east and west and marriage

[Oik]

[quote]I maintain that, first, the doctrinal teaching of the Church of Rome is universal. We cannot divide doctrine between East and West. We can formulate it differently, but the faith remains the same.[/quote]

This is not going to go over too well. You formulated your question like a Western Catholic.

The East's understanding of the Trinity is different than ours. I believe Apotheoun mentioned this either. In the East, one would not say that God's Essence is His Existence.

There is a distinction between God's Essence and Engery. So, quite literaly Rome does in a sense divide between East and West.

[kateri05]

but oik, if thats true... then who is right? both sides can't be right


can they?

[Era Might]

[quote]The East's understanding of the Trinity is different than ours. I believe Apotheoun mentioned this either. In the East, one would not say that God's Essence is His Existence.[/quote]

I already answered this. The Holy See has not ruled on this matter. It is a question of free inquiry. Like I said before, there are also theological disputes in the West; for example, the nature of Predestination.

Should the Holy See decide to make a final judgement on these matters, alone or in Council, all Catholics of East, West, North, and South will be bound by the Church's decision.

[quote]For it is a matter of necessity that all Churches should agree with this Church [of Rome], on account of her preeminent authority.

--St. Irenaeus, "Against Heresies"[/quote]

Edited September 8, 2005 by Era Might

[Oik]

Us Westerners don't really have a concept of ecumenism when it comes to things like this, I am afraid.

The Eastern Catholic Churches in communion with Rome are Sui Iuris Churches. One has to wrap ones mind around that before one can accept the idea of two simultenously existing, valid expressions of the Faith.

We especially need to be sensitive to our Eastern Catholic Brothers and Sisters. When we, as westerners speculate on certain questions, we should not be afraid that the Eastern tradition in some way is a threat to the Unity or validity of the Western Church or tradition.

Remember, One Church, two lungs.

So which one is right? They are both right, according to their traditions. We are United.

Really, to understand this all, one needs to understand the Eastern Traditions and Theology.

I will admit that I have many Eastern sympathies and there are certain Eastern theological positions that I hold that I am trying to work out with the Western theological positions.

The good news it, we are all Catholic.

[Era Might]

Oik,

I am very sensitive to the East, and fully devoted to the cause of Ecumenism.

I do not, in fact, believe Apotheoun is accurately representing the Eastern Catholic Churches, and have layed out why.

Perhaps the ByzCaths over at the forum will shed more light on this discussion.

[Oik]

[quote]I already answered this. The Holy See has not ruled on this matter. It is a question of free inquiry. Like I said before, there are also theological disputes in the West; for example, the nature of Predestination.

Should the Holy See decide to make a final judgement on these matters, alone or in Council, all Catholics of East, West, North, and South will be bound by the Church's decision[/quote]

Agreed here. No one is questioning the Authority of the Pope. Of course, if you go back and read your history, you will understand why there aren't pronouncements here to cause further division. In the end, the reality that some Eastern Catholics are in union with Rome speaks volumes for the ability of "free inquiry," especially at a time in the Church when sooo much has been ruled upon.

[Oik]

Era, I know Apotheoun personally.

He is accurately and to the fullests extent possible presenting you with the information you asked for.

I agree with him, you may not have liked his answer, but he answered your question. He left nothing out.

All other information would really require you to go out and devote a significant portion of you time to the subject of the Eastern Catholic Church.

And on a personal note, Apotheoun has done just that with his life. He studied Both West (from Protestant to becoming Catholic and Thomism) to rediscovering Saint Gregory Palamas (note the resident Palamite Theologian ensignia) and switching rites.

I assure you, he is qualified. In fact, he is beyond Church Scholar on this website. I think he should be given honorary title:
"Church scholar of Phatmass"

With emphasis on Authority in regards to Phatmass.

IMHO

[Era Might]

Oik,

I completely respect Apotheoun and the time he has devoted to studying his Eastern heritage.

Nevertheless, I maintain my fundamental disagreement with him.

He has not answered my question. He has deferred it to his Bishop.

I can respect that, but if he is not in a position to answer my question, perhaps he shouldn't address this issue at all, as my question is fundamental to it.

[Aloysius]

I agree that he didn't answer the question. If he is going to say he agrees with the Eparch's position, then he should present the Eparch's position. We're inquiring as to what he thinks happens in western marriages. there are two options:

either western marriages occur by the couple administering the sacrament
OR western marriages occur by the priest administering the sacrament

I would be confused by him agreeing with the first statement, but in some ways it might make the most sense. the second statement would pose the problem of how a priest is administering a sacrament he is not intending to administer.

[Good Friday]

[quote name='Catechism']1623 According to Latin tradition, the spouses as ministers of Christ's grace mutually confer upon each other the sacrament of Matrimony by expressing their consent before the Church. In the tradition of the Eastern Churches, the priests (bishops or presbyters) are witnesses to the mutual consent given by the spouses,124 but for the validity of the sacrament their blessing is also necessary.125
124 Cf. CCEO, can. 817.
125 Cf. CCEO, can. 828. 126 Cf. Eph 5:32.[/quote]
This answers your question, wouldn't you say? [i]Roma locuta est, causa finita est[/i], anyone? I think this pretty much says what Apotheoun has been saying all along -- the blessing of the priest is [i]required[/i] in the Eastern Church for the [i]validity[/i] of the sacrament. Are you now all going to argue against the Catechism?

Also, I would like to point out to y'all that all Church Scholars have verified theological or at the very least catechetical education. If you're disagreeing with them, the probability is that [i]you are wrong[/i]. I know that's difficult for the majority of the participants here to accept, but sometimes it's just the truth.

I'll say this: The disrespect shown for Eastern Catholics on this thread, and Apotheoun in particular, makes me sick. Your doctrine is more important to you than your brothers, and you will have to answer to Christ for it.

[qfnol31]

Era, I don't think he can. You are imposing a Latinistic approach to Marriage upon Todd's answer, and so you can't understand why he won't give you a straight yes or no answer.

You sound like a Scholatic follower. You sound like you've been trained by Scholastics all your life. For us strict Latins, it's almost impossible for us to imagine how the Eastern Churches approach everything, and trying to is just about impossible in this regard.

Edited September 9, 2005 by qfnol31

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Good Friday' date='Sep 9 2005, 12:37 AM'][quote name='Catechism']1623 According to Latin tradition, the spouses as ministers of Christ's grace mutually confer upon each other the sacrament of Matrimony by expressing their consent before the Church. In the tradition of the Eastern Churches, the priests (bishops or presbyters) are witnesses to the mutual consent given by the spouses,124 but for the validity of the sacrament their blessing is also necessary.125
124 Cf. CCEO, can. 817.
125 Cf. CCEO, can. 828. 126 Cf. Eph 5:32.[/quote]
This answers your question, wouldn't you say? [i]Roma locuta est, causa finita est[/i], anyone? I think this pretty much says what Apotheoun has been saying all along -- the blessing of the priest is [i]required[/i] in the Eastern Church for the [i]validity[/i] of the sacrament. Are you now all going to argue against the Catechism?

Also, I would like to point out to y'all that all Church Scholars have verified theological or at the very least catechetical education. If you're disagreeing with them, the probability is that [i]you are wrong[/i]. I know that's difficult for the majority of the participants here to accept, but sometimes it's just the truth.

I'll say this: The disrespect shown for Eastern Catholics on this thread, and Apotheoun in particular, makes me sick. Your doctrine is more important to you than your brothers, and you will have to answer to Christ for it.
[right][snapback]716687[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Good Friday--- I have both Theological and catechetical education yet am not a " Church scholar" that said I have known many people with Theology degree's who couldn't tell their arse from a hole in the ground. education does not make you right, education should give you the tools to prove that you are right. That siad I still agree with Apotheoun, at least in so far as I explained hat I thought his position was some time ago.

[Era Might]

[quote]You are imposing a Latinistic approach to Marriage upon Todd's answer, and so you can't understand why he won't give you a straight yes or no answer. [/quote]

I've done no such thing. All I asked him was whether he believes, without doubt, that Catholics who are married according to the Latin rite are truly married.

A scholastic imposition would involve something like the moment transubstantiation occurs. Because the Church has not spoken on the matter, it is free for speculation. The Latin tradition has its own idea, and the East has another. There is no conflict, because neither proposition presents problems for the validity of the other.

There is nothing scholastic about the question. I have not questioned the Eastern practice, or claimed it was inferior to the West. What I have questioned is Apotheoun's understanding of the Eastern practice, because, from what he has presented, it poses a contradiction to the Church's faith in the surety of the Sacraments.

Edited September 9, 2005 by Era Might

[Apotheoun]

Era Might,

What you want me to do is to say that I don't really believe that the priest is the minister of the sacrament of marriage, even though that is the belief of my [i]sui juris[/i] Church, to which I am bound not only canonically but also as a matter of faith. As Eparch Pataki of Passaic said, "Marriage in the Eastern Church is a sacrament conferred by the priest by means of the crowning and nuptual blessing, not by the couple as in the Latin Church. Thus, a deacon may not officiate at the marriage of an Eastern Catholic. By law, marriages are performed by the pastor of the groom unless special permission has been received; and Eastern Catholic Churches do not typically give the dispensation which allows a marriage to a non-Catholic to be performed by a non-Catholic minister, which is sometimes given in the Latin Church."

I have said that I accept what my Eparch accepts in connection with the Western position, and if you think that my Eparch can maintain hierarchical communion with the Pope, while simultaneously denying that a practice of the Latin Church is binding upon the members of that [i]sui juris[/i] Church, then so be it.

[Era Might]

[quote]What you want me to do is to say that I don't really believe that the priest is the minister of the sacrament of marriage[/quote]

It is a matter of fact that, in the East, the priest is the minister of the Sacrament. I am not disputing this, or even questioning it.

What I'm questioning are your conclusions based on that fact. So long as you recognize that the Sacramental form of the East is Liturgically necessary, not absolutely necessary, and that marriages performed according to the Latin rite are without any doubt true marriages, then we have no disagreement

If you conclude, however, that the Sacramental form of the East implies an intrinsic necessity of a priest for a true Sacramental marriage, then this presents a contradiction to the Church's faith in her own Sacraments. And I do not believe the Catholic East proposes such.

Edited September 9, 2005 by Era Might