What can Eastern Catholics reject / accept in terms of faith?

[ASimpleSinner]

Originally Posted by wannabee

do you really have to bring complaints about one Forum into another ?

Fair enough. Sorry about that.

[jimmy]

Originally Posted by ASimpleSinner

How much of Chalcedon+ do the Chaldeans have to accept?

How much of Constantinople II+ do the Oriental Catholics have to accept?

It really shouldn't be a problem because recent discussions basically show that the non-Chalcedonians faith was basically the same as that of the Chalcedonians but they followed a different philosophy of the world. The patrarch of the Church of the East and that of the Syrian Orthodox have both signed documents with the pope that affirm that we hold to the same Christology basically. I have a Chaldean friend who has said this basically.

[ASimpleSinner]

Originally Posted by jimmy

It really shouldn't be a problem because recent discussions basically show that the non-Chalcedonians faith was basically the same as that of the Chalcedonians but they followed a different philosophy of the world. The patrarch of the Church of the East and that of the Syrian Orthodox have both signed documents with the pope that affirm that we hold to the same Christology basically. I have a Chaldean friend who has said this basically.

I'm confident that is pretty much the modern concensus - that there were misunderstsandings over language and definintion - from what I have read.

That being the case, are they not to concearn themselves with anything after Chalcedon?

[jimmy]

Originally Posted by ASimpleSinner

I'm confident that is pretty much the modern concensus - that there were misunderstsandings over language and definintion - from what I have read.

That being the case, are they not to concearn themselves with anything after Chalcedon?

I do not know how things should proceed with the churches of the Syrian tradition. My friend(a Chaldean) thinks we should base our ecumenical efforts with the Assyrians on the first two councils and our efforts with the Syrian Orthodox on the first three. There must be a mutual respect for traditions and the experience of Gods Grace. How things are going to workout I do not know. It seems impossible for Christianity to reunite but we can only depend on the providence of God.

I think that the Eastern Catholic Churches are part of Gods plan to reunite Christianity. What ever happens Gods providence is guiding us.

[ASimpleSinner]

Originally Posted by jimmy

I think that the Eastern Catholic Churches are part of Gods plan to reunite Christianity. What ever happens Gods providence is guiding us.

On this point, we most heartily agree.

[Magicsilence]

Originally Posted by ASimpleSinner

On this point, we most heartily agree.

Meanwhile, Eastern Catholics are finding it hard knowing what to believe, and Yeshua has raised this issue before.

Where do Eastern tradition and Latin tradition diverge, and what should take preference?

Has the CCC dogmatized a purely Latin theological view?

Or is the claim that (for example) 'the Eastern Catholics understanding of original sin is different to the Latins' merely a novelty that is being introduced by the Orthodox? (and likewise for many other areas of contention).

And hence, are the Orthodox really not quite the same as they were 400 yrs back, and Eastern Catholics taking teachings from them are not in union with their true patristic heritage?

Peace and God Bless!

[jimmy]

Originally Posted by ASimpleSinner

On this point, we most heartily agree.

That should give us great comfort. As long as we know that Gods providence guides us then we can be sure that even though we might be disagreeing now about what communion entails, all things will be solved.

[Ghosty]

Originally Posted by jimmy

To be clear. Most of the Melkite bishops at Vatican I opposed the decree on infallibility. In fact there were over a hundred bishops who opposed it. Most of the bishops who opposed the decree did not show up at the council for the vote I assume because they did not want to vote on it because they knew they had no chance of coming out on top in the vote.

Your point comes from a western perspective on councils. I can foresee the eastern Catholics rejecting it for the same reason the EO rejected the council of Florence.

Eastern Catholics were insignificant at the Vatican I council. Probably less than 50 bishops compared with 600 Latin bishops. Of course their opinion is not going to mean anything, expecially in an atmosphere that distains everything eastern. The Councils tend to be latins legislating and easterns being forced to agree. Vatican II was a little different.

Vatican II stated the same things and was ratified by the Eastern Churches with much less distress than Vatican I was. I'm not supportive of how Vatican I was carried out, but I can't argue against Vatican II when even the Orthodox were invited to attend and did so as observers.

This isn't a matter of a "Western" perspective, it's about whether or not a ) the Eastern Catholic Churches participated (they did) and b ) the Eastern Catholic Churches ratified the decisions and/or abide by them (they did and do, especially Vatican II). While it could be argued that Vatican II is a local council in the sense of being "Catholics only", i.e. not including the Orthodox, it can't be said to be a strictly Latin Council. If the decisions and definitions of Vatican II are binding on Latins, they are most certainly binding on the other Catholics regardless of the dissent over Vatican I.

As for "Latin domination", while that case could be made for Vatican I, it can hardly be made for Vatican II. While the Eastern Churches were certainly the minority, and they would have been even if the Orthodox were reunited with the Catholic Church, they had unprecedented voice and input far outweighing their small numbers. The Melkites in particular were instrumental in shaping the course of the Council, from its Liturgical decrees to its definition of the Church. Their voice was heard far more loudly than their numbers would indicate.

My point is simply that the decisions of Vatican I were ratified by Vatican II (in fact Vatican II was simply the finishing of the job of Vatican I) and that Council was widely accepted in the Eastern Churches, and had significant input by them. So even if Vatican I is abandoned, Vatican II covers the same bases and was broadly accepted.

Ironically, the only schism that Vatican II produced was of ultra-traditionalist Latins, the same kind who so typically put down and dominated Easterners before.

Peace and God bless!

[jimmy]

Yes, Vatican II was different and that is why I mentioned that before. The patriarch was a big influence at the council. Easterners will gladly support Vatican II because it opened up the relationship with the eastern Catholics. We now have a little respect.

[mgy100]

I hope no one got offended by my posts above. I scanned and saw thankfully no one thought I was arguing or starting a riot! Believe it or not, I have a background in this situation. Catholic Schooled as well.

[Ghosty]

Or is the claim that (for example) 'the Eastern Catholics understanding of original sin is different to the Latins' merely a novelty that is being introduced by the Orthodox? (and likewise for many other areas of contention).

And hence, are the Orthodox really not quite the same as they were 400 yrs back, and Eastern Catholics taking teachings from them are not in union with their true patristic heritage?

Well I think it's a little of both. The different traditions have produced very different theological approaches that are equally valid, and those traditions which are Catholic are to be accepted equally. Sometimes a teaching will be defined in a "Latin" manner, but that doesn't mean the non-Latins must suddenly adopt a Latin mindset. If anything it is up to the Latin Church to make the teaching understandable and acceptable to the non-Latin traditions, as up to this point the burden has been entirely on them.

On the other hand there has definitely been some changes on the non-Catholic side, and this can be easily seen by reading the official documents and teachings from a few centuries ago versus now. It's possible that the changes are merely ones of semantics and approach rather than substance, on par with what has occurred in the West, but it's difficult to say. Things like the Immaculate Conception come from the East, with Eastern Fathers being very explicit about it. Likewise the understanding of Original Sin seems to have been a bit more nuanced in the past, as we've seen in discussions here.

That being said it's inappropriate to not take the various traditions, East and West, at their word on what they believe. Whatever has changed or not changed it's usually clear what is believed now, and we must go from there in any dialog. In some cases, such as between the Catholic Church and the Oriental Orthodox, this has actually led to a breaking down of prejudices and barriers, so even when it's difficult it is the appropriate course to take.

What must NOT happen is for Latins to insist on a Latin understanding of things, even when the matter is "defined" in a Latin manner. The belief must be the same, obviously, but that doesn't mean that the teaching is approached from the same angle and theology.

The main reason that Papal Infallibility is a bit unique is because it's a teaching that has direct ecclesialogical dimensions, and affects how we operate as Catholics. Just as we can't have Councils that are infallible for some, and not for others, we can't have a Pope who is infallible for some and not for others. Of course this doesn't mean that the Papacy is currently operating as it should, but merely means that the underlying fact of Papal Infallibility, as the hub of unity of doctrine, can't be denied.

Peace and God bless!

[Ghosty]

Originally Posted by jimmy

Yes, Vatican II was different and that is why I mentioned that before. The patriarch was a big influence at the council. Easterners will gladly support Vatican II because it opened up the relationship with the eastern Catholics. We now have a little respect.

Yeah, and that's all I'm trying to point out.

For all the evils that occurred at Vatican I, the major points of it were upheld strongly by Vatican II, albeit with a more appropriate understanding of the Pope's relationship with the Bishops (which, incidentally, was always intended by Vatican I, and was next on the agenda, but was cut short due to the war). Since Vatican II ratified the decisions of Vatican I, and Vatican II was roundly supported in the East, it's a bit of a stretch to deny Papal Infallibility now without losing a LOT of credibility.

Of course this doesn't mean that the understanding of Papal Infallibility can't be expressed and exercised in a much more appropriate manner. The language of Vatican I (and to a certain extent Vatican II) was very monarchical, which is not befitting the actual role of the Pope that was understood by the fathers of either Council.

Peace and God bless!

[jimmy]

Originally Posted by Ghosty

Well I think it's a little of both. The different traditions have produced very different theological approaches that are equally valid, and those traditions which are Catholic are to be accepted equally. Sometimes a teaching will be defined in a "Latin" manner, but that doesn't mean the non-Latins must suddenly adopt a Latin mindset. If anything it is up to the Latin Church to make the teaching understandable and acceptable to the non-Latin traditions, as up to this point the burden has been entirely on them.

On the other hand there has definitely been some changes on the non-Catholic side, and this can be easily seen by reading the official documents and teachings from a few centuries ago versus now. It's possible that the changes are merely ones of semantics and approach rather than substance, on par with what has occurred in the West, but it's difficult to say. Things like the Immaculate Conception come from the East, with Eastern Fathers being very explicit about it. Likewise the understanding of Original Sin seems to have been a bit more nuanced in the past, as we've seen in discussions here.

That being said it's inappropriate to not take the various traditions, East and West, at their word on what they believe. Whatever has changed or not changed it's usually clear what is believed now, and we must go from there in any dialog. In some cases, such as between the Catholic Church and the Oriental Orthodox, this has actually led to a breaking down of prejudices and barriers, so even when it's difficult it is the appropriate course to take.

What must NOT happen is for Latins to insist on a Latin understanding of things, even when the matter is "defined" in a Latin manner. The belief must be the same, obviously, but that doesn't mean that the teaching is approached from the same angle and theology.

Ghosty, you are one of the few Latins on here that seems to understand that there can be differences. Most on here simply expect us to simply submit to Latin theology. You are the first one who I have seen realize that it is the Latins job to make any definitions in a way that will fit our theology. They can't expect us to change our tradition.

The main reason that Papal Infallibility is a bit unique is because it's a teaching that has direct ecclesialogical dimensions, and affects how we operate as Catholics. Just as we can't have Councils that are infallible for some, and not for others, we can't have a Pope who is infallible for some and not for others. Of course this doesn't mean that the Papacy is currently operating as it should, but merely means that the underlying fact of Papal Infallibility, as the hub of unity of doctrine, can't be denied.

Peace and God bless!

I have a problem with papal infallibility for several reasons but one of them is that it has a direct effect on our tradition. In the east there was never this understanding of the pope having this supreme rule over every other bishop. The east was always more conciliar. You could ask any patristic theologian and he would agree with this. I specifically remember Yves Congar mentioning it in his book After Nine Hundred Years. The definition forces us in the east to change our whole view of the Church.

Further, who is the pope to define something that the east has absolutely refused to define? As I mentioned earlier, the eastern traditions follow a more apophatic way of theology. St. Ephrem and St. James of Sarug and consequently the rest of Syriac theology approached theology with symbolism and paradox. Definition is not something that is prized in our tradition.

[Ghosty]

Ghosty, you are one of the few Latins on here that seems to understand that there can be differences. Most on here simply expect us to simply submit to Latin theology. You are the first one who I have seen realize that it is the Latins job to make any definitions in a way that will fit our theology. They can't expect us to change our tradition.

Well, to be fair I'm one of the few Latins who lives primarily in an "Eastern" context, primarily celebrating with Melkites and Maronites. I do this even though there is an extremely good Dominican Latin parish near me, of which I'm an official member. I prefer to live in both worlds, and I try to learn from both sides.

I have a problem with papal infallibility for several reasons but one of them is that it has a direct effect on our tradition. In the east there was never this understanding of the pope having this supreme rule over every other bishop.

Papal Infallibility has nothing to do with the Pope having supreme rule over other Bishops. It's purely about the Pope speaking with the voice of the Church when defining doctrines. The Pope's position as "supreme ruler" has more to do with non-dogmatic developments, and is one of the things I think needs to change.

Further, who is the pope to define something that the east has absolutely refused to define? As I mentioned earlier, the eastern traditions follow a more apophatic way of theology. St. Ephrem and St. James of Sarug and consequently the rest of Syriac theology approached theology with symbolism and paradox. Definition is not something that is prized in our tradition.

The Pope is still the "hub" of the Church unity and teaching authority, and therefore may, and sometimes must, define certain elements of orthodoxy. This should always be with input from the rest of the Church, however, and historically it always has been. Eastern traditions may not be as comfortable with definitions but that doesn't mean that definitions haven't been made in the past, nor that they shouldn't be made. Just because the East refuses to define something doesn't mean it shouldn't be defined. On the flip side, just because someone thinks something SHOULD be defined doesn't mean it should be.

Papal Infallibility, and the Infallibility of the Church in general (and the Pope's infallibility is just part of the Church's), doesn't tell us when something should or shouldn't be defined, only that when it is it won't be in error. For example, I'm personally not in favor of the hardline definition that came out of Chalcedon, but I recognize that it wasn't erroneous because the Church does not err. Had I been at the Council I would have voted against such a decision, but I would have accepted the decision once it was handed down.

I believe in the infallibility of the Church that defined Papal Infallibility in two Councils now, just as I believe in the infallibility of the same Church when it defined at Chalcedon and all the other Ecumenical Councils. The Pope's part in that infallibility simply grows from his unique role as the hub of unity and teaching authority in the Church, and since I recognize that Rome has a special place as the guardian of orthodoxy, and not just because of historical-political reasons, I recognize that the head of Rome speaks with a unique voice in the Church. That doesn't undermine other traditions, however, it just means that ALL traditions are united as one Body of Faith around a single Earthly center who protects that deposit in a special way along with all the Bishops.

Peace and God bless!

[jj2011]

Originally Posted by Ghosty

Ironically, the only schism that Vatican II produced was of ultra-traditionalist Latins, the same kind who so typically put down and dominated Easterners before.

Peace and God bless!

You are usually more judicious than this, Ghosty. Traditionalists can be highly respectful of eastern tradition. Unless you have specific information to bring, these stereotypes are unseemly.