www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Graceless Heretics?

Latin Trad said:

Whoa there, Roman rider! What you say is simply not true.

The big-C "Catholic" church does indeed preach that the Church as a whole is one, but it does NOT, to the best of my knowledge, say that the big-o Orthodox are not a legitimate part of that Church.

The Church of Constantinople and other big-O Orthodox Churches are seen by your Roman prelates as fully small-c catholic, just as they see themselves as fully being small-o orthodox.

As for the Orthodox churches doing "violence to the Sacraments" becasue they are not in full communion with Rome, this is also Horse Hockey.

Read the pew books in almost any Latin Rite church in the 'States and you will see that under the Cannons of the Latin Church, members of Orthodox Churches are permitted to recieve communion in the Latin Rite Church (although they are encouraged to follow their own Church's position on the subject).

How on earth or in heavan can Rome permit communion of our Orthodox brothers and sisters if they have not been validly baptized? The fact of the matter is that both the big-O's and the big-C's recognize each other as having valid Sacraments.

Moreover, con-celebrated Crownings (Weddings in your terminology) in the Byzantine Rite are common where one partner is Orthodox and the other a Byzantine Rite Catholic. I guess, in your book, that would invalidate the marriage becasue an Orthodox and Catholic priest celebrating a Crowning together is doing violence to a Sacrament.

I'm sure these couples would be happy to hear that.

Yours,

halychanyn

Krylos,

1) I never said that their sacraments were invalid.

2) The pew books are not infallible. They have taken the prudential step of inviting Orthodox to communion, since there is so little that separates us. This does not mean that, objectively speaking, one can refuse union with Peter and still be Catholic.

3) The only one on this thread who has been throwing out accusations of invalid baptisms is Seraphim Reeves.

LatinTrad

Nevertheless, these statements do NOT alter the constant, solemn, de fide teaching that the Catholic Church is the One and only Church founded by Christ upon Peter and the other Apostles. Those who refuse communion with her refuse communion with Christ. Those who confect the Sacraments outside the Catholic Church do violence to the Sacraments.

I leave it to others to figure out what all this ecumenism means.

And, LT, you do so with good reason, in my opinion. If this is really the teaching of the Roman Catholic church to this day, why doesn't it come out and say so even within the ecumenical dialogues? Instead, you've got different views being promoted, and various officials, including at least one Cardinal, seeming to support those views.

Since the Second Vatican Council, our top hierarchs have used all manner of "ecumenical" maneuvers to try to effect a reunion with the East. This has led many to conclude that the Catholic Church regards the Orthodox churches as equally part of the One Church, etc.

Many high-ranking clerics (Cardinal Kasper, et al.) have even said so explicitly.

Why use "ecumenical maneuvers" that can cause such confusion to the faithful of both the Roman Catholic church and the Orthodox Church in the interests of trying to effect a reunion? If what you are saying is the actual Roman Catholic teaching to this day, then why not just tell the truth openly and proudly? Each side should be able to tell the other what they truly believe, and then there can be talks. Instead, confusing "ecumenical maneuvers" are used to try and reunite with the East, and all the while Rome believes what you say it believes? I don't know about you, but I think that sounds a bit dishonest. What kind of union is this supposed to be, anyway? Something is not right in this picture, either with your presentation of Roman teaching, or with the Roman Catholic approach to reuniting with the Orthodox Church.

Above, you said:

Those who refuse communion with her refuse communion with Christ. Those who confect the Sacraments outside the Catholic Church do violence to the Sacraments.

What does this mean exactly? I understand the part about refusing communion with Christ, but what is the nature of the violence that is done to the Sacraments if confected outside of the Roman Catholic church? And again, if this is the Roman Catholic teaching, how come this isn't made clearer in dialogue? This is probably the first time I'm hearing this as a currently held and still official position.

I know that Rome, in order to placate certain Orthodox hierarchs, has refused to take certain jurisdictions under its wing. This is a "practical", "prudential", and maybe "political" decision, however; it can't be used to overturn 20 centuries of constant teaching. Hopefully the Holy Spirit will bring good out of all this; most of it is very confusing for right now. We know that practical decisions are not protected by infallibility; there may be sin or other error involved.

If what you're saying is the official teaching of Rome, then yes, there must be sin involved in not taking in certain jurisdictions (the Macedonians come to mind), and it's a very, very grievous sin, and causes scandal. Why would Rome deny a group of people entrance into the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, as it surely views itself to be (and, apparently, exclusively)? What reason is a good reason for refusing to a group of people who want to join her "communion with Christ"? What reason is a good reason for allowing a group of people to continue to confect, and thus do violence to, the Sacraments outside of the one true Church? Placating the Orthodox, who are viewed as outside the one true Church? Since when do the Orthodox take precedence over Christ?? With all due respect, something's not right here!

Perhaps I don't understand what "doing violence to the Sacraments" means (my earlier post asks for explanation, but I need to ask this question). Assuming that, whatever it means, to do violence to the Sacraments is a mortal sin, how can the Catholics take the "prudential step" of inviting people who probably are in mortal sin to Communion?

It is based upon the assumption that they are in ignorance of the fact that they are doing violence to the sacraments, and are therefore not culpable.

Whether it's a good idea or not is another question, because of the confusion that it causes.

I will say that in the Union with Rome the Eastern Catholics should serve as a warning to the Orthodox as to what can happen.Only in the past ten years or so have the Byzantine Ruthinians turned around to fight the uphill battle.And in several parishes they have a long way to go. Union doesnt mean that we have to follow the American Bishops and there banter.Look at the example of the Ukies.They do what they want.

Latin Trad says:

I respectfully disagree with your narrow use (and apparent understanding) of the phrase "union with Peter" and "Catholic."

You say that the ONLY way that one can belong to the "catholic" i.e. the universal Church is to be in full communion with the Church of Rome. If so, you take a much harde line than the Church of Rome itself.

As for "union with Peter," I believe that others with much more theological training than I have tried to set you straight on this issue, so I won't try. Still, to reiterate, there is a legitimate understanding of all of the apostles, including Peter, being present in the person of any bishop.

To take such a narrow view as to say that the Bishop of Rome is the only Peter is to doom any ecumenical discussion from the start.

I argee with Mor Ephrem. If the Latin Church teaches what you say it teaches, then ecumenism is just a bunch of lip-service to something that will never be.

Yours,

halychanyn

Dear C4C:

Ukies doing what we want? In some ways yes and in some ways no. It depends upon the particular bishop and, frankly, upon the particular parish.

Yours,

halychanyn

Dear Halychanyn:

As far as LatinTrad's views are concerned, I think they jibe with the Latin Code of Canons (more specifically Canon 330 through Canon 341) and, therefore, with those of the Roman Church.

AmdG

Mor Ephrem, everything you say here is absolutely correct.

These are EXACTLY the questions that traditional Catholics are asking today!!

All I can say is that my faith in the Church remains, despite the scandal of all this. Christ didn't guarantee that the practical/prudential measures taken by the leaders of His Church would be free from error. Thus, it is within the realm of possibility that these things should haapen. Great scandal has been committed.

We simply pray and hope.


LatinTrad

Dear Trad Lat,

I am puzzled by some things that you are saying or appear to be suggesting.

What exactly is the violence done to the Sacraments when they are confected by the Orthodox?

Even during more confrontational times, when the Orthodox were referred to as schmatic by Catholics, I do not recall any official teacher of the Church suggesting that the sacraments confected in the Orthodox Churches were somehow defective or that some form of violence was done. Perhaps you could explain what you are talking about when you suggest that violence is somehow done to the sacraments when they are confected in the Orthodox Church.

I'd appreciate that because it might help me make sense of the understanding that I built when studying in pre- and post Vatican II seminary in the light of what you have said. Even more, it might make it possible for me to understand what you are saying in the context of what the official teachers of the Catholic Church have said since the Council. Right now what you are saying does not make sense to me.

Here's why:

As I understand it, the Catholic Church does teach that the Church of Christ subsists most fully within the Catholic Church. It is not a new teaching as you point out. It is an honest statement of what the Catholic Church teaches and has taught. If I understand correctly, the Orthodox Church teaches the same thing.

For the Catholic Communion, that teaching does not preclude the reality of the existence of other Churches. It never has.

The Catholic Church has consistantly recognized that the Orthodox have a real priesthood and sacramental life that is as salvific as that in which which we participate. If that is so, how can they be outside of the Body of Christ?

The teaching that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, as I understand it, does not mean that others do not or cannot meet Christ in the sacraments of Churches which share a sacramental priesthood and the Eucharist.

If that is true, the mysteries of the Orthodox Church are indeed salvific in that in them Christ makes Himself present to the members of His Body through communion with their own Bishops. This is true even though their bishops do not share communion with the Roman Church.

Personally, I think that one makes a large theological leap when one speculates that those who refuse communion with the Roman Church refuse Christ as you have stated it.

Some Orthodox believers hold the belief about our sacraments that our sacraments are "graceless". Other Orthodox believers hold that our sacraments are salvific also. They are free do hold either belief.

For us there is no question.

If the Holy Father is to be believed we are now engaged in diaologue with Orthodox Churches to ascertain the truth which is expressed in our respective theological and doctrinal statements. This Pope seems to be eminently believable to me.

So, I find it difficult to characterize dialogue among the Churches as ecumenical maneuvers. Certainly the Pope and our hierarchy have not even hinted that that is the case.

It appears to me that what we are engaged in is trying to ascertain what theological and doctrinal reality is represented in our words and understandings.

I am sorry that you are confused. Most of us are more often that not, I'd suspect. But, I hope that you will be able to come to trust that the Spirit is indeed working even in these confusing times in the Holy Father and the Hierarchy and the body of believers of all of the Churches through which He presents Himself to us sacramentally.

Politics and prudential judgements are within His pervue. In His time, He will grant us the wisdom to know what He would have us all know.

Jesus asked His Father that His followers be one. May that prayer be furthered by the love expressed in our words to those with whom we disagree so that we do not get in His way.
The Spirit will bring us to union in Jesus.

Christ has not left us orphans. As Jesus said and John Paul II has repeated over and over, "Be not afraid." Trust.

Thanks for hearing me out.

Steve

How so? That's actually the teaching of the Church. And please note that LatinTrad, like the Church, did say "objectively" when re-stating this teaching.

Of course, the Church acknowledges that subjectively, a person may not have enough information, or be able to understand, the teaching; in that case he or she is judged based on what they do know and understand.

(And I suspect 99.9% of those who make it to Heaven will be "invincibly ignorant" in some area or other - which is where the grace and mercy of God come in. Thank God! )

So, the teaching of the Roman Church is that highly trained theologians who, according to y'all, should know better but nonetheless choose not to enter into full communion with Rome are precluded from "making it"?

If that's so, then ecumenism is as good as dead.

Yours,

halychanyn

This seems to be going in one big circle for me at least. But I have to remember that more than one group is represented here.I have a good question for the Latins,what does it mean tobe in communion? And for the Byzantines what does it mean to you?The only time that it is ever brought up in my parish is when somone tries to enforce some Latinazations on us and then drags the Pope into it saying that we are not loyal to the Catholic church.We comprise less than one percent of the Catholic population of the U.S. and we take a beating from our fellow churches in an almost never ending assault. Just the other day I was told that the only Chatachism that we have is that of the Roman church and ours was wrong.But I dont blame the Laiety for this because thats how most of them grew up and thats what they know.Its funny how many Romans we have in our churches because of all the liberals in their church.And if they had one ounce of the moxie of the Latin posters on this fourm they would go back and fight for their church.It is apparent to me that Ecumenism is dead and what remains is a twisted idea.I have seen so many educated post on this thread yet when it comes down to the nuts and bolts of the subject it sounds like someone will impose their will on the other.Poor sinner chad

Who said this? I'm puzzled!

Lumen Gentium, the VCII Decree on Ecumenism, and Dominus Iesus all make very clear that salvation is possible outside the visible bounds of the Catholic Church.

Yes, even for "highly trained theologians."

Of course, if one willfully and obdurately refuses to enter the Catholic Church even though one knows (or strongly suspects) she is the True Church, then one's salvation is in jeopardy. It's all a matter of the will--is obduracy involved? Or not? Only Jesus knows the heart, so only He knows, finally, who is rejecting the Church out of ignorance or misconception and who is rejecting her out of willful, hardened obduracy. IOW, only He knows who is culpable and who isn't.

This is classic Catholic Church Teaching, clearly restated in the Decree on Ecumenism.

It is still way more flexible than the Orthodox view...so where's the problem?

Scratching head here....

ZT

P.S. C4C, I'm sorry those nasty Latins give y'all such a hard time. They just don't know any better!