www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Hostility

Dear Alex,

Did not the Council of Constance declare that even the Pope of Rome was subordinate to a general council of the Church? (Short answer: yes). Was not that council ratified by several different popes? (Short answer: yes). Did not the later Council of Ferrara-Florence completely reverse that teaching by saying that the Pope of Rome is subordinate to nobody--not even a general council of the Church, and conversely, that even a general council was subordinate to the Pope? (Short answer: yes).

So, can the doctrinal (yea, dogmatic) teachings of one general council of the Latin Church be reversed by another? (Short answer: yes--but please don't tell anyone, they're infallible, you know).

Stuart,

Can the Pope infallibly proclaim himself no longer infallible? And if so, would that proclamation be infallible?

Hello everyone,
If I'm not mistaken, and I think I read this somewhere, but Patriarch Husar does not like the Greek Catholic Church to be considered a bridge between East and West because a bridge does not have a personality, it just links two lands between a body of water. He prefers that the Greek Catholic Church be considered a mentor, because a mentor is somebody, somebody who thinks for himself and stands on his own proper land.
Lauro

Dear Cantor Joe,

Now we really see you DO have seminary training!

To quote Erasmus of Rotterdam, one of those fools (did I say "fools?" I meant to say "theologians!") once told me that the "intention of the Pope to declare something infallible is not, in and of itself, infallible . . ."

To quote Erasmus of Rotterdam yet again, "What is this stink?"

Alex

Oooooo. Not right after lunch. I'm still trying to figure out how many angels are dancing on the head of that pin. And you made me lose count!

Hello to everybody! I'm just new here and I'm reviewing the messages and I'm quite lost. I have a question: when you use the term "Eastern Catholics", does this includes the Byzantines, Ukanian, Melkites, Maronites, Chaldean, Syrian Rites and they are in communion with Rome?

I quite agree with some of the messages here that there is still some "animosity" between the Catholics and the Orthodox. As I can see, both sides are to be blamed in the 1054 schism. If only both sides had an open dialogue that unfaithful event should have not happened.

As a Roman Catholic, I have high regards to the Byzantine Catholics. They have a very rich tradition and spirituality. I was once able to attend the celebration of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and it was very very beautiful. It is comparable to the Latin Tridentine Mass of the Roman Catholics who is sadly replaced by the Novus Ordo Mass.

ruel/t.o.carm.
manila

Ipreima,

I like the insight you offered concerning the BC Church. Now if we could just get both the Romans and the BC's to believe it.

Elexie,

Welcome. Most of us agree. We have more in common with Tridentine Romans at the liturgical level than we do with Novus Ordo.

Dan Lauffer

"This is not so that the Orthodox will wish to accept our model of union but rather that we prove that it is possible to be fully Orthodox and in communion with Peter. While we so far have failed in this effort we have made great grounds in the last generation. We still have much work to do." -Administrator


reply:
This is exactly what I meant when I spoke of our possibillity to be a bridge between Rome and the East. I sure this is how the Pope meant it also. Thanks for elaborating.

[ 09-04-2002: Message edited by: Der-Ghazarian ]

Stuart,

I agree with you that we certainly need more than one way traffic. Your point is well taken about the fact that we will be stepped on by both sides if we ever fulfill this calling. Thanks for pointing this out.

In Christ's Light,

Der-Ghazarian

I think there is just a fundamental difference in focus. Rome has historically tended to like rules and regulations and standardization in worship forms more than it has tended to respect Eastern traditions, particularly in the New World. I think JP2 (God grant him many years!) has done much to change this perspective. I don't think that Rome is wrong at all, it has just focused differently.

Regarding the issue of Greek Catholics as "bridge" between the Latins and the Orthodox. The Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines in one of the talks given during the Jubilee Year of 2000 about Ecumenism with the Oriental Churches doesn't agree that Greek Catholics as a brige but rather as a leader or teacher that will lead the Orthodox Church in reunion with Rome. They believe that they have an important role in healing the schism. They doesn't agree with the idea that the "Uniats" (the Eastern Churches that re-united with Rome) be dissolve as one condition with re-union with the Orthodox as some traditional Orthodox leaders wants.

In Christ,
ruel/TOCarm.

Dan, I'm not sure I agree with your statement that we have more in common with the Tridentines (trads) vs. the Novus Ordo.

Congregational responses, greater emphasis on congregational singing and liturgy in the vernacular are certainly big with us Eastern Catholics. That's not to say there haven't been problems with some applications of the new Roman liturgy.

[ 09-08-2002: Message edited by: Diak ]

StuartK,

"In discussing the actions of the Council of Constance (1414-1418), it is essential to remember two key elements. First, the council was convoked under extraordinary circumstances with the aim of ending the Great Western Schism that had troubled the Church since 1478. Second, there is serious question as to the canonical validity of the one specific decree issued by the council, Sacrosancta, asserting the authority of the general council over the entire Church, including the papacy. The council was compelled to deal with the question of bringing an end to the schism -- there were three claimants to the papacy. With the assistance of Emperor Sigismund and a great deal of involvement on the part of secular rulers, the council deposed or compelled to resign all three popes, including the legitimate pontiff, Gregory XII (r. 1406-1415), electing Martin V as the only recognized successor to the Holy See. In the peculiar environment created by the schism, some saw the moment to be ripe for advancing the theory of conciliarism, that a general council of the Church possessed greater authority than the pope and thus could depose him. It was purely a theory unsupported by Scripture and Tradition. However, it had a major supporter in Emperor Sigismund who saw it as a means of controlling the papacy. Thus, the decree of the council was passed but never totally approved. More significantly, the new pope, Martin V, rejected on March 10, 1418, the principle behind the decree (as was entirely his right). Further, it is noted by historians that the confirmation of the council by the pope at the end of the sessions was of that specific and extraordinary case and not of the acta themselves. Indeed, the pope never ratified the specific decrees of the council relating to conciliar primacy (to be precise, the five articles of the fifth session). Thus, the conciliar decree was not valid and remained unconfirmed. Further condemnation of conciliarism came in 1460 by Pope Pius II in his bull Exsecrabilis. The First Vatican Council (1869-1870) condemned conciliarism. The 1983 Code of Canon Law makes punishable by censure any attempt to make appeal to an ecumenical council an act or declaration by the pope."

-Matthew Bunson, Church historian

I tend to see it the other way--that we will be leaders and teachers who will bring the Latin Church back to the patristic principles which the Eastern Churches never abandoned.

As for the dissolution of the Eastern Catholic Churches, I do not see it as a prerequisite for reconciliation, but rather the inevitable fruits of reconciliation. What point would there be to maintaining separate Antiochene, Ukrainian, Romanian, etc. jurisdictions if all were in communion with the Church of Rome? As Bishop John Michael (Botean) says, our vocation is to disappear.

A good, old-fashioned Latin interpretation of the history of the Council. However, other historians more attuned to the totality of Church history, and not wedded to Latin legalisms, take a different approach. I choose to side with them.