www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Practical Reforms of the Papacy

Dear Brother Alex,
I for one would agree with Rome. They should NOT cannonize Andrew and Josef. The UGCC should do that itself. It is a Sui Juris Church and should start living like one.
I for one think they should just declare that they are a Patriarchate and let if be a fait accompli. I dont really think Rome will step in and say, No No you arent allowed to do that, but would just accept it as a matter of fact.
Stephanos I

Bless, Father Stephanos,

I agree with you 100%.

It is too bad we don't have a bishop like yourself, who is both traditional and strong in his convictions about his Church's rights!

It is most refreshing and gratifying to read your post, Father, and please accept my deep spiritual bow!

Alex

Yes. Thought you might introduce this important element. There is no escaping the tension between the imperial and the sacred. And as you are fond of indicating, on a variety of subjects, on occasion, that is how it should be. But when the tension pulls too hard in favor of the imperial, then the sacred warps and twists if it is not pulling back in unison.

Mary

Dear Mary,

Absolutely! And is not the ritual of crowning also in the Mystery of Matrimony in the Eastern Churches?

My wife has yet to retire her crown . . .

Alex

It seems to me that if we are to accept some of the reforms suggested, then we must reject Vatican I. But if we do that then we reject the infalliblity of the Catholic Church. If we do that, then we reject it as the Church of Jesus Christ. If we do that we may as well reject the Christian faith altogher because we would nullify Christ's promises.

Well, assuming hypothetically that the Roman Catholic Church by itself does not represent the universal Church of Jesus Christ, I don't see why we would have to reject Christianity. If Vatican I is wrong, then that simply means that the Pope is not infallible and that he does not have universal jurisdiction over the Church. But, that does not mean that THE Church is wrong. After all, it could be that the Orthodox Church is THE Church or it could be that THE Church exists in both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches and that THE Church would only fall into error if the whole of Catholicism and the whole of Orthodoxy fell into error, which has not happened.

That being said, I don't know if the proposed reforms necessitate rejection of Vatican I. At the very least, any significant papal reforms will involve a reassessment and re-interpretation of both Vatican I & II (and all western councils and papal statements for that matter).

I remember that there was a time in my life, when I became Melkite, that I had logically reasoned out that all of Christianity relied on the truth of "Humanae Vitae," and that if HV was wrong, that then meant that the Pope was wrong, and that meant that the Catholic Church was wrong, which meant that Jesus' promise did not come true, which meant that Jesus was wrong, which meant that Jesus did not rise from the dead, which meant that Christianity is a lie, which meant that I had wasted some 30 years of my life when I could have been out partying it up without guilt. This led me very close to total despair. But, then, I eventually came to my senses and I realized that I was being utterly insane (I have OCD by the way).

I am not suggesting that you are insane by the way. I am just suggesting that if we put all of our hopes on some controversial notion that is debateable, then we risk losing it all if our belief is falsified. Now, I am willing to put my hopes on the resurrection of Christ and if they could definitively prove that Christ did not rise from the dead, then I would walk away from Christianity forever. But, I can't stake my whole faith on one particular notion of infallibility within the Church. It is quite possible (though unlikely I think) that we could all be wrong and the Lutherans or Baptists could be right. But, that would have nothing to do with whether Christianity itself were true.

Joe

The problem is that Both Churches cannot be THE Church becasue the Church Is ONE, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. This is an either or situation. If the Church in Communion with Rome is the True Church, then yes, there was a time when the west made up the entirety of the Catholic Church because there was a time when no Eastern Churches were in communion with her. At the time of Vatican I, however, there were Eatern Churches in communion with Rome and Eastern Patriarchs present at the council. This means that if the Vatican I council is wrong, then the WHOLE Church East and West was in error and, thus, the promises of Christ were nullified.

Dear East and West,

I don't understand your last two sentences. Could you explain it to me a simpleton?

Alex

My fault. Sorry. My point was that East was represented at the Vatican I council and thus it was not just a local western council. That being the case, if the Vatican I was in error, then it was in error in an ecumenical council. If that is so, the Church's (not just the pope's) claims to infallibility are false and the promise that the gates of hell would not prevail, and the title, pillar and foundation of Church, cannot apply to the Catholic Church.

Well, if we are faced with such a dilemma, then we could accept the conclusion that you suggest or we could just say that the Orthodox Church is the true Church and always has been. But, I fear I am now derailing the real topic, which is the issue of what papal reforms would be necessary in order for their to be reunion between the great Churches.

At the very least, there would have to be either a rejection of papal infallibility or a re-interpretation that would be acceptable to the Orthodox. The same would go with papal jurisdiction. So, it would involve either rejecting Vatican I or re-interpreting it in such a way as to be acceptable to all parties involved in the discussion. Whether either solution is possible, I don't know.

Joe

Then why be Catholic?

If your own Church does not press issues in this exclusionary fashion, what makes you think you have the right to do so?

This also is off-topic on this thread.

We are who we are here. There are few right believers with no questions or qualms whatsoever. So this is not a fruitful way to get at the substance of any belief, as far as I can see.

Mary

Well, I am glad you are so enlightened.

East & West:

May I suggest, gently, that you are mistaken here on a couple of items:

1) The Maronites have always been in communion with Rome; there have always been Eastern Churches in Communion with Rome
2) The Orthodox have true Churches, according to Dominus Iesus:

"17. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him. The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches. Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church."

Alex are you putting in a nomination for me? LOL
It would be the death of me! Or I would be committed perhaps.
Stephanos I