apostles with respect to Triadology, Christology etc. They did this from within the collegial context of a Council representing the bishops of the universal Church with the Pope of Rome occupying the seat of "first among equals."

The later 14 Councils of the univeral Latin Church COULD be defined as "Local Councils" of the Latin Church - and there is some indication from RC theologians that this is possible.

Much of what was dealt with in those later councils dealt with issues that affected the Western Church alone, apart from the papal dogmas.

The Marian dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption by Rome reflect truths that were ALWAYS held by the East - the all-holiness of the Mother of God from her Conception and her bodily translation into heaven. This is all celebrated in the East's liturgical texts from the context of "lex orandi, lex credendi." There was therefore no need ever felt by the East to define these doctrines - and, of course, the East never had the a priori's of Augustinian theology to deal with respecting Original Sin.

What I was reacting to, and I again apologise for my condescension or the perception of it, is the oft-repeated charges against Eastern Christians by Latin traditionalists that by denying Latin theological terminology, the Eastern Catholics especially are denying the theological realities that the Latin terminology points to and attempts to define from within its own praxis.

There is one faith, but more than one way to understand it theologically, canonically and every other which way.

That is a strength of the Catholic Church, not a weakness.

The Latin and Eastern Catholic Churches share the same faith, but COMPLETELY different ways of understanding and celebrating it.

So when you say that Eastern Catholics "deny transubstantiation" if, by that, you mean to say that EC's somehow deny that the bread and wine on the altar is changed into the Body and Blood of OLGS Jesus Christ following the Consecration - then that is simply false.

What EC's deny is the Latin theological terminology and understanding of how this change occurs - since they have their own legitimate tradition in this and other respects.

This perspective has always strengthened my faith in the Church, and has never taken anything away from it.

Alex

Thank you also for you response. It is very helful and very reaasonable. I aslo can appreciate your zeal for the Catholic faith as well. Your discussion concerning transubstantiation certainly does makes sense. But I do have one question, I have heard some Eastern Catholics say that transubstantiation is actually an error. Are they simply not in line with the Eastern Catholic Churches? Kinda of like western Catholics who deny all kinds of Catholic teaching? I would suspect that just like we have some cafeteria catholics in the west, there might be a few in the east as well. Thank you so much again.

You might concede for the sake of some commonality of meaning to the Christian usage of terms whose meanings coincide, in real if not precise terms, with a Christian understanding of a "development" of ideas and concepts, as that development has happened from ancient times to the present.

You might concede, without loosing an ounce of eastern uniqueness, that the doctrines that were defined concerning the concept of Person in the Trinity, and the truth of the fullness of the Incarnate One as true God and true man developed particular concepts available in a particular language.manner of thinking and being, cultural tradition, philosophical tradition, etc. to be better able to articulate nuances of a truth that the Apostles, for whatever reason, had not quite
-fleshed out-, as they say. Pun intended.

So to simply assert that there was no development of doctrine then because there was no naming of it in those terms then is rather---how shall it be said tactfully?---false, in conceptual terms, in terms of actual behaviors of those whose magisterial command it is to teach. They certainly did develop the doctrinal teachings.

The Truth always remains the same.

Our understanding does not.

And from time to time it actually fades!!

Eli

Well said.

Dear LatinCat,

For any Eastern Catholic to deny the right of the Latin Catholic Church to define the Transmutation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of OLGS Jesus Christ by the use of its legitimate term of "Transubstantiation" would be grievously wrong and I would say sinful!

Perhaps such EC's were referring to the Latin theological praxis alone - but even there, they should remember that the term "Transubstantiation" was, at one time, widely used by Orthodox saints and theologians as an ORTHODOX term, especially during the Kyivan Baroque period.

Even indulgences and indulgenced pilgrimages were used in Orthodox circles and were considered "Orthodox standard practice" by St Nicodemos the Aghiorite, for example.

To this day, MANY Orthodox parishes in Western Ukraine maintain their "Odpusts" or "indulgenced pilgrimages" taken from when they were formerly Greek-Catholic. These are written up in Poselianin's magnum opus on Orthodox devotion to the Mother of God.

EC's can sometimes be so zealous in the cause of "Orthodoxy in communion with Rome" that they can forget they really still ARE "in communion with Rome!"

I don't - my relatives who suffered for that communion would come to haunt me at night if I did!

Cheers,

Alex