three Eastern questions - Page 5

ByzCathCantor · #61 Jul 28, '12, 7:55 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by mardukm

That is not true. ALL Catholics are bound together by their Faith and the unity of their respective hierarchs. Each Church within the Catholic communion may expresses the Faith differently however (both in practice and in doctrinal expressions).

Granted, I know of some Catholics who do not see the compatibility between these different EXPRESSIONS of the same Faith. Again, I urge you to provide some specific examples that demonstrate your statement "I've discovered that it's really diversity in the "faith" not just in the "expression of faith."

Well put as always, brother!

Peter J · #62 Jul 28, '12, 8:33 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by ComeHome2Rome

Read more here & you will see that it has been said more than once by Catholics of non-Roman/Latin Rites that they are NOT required, by their Church that is within the Catholic Communion, to believe the Teachings found in the CCC.

I'm not sure that those posters are wrong. It's difficult to tell without seeing their exact words, but they might have actually been objecting to a shall-we-say "fundamentalist" view concerning the CCC. (Perhaps you've heard the saying "Jesus didn't write book, he started a Church.")

ByzCathCantor · #63 Jul 28, '12, 8:57 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter J

I'm not sure that those posters are wrong.

Peter - you may have a bit of a point if I follow your line, and you are here often enough to know that there are a range of views on Catholic teaching and dogma expressed here. Even the respected Brother JR of CAF fame has noted recently that we are permitted to differ in our opinions, yet obedience is required in the end.

Do you really think that an Eastern Catholic can justifiably say, outright, that he or she is not bound to the teachings of the Catholic Church?

For example, one might say here in a thread on Ecumenism that Pastor Aeternus was a death blow to the potential reunion of the Apostolic Churches. They might even argue that it was an extension of Papal power that extends well beyond that which history can support. Does that mean that if the Pope issued an infallible declaration tomorrow that the same individual believes he or she would not be bound by it?

mardukm · #64 Jul 28, '12, 9:28 am

Dear brother Vico,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vico

Thank you. (Associative Property)

I'm sorry to belabor this point, but I have a question on your statement "Associative Property."

Are you proposing that bishops are united to each other because they are united to the Roman Pontiff? If so, I don't believe that is correct. A bishop becomes a member of the College of bishops through the laying on of hands by the consecrators. That membership in the College of bishops is what is determinative of the unity, not particularly that such a bishop is in communion with the Roman Pontiff.

So bishop A is united to bishop B because of the mystical bond formed by consecration, not for the reason that bishop A is united to the Roman Pontiff, and bishop B is united to the Roman Pontiff, and therefore they are united to each other.

Blessings,
Marduk

Peter J · #65 Jul 28, '12, 10:00 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by ByzCathCantor

Peter - you may have a bit of a point if I follow your line, and you are here often enough to know that there are a range of views on Catholic teaching and dogma expressed here. Even the respected Brother JR of CAF fame has noted recently that we are permitted to differ in our opinions, yet obedience is required in the end.

Do you really think that an Eastern Catholic can justifiably say, outright, that he or she is not bound to the teachings of the Catholic Church?

That's not what I'm saying. I was talking about different views of the CCC. (IIRC, Constantine spoke about this earlier.)

Vico · #66 Jul 28, '12, 12:15 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by mardukm

Dear brother Vico,

I'm sorry to belabor this point, but I have a question on your statement "Associative Property."

Are you proposing that bishops are united to each other because they are united to the Roman Pontiff? If so, I don't believe that is correct. A bishop becomes a member of the College of bishops through the laying on of hands by the consecrators. That membership in the College of bishops is what is determinative of the unity, not particularly that such a bishop is in communion with the Roman Pontiff.

So bishop A is united to bishop B because of the mystical bond formed by consecration, not for the reason that bishop A is united to the Roman Pontiff, and bishop B is united to the Roman Pontiff, and therefore they are united to each other.

Blessings,
Marduk

I gave canons for this. Associative because joined in Christ, independent of grouping and that all the faithful share those three: faith, Holy Mysteries, and hierarchy. They are all bound to each other one an all: bishops, priests, deacons, laity.

There is a power of jurisdiction, which could be exercised by non-clergy also, and the power of order (Apostolic), and the power of teaching. The clergy are joined among themselves by hierarchical communion in the hierarchy of order.

19. Within the particular Churches, it is the bishop's responsibility to guard and interpret the Word of God and to make authoritative judgments as to what is or is not in conformity with it. The teaching of each bishop, taken individually, is exercised in communion with the Roman Pontiff, Pastor of the universal Church, and with the other bishops dispersed throughout the world or gathered in an ecumenical council. Such communion is a condition for its authenticity.

Member of the Episcopal College by virtue of his sacramental ordination and hierarchical communion, the bishop represents his Church just as all the bishops, in union with the Pope, represent the Church universal in the bonds of peace, love, unity, and truth. As they come together in unity, the local Churches, with their own proper patrimonies, manifest the Church's catholicity. The episcopal conferences for their part contribute to the concrete realization of the collegial spirit ("affectus").

39. The Church, which has her origin in the unity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, (39) is a mystery of communion. In accordance with the will of her founder, she is organized around a hierarchy established for the service of the Gospel and the People of God who live by it. After the pattern of the members of the first community, all the baptized with their own proper charisms are to strive with sincere hearts for a harmonious unity in doctrine, life, and worship (cf. Acts 2:42).

See the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Donum Veritatis (1990):

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/co...cation_en.html

birdsofdawn · #67 Jul 28, '12, 4:03 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ComeHome2Rome

Coptic = Church founded by the apostle Mark. Coptics separated from Orthodoxy at one of the Ecumenical Councils because they believe in a single Nature a mix of human and divine of Jesus while the rest of the Orthodox Churches and our Catholic Church believe in a two Natures of Jesus, one human and one divine. Coptics separated themselves from Orthodoxy on that issue, but have maintained an Apostolic Succession.

One of my best friends is Coptic, and I must correct you on this issue, which is entirely semantic. I've explained to her that we believe that Christ was one person with two natures, with a human and divine will distinct but absolutely harmonious in one person, psyche, body, soul. She said that this is absolutely what the Copts believe, though they word it differently.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ComeHome2Rome

On our Catholic Church's side, I would say that once the Pope permitted reception of Communion in the hand, don't we have to accept it as equally correct as on the tongue? And isn't true that the every earliest Mass Liturgy ever used, the one the apostle James of Jerusalem made, also gave Communion in the hand?

We have to accept the Pope's teaching on faith and morals. We are not obliged to accept pastoral decisions (allowing communion on the hand) or implied teaching. I realize that the early church used communion on the hand - but JPII himself teaches in his encyclical on the Eucharist that understanding and awareness of just what the Eucharist is, and all that it implies, developed over time - almost certainly the apostles didn't quite get it at the last supper, though St Paul has the essentials, it took hundreds of years for St Thomas to spell out transubstantiation and for the Church to start things like Eucharistic Adoration. IMO communion in the hand was suppressed naturally in time because the growing awareness of the church on this issue made it obvious that the practice was not in keeping with our beliefs - as we pray (in the liturgy, in our actions and words) so we believe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ComeHome2Rome

If you join an Eastern Catholic Church would it be a problem for you to be in full union with the Catholic Church that believes and practices what you mentioned that you don't like. Communion in the hand, NO and women in the sanctuary?

Yes. I'd prefer to go to a Latin Mass with none of those things than to an Eastern Mass with them.

Part of the equation with the NO is simple novelty - many trads, eastern and western, would argue that because it is unprecedented to consciously reconstruct a liturgy, copying and pasting and fabricating as one sees fit, it is unacceptable to do so. That is not how liturgy develops. Ergo, we oughtn't accept it.

Regarding your musings on unity - I completely disagree with your position on Administration, as you call it. The visible Administration is a big part of Catholic unity - the point is that the Roman Bishop (eg the Pope) promulgated Eastern canon law, so Easterners have to accept it. If he were to promulgate one mega-canon law that applied to everybody, they would also have to accept it. The bishops and faithful of the east have to accept all of the teachings of the Pope on matters of faith and morals. As far as Creed goes, you've missed the mark - what give us doctrinal unity is the Councils, not the Creed as such. All Catholics, clergy and laity, must accept the canons of all 21 of the ecumenical councils. Unity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by StillWondering

The Latin Rite is immensely rich BirdofDawn as I'm sure you will recognize. As for the NO being dry for you, remember the beauty of God is hidden in the ordinary. Have you ever stared at a flower and thank God for it's beauty? Now, have you ever look at barren branched and did the same thing? If you can thank God for the beauty of that branch, you will see God's beauty everywhere. And surely in the NO.

Sorry, but no. lol. I actually totally understand where you are coming from, though. When I was a big NO fan, going daily, and my husband (friend, at the time) started getting into the Latin Mass, discussing problems with the NO with me, etc., I just hated hearing what he had to say. It sounded downright disrespectful. I said to him that I felt the sparseness of the NO was more Franciscan, which is what I am hearing from you. That was absolutely my perspective. My husband pointed out, "But St. Francis lived and prayed the Latin Mass!". That gave me pause. Ultimately, I look back on my perspective then and realize that I had converted based largely on reading, with lots of hagiography, been shocked by some of the NO experience, and then to harmonize it all, I spiritualized my interpretation - rather than "ugly", I called it "simple". But it's much more than the lack of stuff in the NO that I find problematic - though this is a huge problem; the very brevity makes it nearly impossible to allow oneself to be truly drawn up into the experience and prepared for holy communion. I also find it terribly mundane. The vernacular, if used, should always be used in a setting of solemn chant, to create a layer of the language that still takes you out from the day-to-day. I could go on and on. I could recommend books about the problems with the NO if you'd like, but I won't bother unless you're into it.

Peter J · #68 Jul 28, '12, 4:46 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by birdsofdawn

Sorry, but no. lol. I actually totally understand where you are coming from, though. When I was a big NO fan, going daily, and my husband (friend, at the time) started getting into the Latin Mass, discussing problems with the NO with me, etc., I just hated hearing what he had to say. It sounded downright disrespectful. I said to him that I felt the sparseness of the NO was more Franciscan, which is what I am hearing from you. That was absolutely my perspective. My husband pointed out, "But St. Francis lived and prayed the Latin Mass!". That gave me pause.

It seems to me that your husband was being slightly anachronistic. Before the Council of Trent (and to a very limited extent afterwards), Western Rites were quite diverse -- Roman Rite, Ambrosian Rite, etc.

birdsofdawn · #69 Jul 28, '12, 5:20 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter J

It seems to me that your husband was being slightly anachronistic. Before the Council of Trent (and to a very limited extent afterwards), Western Rites were quite diverse -- Roman Rite, Ambrosian Rite, etc.

Sure, but whatever the liturgy was, it wasn't the Novus Ordo.

Cavaradossi · #70 Jul 28, '12, 5:34 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by mardukm

Dear brother Vico,

I'm sorry to belabor this point, but I have a question on your statement "Associative Property."

Are you proposing that bishops are united to each other because they are united to the Roman Pontiff? If so, I don't believe that is correct. A bishop becomes a member of the College of bishops through the laying on of hands by the consecrators. That membership in the College of bishops is what is determinative of the unity, not particularly that such a bishop is in communion with the Roman Pontiff.

So bishop A is united to bishop B because of the mystical bond formed by consecration, not for the reason that bishop A is united to the Roman Pontiff, and bishop B is united to the Roman Pontiff, and therefore they are united to each other.

Blessings,
Marduk

Is bishop A in your example capable of breaking communion with bishop B, while both of them remain in communion with the bishop of Rome?

Peter J · #71 Jul 28, '12, 6:16 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cavaradossi

Is bishop A in your example capable of breaking communion with bishop B, while both of them remain in communion with the bishop of Rome?

I don't believe dual communion is possible, at present, in Catholicism -- although it is certainly talked about.

Peter J · #72 Jul 28, '12, 6:17 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by birdsofdawn

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter J

It seems to me that your husband was being slightly anachronistic. Before the Council of Trent (and to a very limited extent afterwards), Western Rites were quite diverse -- Roman Rite, Ambrosian Rite, etc.

Sure, but whatever the liturgy was, it wasn't the Novus Ordo.

I can definitely agree with that. However, not-the-Novus-Ordo is a very large category.

5Loaves · #73 Jul 28, '12, 8:05 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter J

It seems to me that your husband was being slightly anachronistic. Before the Council of Trent (and to a very limited extent afterwards), Western Rites were quite diverse -- Roman Rite, Ambrosian Rite, etc.

And calling the Roman Rite Extraordinary Form the Latin Mass is really a misrepresentation of the Roman Rite since the normative language of the Roman Rite Ordinary Form AKA Novus Ordo is Latin, although it is typically celebrated in the vernacular.

The daily Mass in the Ordinary Form broadcast on EWTN and Catholic radio uses Latin for many parts of the Mass. When our priest celebrates the OF with a local community of contemplative Carmelite nuns he recently indicated he's using Latin. I often go to Mass at the local Dominican Priory and they use English, or Spanish, or Latin, depending on the celebrant that day.

mardukm · #74 Jul 29, '12, 10:32 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cavaradossi

Is bishop A in your example capable of breaking communion with bishop B, while both of them remain in communion with the bishop of Rome?

I think it is possible, but only in the short term. The Metropolitan bishop of those bishops has the primary responsibility to heal the schism. If he cannot, it will go to the Patriarch. If he cannot, it will go to the Pope. I think such local schisms have happened in the Latin Church in Africa relatively recently. I think in one instance, the schism was healed, and in another instance, a bishop was deposed.

Blessings,
Marduk

Cavaradossi · #75 Jul 29, '12, 3:41 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by mardukm

I think it is possible, but only in the short term. The Metropolitan bishop of those bishops has the primary responsibility to heal the schism. If he cannot, it will go to the Patriarch. If he cannot, it will go to the Pope. I think such local schisms have happened in the Latin Church in Africa relatively recently. I think in one instance, the schism was healed, and in another instance, a bishop was deposed.

Blessings,
Marduk

Interesting. I honestly never knew that these sort of things happened in the RCC. Now on the other hand, a scenario where bishop A breaks common with the bishop of Rome but remains in communion with bishop B, who is in communion with the bishop of Rome, is not possible, right?