www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Hypothetical Question

Dear Todd,

What was that you were quoting from Cardinal Ratzinger . . .?

Ah, yes, you were quoting . . . WORDS, WORDS, WORDS!

Alex

Dear Alex,

You always know the right thing to say. I truly appreciate your wisdom and guidance.

I like UOCC. Ukrainian Orthodox Catholic Church.

With deep respect and humble apologies for my rants and raves,

Michael

Hi,

I am Catholic first. Latin later.

To me, "going to church" means attending a validly and licitly celebrated Mass at a Catholic church.

If this is not an option, anything else is, well, something else.

Shalom,
Memo

That's part of my confusion. I don't really feel that I am 'Catholic first'. And I don't really consider 'going to church' to mean attending and valid and licit Mass.

I find the legalism and the arid feeling of the Latin Rite (both the Novus Ordo Missae and the Tridentine) to be stifling and devoid of any true spiritual meaning for me.

Hence my dilema. But thanks for your honesty.

Carole

Alex, it's from a book then Cardinal Ratzinger wrote called The Principles of Catholic Theology. There is some information here [users.stargate.net] . I think really the quote should be put in to concrete action regarding the Catholic East.

I can respect anybody saying they don't believe in supremacy, or that they regard the Papacy to be as it was before the schism. If you are in communion with Rome though, you accept supremacy and immediate universal ordinary jurisdiction. It is what being in communion with Rome means, and it is just as true for the eastern churches (it is in fact written right in the CCEO).

Andrew

As I see it, the de-Latinization of the Eastern Catholic Churches involves a critical reexamination of their relationship with the Roman Church as it has been experienced by them since the restoration of communion in the 16th and 17th centuries. This reevaluation is vital to the cause of true ecumenism, because it is only by restoring an understanding of the primacy as it was held universally within the Church during the first millennium that a true rapprochement can occur between East and West. These efforts at deepening and restoring the true heritage of the East may cause discomfort for some, and it may involve the rejection of some ideas that have been unquestioned over the past few centuries, but I believe that that is what Cardinal Ratzinger meant when he said that the Western Church cannot expect the Eastern Churches to accept a type of primacy that is foreign to their own understanding of divine revelation and the mystery of the Church.

As Anglican author George Every (S.S.M.) has pointed out:

The Eastern Catholic Churches can only serve as a prophetic sign of unity if they are faithful to their own spiritual, theological, and liturgical patrimony.

Hello Andrew!

This is another area where I think Roman Catholics use terms differently from Orthodox and these can be pregnant with meaning beyond what is obvious. By stating one is �in communion� with Rome what a Roman Catholic usually means is one is 'under' the Pope (this is merely an observation). But to be �in communion� with Rome is a loaded term, so when Roman Catholics pray for communion between East and West the mental image is primarily one of praying that the East should submit to the Pope.

Because Orthodoxy knows another form of ecclesiology (and no other, historically) yet has a common understanding about it across church jurisdictions, this is a strong indicator that the ecclesiology of the West was either never the same as in the East or it has �developed� beyond it, much in the same way the western doctrinal understandings develop. The Pre-Chalcedonian Orthodox churches could serve to illustrate this by maintaining an understanding of how a church is organized quite similar to the Greek-Byzantine model.

When Orthodox (and Oriental Orthodox) state they are �in communion� it is not necessarily an indication that they are �under� a certain hierarch. One can be in communion with a church that is not organically part of ones own church, but theologically-spiritually alike. When Orthodox consider being in communion with Rome the first example that comes to mind is the merely sharing of communion as with any other "Orthodox" church, and it is immediately recalled that the RC has historically turned this kind of relationship into a form of control.

I guess the point is we (East & West) are talking passed one another often because the words we use carry different understandings at the outset.

+T+
Michael

Clearly, the Eastern Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church have different understandings of communion, primacy, and synodality, but that is why the Churches must dialogue on the nature the mystery of the Church.

Here are three articles that touch on the meanings of these terms as understood within the respective traditions of East and West:

Where the Eucharist is, there is the Catholic Church (An interview with Met. Zizioulas) [30giorni.it]

CDF Letter Communionis Notio [vatican.va]

Papal Primacy [goarch.org]

It is God who blesses you!

The problem you indentify is an obvious concern, and should be addressed if it should arise. ....but this is only a hypthetical problem, so even the consequence is yet, hypothetical.

the unworthy,
Elias

\
A) How can one be Catholic (any sui juris Catholic and Roman Catholic) and NOT accept basic canon law that states the Pope is the Supreme Pontiff? For to believe anything else goes against the grain, church teaching and canon law.
B) When Pope Benedict wrote this he wasn't the Supreme Pontiff.

Blessing my brother,
Pierogy.

Sad to say, but the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches is a Latin formulation imposed upon the Eastern Catholic Churches and does not really reflect the canonical tradition of the Eastern Church. The Pedalion (the Rudder) is the foundation of Eastern canon law, and it is not really thought of as "law": rather, it is seen as a standard of practice. The juridical nature of the Latin Church is foreign to the Eastern tradition.

The Eastern Catholic Churches must be Eastern, and if they cannot be truly Eastern, then there will never be communion between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches, because those Churches will never accept Latinization.

Now that Ratzinger is Pope, perhaps his views will be represented in the official teaching of the Latin Church.

Blessings to you,
Todd

Click the link below for an article that touches on the understanding of the ancient canons in the Eastern tradition:

The Interpretation Of Holy Canons Within The Canonical Tradition Of The Orthodox Church [theandros.com]

Dear Carole,

I salute you for posting this question. It is not at all hypothetical to many people.

I would simply suggest this: A person in this situation should pray to Jesus for the grace to know His will, to accept His will and to carry out His will. "Where do * You * want me to go, Jesus? It's Your Church. Where do You want me to be?"

For some people, Jesus will direct them to be Orthodox.

For other people, Jesus will direct them to be Roman Catholic.

And for still others, it will seem like they have no clear direction from Jesus. In that case, they are actually being directed to explore the situation more: by experience as well as by study. In that way, they will fully discover their options in order to arrive at their decision. However, Jesus is always with them and He is always guiding that process of discovery.

Jesus does guide people to where He wants them to be --which is also where they will be happiest-- if people open themselves fully to His will.

-- John

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Hello Todd,
With this I agree, but unfortunately it has the rule of law in the Eastern Catholic churches today. Unless the hierarchs of the church have given specific instructions to their flocks to consider it otherwise.

Quote

The Pedalion (the Rudder) is the foundation of Eastern canon law, and it is not really thought of as "law": rather, it is seen as a standard of practice. The juridical nature of the Latin Church is foreign to the Eastern tradition.

I personally would like to see the Eastern Catholic churches restore the traditional observance of the canons and chuck the 'code'. But they have not done so!

Quote

The Eastern Catholic Churches must be Eastern, and if they cannot be truly Eastern, then there will never be communion between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches, because those Churches will never accept Latinization.

I fully agree with this statement. It is in this sense that the Eastern Catholic churches are an 'impediment' to unity. They at present constitute an unacceptable precedent. Rather than be a model for future reconciliation they present the opposite.

Quote

Now that Ratzinger is Pope, perhaps his views will be represented in the official teaching of the Latin Church.

I hope so, or he may judiciously side-step the whole issue.

Since he started his Pontificate with a drum beat for unity with the East, he may be preparing the popular opinion for some big ecclesiological changes in the future. How he or his successors could possibly accomplish this and hold the Traditional Latins in the fold I do not know.

+T+
Michael

Dear Lost&Found, you ask:

I think the answer is simply: yes.

Alex already had some comments on this point. While Alex focuses, fairly IMO, on communion as the sine qua non of being "Orthodox", in reality Orthodox are far more liberal in the use of the term. There is little or no reluctance among EO's to use the term Orthodox in reference to EO's within other jurisdiction with whom they will not concelebrate or officially intercommune. Or for vagante sects, or for the Oriental Orthodox whom their Fathers regarded as adhering to a serious Christological heresy. AFAIK, the only Eastern Christians to whom the Orthodox steadfastly refuse to apply the term are those in communion with Rome.

DJS,
Think about this. The word orthodox roughly means "right believing." Do you know where this term came from?
In a way every Catholic should be orthodox in practice. By that I mean they should not be heterodox or reject the canon law of the Catholic church. By not accepting the basic Christian ideals set down in the Nicene Creed on may put themselves in a state or heterodoxy.
In theory, or perhaps reality if a Roman Catholic walked out of mass and thought, "I'm pro-abortion" or, there is no way the bread and wine change into... he would be not "right believing."
The term does get used loosely sometimes. However in the way I present it one can understand that a group that actually thinks their belief structure is correct will use the term orthodox because it simply means right believing, accepting the basic core principles as to what they percieve Christianity as.

Even if we do not agree with them they may think they are correct in their view. We do not have to agree with their position and we know they aren't orthodox, or right believing.

I think the distinction needs to be made. The canonical Orthodox Church uses the word (correct me my dear Orthodox Fathers if I may be wrong) in its name to indictate that they are right believing. However in times gone by where there were not some 20,000 denominations of protestants and a split in some of the original churches of Christ I can see the Orthodox Church named something different. In those simpler times the title Christian Church may have been able to identify the church as such.
So in these days the term Orthodox in front of the word Church or Christian is a way of telling the world that you are Christians of the True Faith, or right believing.
There are many break-away non-canonical orgainizations that loosely use the term Orthodox. They are not considered orthodox because they have positioned themselves as heterodox. As I stated above the groups that do break away perceive themselves as right believing and use the word orthodox. This doesn't make them right in the usage of the word but who is to stop them from applying it to their new organization?
To say that the orthodox use the term miscorrectly is highly offensive. Please re-evalutate your statement.
You write that there are Orthodox who will use the word "liberally" to refer to Orthodox that are of a different jurisdiction as to whom they won't concelbrate with. There is a certain level of understanding here that would take more than a post to address. I can think of an instance you are talking about. ROCOR is Orthodox, there is not doubt. Using the term to describe the ROCOR as Orthodox is correct. Many things happened after the fall of the Russian Empire that had ripple effects throughout the world and in the USA. Today the Church is working together with ROCOR to re-establish communion. ROCOR was never not Orthodox. There was just a lot of circumstances in the past where many people could not all come together on the same page in other matters. In church doctorine I can not imagine anyone ever denying the mysteries were subject at a ROCOR parish.
Your statements above perhaps run abit backward from the notion of Christian Charity. To fully assess a position you must demonstrate knowledge of the situation. Simply labeling Orthodox as liberal or using the term like they're handing out free samples at the supermarket is a misguided statement.