Eastern Catholic Benediction

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1889969' date='Jun 13 2009, 09:44 PM']I agree, and that is why I have said to you over and over that those particular synods of the Latin Church are not, nor will they ever be, ecumenical.[/quote]

The Holy Roman Church has decided that Florence, Trent, Vatican I, and Vatican II are all Ecumenical Councils of the Universal Church.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1889973' date='Jun 13 2009, 07:50 PM']The Holy Roman Church has decided that Florence, Trent, Vatican I, and Vatican II are all Ecumenical Councils of the Universal Church.[/quote]
The holy Roman Church is but one Church, and it has no power to determine or decide anything in isolation. The fourteen Latin synods are not ecumenical.

That said, I reject the following teachings issued at Trent: (1) the idea that men are born "guilty" and sinful, because guilt and sin are personal realities and as such they cannot be transmitted from one person to another; (2) I also reject the Scholastic notion endorsed by the Latin Church's local synod at Trent that man is justified by a justice that is not God's very own justice, for one can only be truly just if he is participating in God's own uncreated energy of justice; and (3) I reject as false the Tridentine teaching that divinity is not present in icons, because according to the Holy Fathers of the East icons are filled with divine energy (i.e., divinity). Now, of course, I could go on and list additional things that are put forward at Trent, which was called simply to deal with the fractures in the Western Church caused by the Protestant heresy, or even bring up things proposed at some of the other Western councils, but this should suffice to explain my reasons for holding that the local councils of the Latin Church are not truly ecumenical.

Finally, any attempt to raise the local councils of the West to ecumenical status must be resisted for the sake of rapprochement with the Orthodox, for: "We must explain and clarify the topics that are obstacles to our full communion [with the Orthodox]: Primacy of the Pope of Rome, [and] [b]Western Councils which cannot be recognized as Ecumenical Councils[/b] (as it has been admitted by highly qualified Western theologians since Pope Paul VI) . . ." [Melkite Catholic Patriarch, [i]Unia to Koinonia[/i], 28 May 2002]. The only way to restore communion with the Eastern Orthodox Churches is for the Eastern Catholic Churches to be true to their own patrimony, which they share with the Orthodox, because only then will it be possible for the Orthodox to see that communion with Rome does not require Latinization.

Edited June 14, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1889983' date='Jun 13 2009, 10:03 PM']The holy Roman Church is but one Church, and it has no power to determine or decide anything in isolation. The fourteen Latin synods are not ecumenical.[/quote]

According the Code which binds you: "The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office given in special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore, in virtue of his office he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise" (Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches 43)

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1889983' date='Jun 13 2009, 10:03 PM']Finally, any attempt to raise the local councils of the West to ecumenical status must be resisted for the sake of rapprochement with the Orthodox, for: "We must explain and clarify the topics that are obstacles to our full communion [with the Orthodox]: Primacy of the Pope of Rome, [b]Western Councils which cannot be recognized as Ecumenical Councils[/b] (as it has been admitted by highly qualified Western theologians since Pope Paul VI) . . ." [Melkite Catholic Patriarch, [i]Unia to Koinonia[/i], 28 May 2002]. The only way to restore communion with the Eastern Orthodox Churches is for the Eastern Catholic Churches to be true to their own patrimony, which they share with the Orthodox, because only then will it be possible for the Orthodox to see that communion with Rome does not require Latinization.[/quote]

The Eastern Orthodox Christians must accept the ecumenical status of Florence, Trent, Vatican I, and Vatican II.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1890001' date='Jun 13 2009, 08:19 PM']According the Code which binds you: "The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office given in special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore, in virtue of his office he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise" (Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches 43)[/quote]
As my Patriarch has noted, the CCEO is a Roman document, which contains things contrary to our Tradition, and so it needs to be revised. Quoting something issued by the Roman Curia is not going to convince me that your position is valid.

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1890001' date='Jun 13 2009, 08:19 PM']The Eastern Orthodox Christians must accept the ecumenical status of Florence, Trent, Vatican I, and Vatican II.[/quote]
As I have already said several times, we do not agree on this topic.

I do not believe that any of the fourteen local synods of the Roman Church are ecumenical.

Edited June 14, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

[i]The Melkite Catholic Patriarch stated the following while attending the Synod of Bishops in 2001:[/i]


[size=3][size=4][b]H.B. Grégoire III LAHAM, B.S., Patriarch of Antioch for the Greek-Melchites, Syria[/b][/size]

It is incorrect to include the Patriarchal Synod under the title of Episcopal Conferences. It is a completely distinct organism. The Patriarchal Synod is the supreme instance of the Eastern Church. It can legislate, elect bishops and Patriarchs, cut off those who differ.

In No. 75, a "particular honor" given to Patriarchs is mentioned. I would like to mention that this diminishes the traditional role of the Patriarch, as well as speaking about the honor and privileges of the Patriarchs in ecclesiastical documents.

It is not a question of honor, of privileges, of concessions. The patriarchal institution is a specific entity unique in Eastern ecclesiology.

With all respect due to the Petrine ministry, the Patriarchal ministry is equal to it, "servatis servandis", in Eastern ecclesiology.

Until this is taken into consideration by the Roman ecclesiology, no progress will be made in ecumenical dialogue.

Furthermore, the Patriarchal ministry is not a Roman creation, it is not the fruit of privileges, conceded or granted by Rome.

Such a concept can but ruin any possible understanding with Orthodoxy.

We claim this also for our Patriarchal Melkite Church and for all our Eastern Catholic Churches.

We have waited too long to apply the decrees of Vatican Council II and the Encyclicals and letters by the Popes, and notably by Pope John Paul II.

Because of this the good will of the Church of Rome loses credibility regarding ecumenical dialogue.

We can see the opposite occurring: the CCEO has ratified uses absolutely contrary to Eastern tradition and ecclesiology!

[00119-02.03] [in096] [Original text: French][/size]

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1890015' date='Jun 13 2009, 10:35 PM']We have waited too long to apply the decrees of Vatican Council II and the Encyclicals and letters by the Popes, and notably by Pope John Paul II.[/quote]

I thought you claimed that this council and those papal decrees didn't apply to you.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1890021' date='Jun 13 2009, 08:50 PM']I thought you claimed that this council and those papal decrees didn't apply to you.[/quote]
They do not, nor did the Patriarch state that they do apply to us, but they do apply to the Roman patriarchate, which still has not implemented them fully on questions related to the autonomy of the [i]sui juris[/i] Churches of the East.

I would say that you are an example of a person who has been unaffected by the Roman Church's local council held at the Vatican in the 1960s, for you take a basically imperialist position that would force Latin uniformity upon the Eastern Catholic Churches.

Edited June 14, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Resurrexi]

At least I accept its claim of ecumenical status.

N.B., I have never claimed that the East needs to have the same liturgy as the West, which you seem to imply by "Latin uniformity". I do, however, believe that the Eastern Churches need to be in doctrinal uniformity with the Latin Church.

Edited June 14, 2009 by Resurrexi

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1890031' date='Jun 13 2009, 09:06 PM']At least I accept its claim of ecumenical status.

N.B., I have never claimed that the East needs to have the same liturgy as the West, which you seem to imply by "Latin uniformity". I do, however, believe that the Eastern Churches need to be in doctrinal uniformity with the Latin Church.[/quote]
The East not only has a distinctive liturgy, but also a distinctive spirituality in its mystical tradition, and a distinctive theological and doctrinal tradition as well, which is found in the writings of the Eastern Fathers and in liturgical / dogmatic texts like the [url="http://sites.google.com/site/thetaboriclight/synodikon"][u][b]Synodikon of Orthodoxy[/b][/u][/url], and in the decrees of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

Edited June 14, 2009 by Apotheoun

[OraProMe]

Apotheon,

You don't accept the councils of the Church or the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome over all local Church's and rites.
Why don't you just go into schism with your "eastern brothers"?

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1890050' date='Jun 13 2009, 11:36 PM']The East not only has a distinctive liturgy, but also a distinctive spirituality in its mystical tradition, and a distinctive theological and doctrinal tradition as well, which is found in the writings of the Eastern Fathers and in liturgical / dogmatic texts like the [url="http://sites.google.com/site/thetaboriclight/synodikon"][u][b]Synodikon of Orthodoxy[/b][/u][/url], and in the decrees of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.[/quote]

The doctrines of the Universal Church, in which are the Latin Church as well as the Eastern Churches, can be found in teachings of the Supreme Pontiffs and of the twenty-one Ecumenical Councils

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1890060' date='Jun 13 2009, 09:46 PM']The doctrines of the Universal Church, in which are the Latin Church as well as the Eastern Churches, can be found in teachings of the Supreme Pontiffs and of the twenty-one Ecumenical Councils[/quote]
I disagree. The Pope is first among equals in the episcopate, but as the protos he cannot teach independently of the universal episcopate. My Patriarch is also a historic successor of St. Peter, as is the Patriarch of Alexandria (cf. St. Gregory the Great, [i]Registrum Epistolarum[/i], Book 7:40 and Book 8:30), and -- of course -- all bishops are successors of St. Peter sacramentally, because by their consecration they are successors of all the Apostles, which necessarily includes St. Peter. As St. Cyprian said centuries ago, all episcopal sees are "cathedra Petri."

I affirm and venerate Seven Ecumenical Councils as binding upon all Christians.

Edited June 14, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

[i]Below is a post I wrote in response to what you said in another thread, but I think it would be helpful in this new thread also, so I am re-posting it here:[/i]


Sadly, this is an issue that we will not agree upon, because we understand the nature and role of the bishop of Rome differently. The pope has no authority [i]over[/i] the other [i]sui juris[/i] Churches, because any concept of supreme authority of one bishop [i]over[/i] another bishop, or of one Church [i]over[/i] another Church, destroys the reality of communion, which is not about power [i]over[/i] others, but about reciprocity and sharing in the common divine life of the body of Christ. In fact, in an ecclesiology of communion, or what Fr. Schmemann calls, a "eucharistic" ecclesiology, it is not possible for one Church (or one bishop) to have power [i]over[/i] another Church (or bishop), because each and every particular Church is the full realization of the one Catholic and Apostolic Church. In other words, power in the Church cannot be thought of as "power [i]over[/i] others," but must be understood as "service" to others. Thus, it must not be thought of in legal or jurisdictional terms, but in terms of service and love in support of communion. As Fr. Schmemann explains, "The essential corollary of this eucharistic ecclesiology is that it excludes the idea of a supreme power, understood as power [i]over[/i] the local Church and her bishop," because as he goes on to say, "A supreme power would mean power [i]over[/i] the Church, [i]over[/i] the Body of Christ, [i]over[/i] Christ Himself," and this is simply contrary to the Orthodox faith of the Fathers ["The Primacy of Peter in the Orthodox Church," pages 38-39]. Bearing in mind what I have already said, it is clear that the "sacred power" of popes and patriarchs -- which is founded upon the unity of the sacrament of orders -- is one of service, and so it must not be thought of in monarchical, legalistic, or jurisdictional terms. Moreover, this "sacred power" is held equally by all who possess the grace of sacramental ordination to the episcopate. Ultimately, the eucharistic ecclesiology of the first millennium is opposed to the universalist ecclesiology of the Latin Church of the middle ages, which only developed due to the Scholastic isolation of the Latin Church from the great patristic tradition of the earliest centuries of the Christian era that is the common patrimony of both East and West.

Finally, from an Eastern Christian perspective, following the teachings of the Holy Fathers, the pope has authority within his own patriarchal Church, but even within the Roman Church the pope himself is subject to Tradition, and so he cannot simply alter the liturgy or break with immemorial custom, and there will continue to be liturgical upheavals within the Western Church until this truth is unequivocally reaffirmed.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1890063' date='Jun 13 2009, 11:49 PM']I disagree. The Pope is first among equals in the episcopate, but as the protos he cannot teach independently of the universal episcopate. My Patriarch is also a historic successor of St. Peter, as is the Patriarch of Alexandria (cf. St. Gregory the Great, [i]Registrum Epistolarum[/i], Book 7:40 and Book 8:30), and -- of course -- all bishops are successors of St. Peter sacramentally, because by their consecration they are successors of all the Apostles, which necessarily includes St. Peter. As St. Cyprian said centuries ago, all episcopal sees are "cathedra Petri."[/quote]

Only the Bishop of Rome is successor of Peter in the primacy (cf. First Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, DS 3058)

Edited June 14, 2009 by Resurrexi

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1890088' date='Jun 13 2009, 10:17 PM']Only the Bishop of Rome is successor of Peter in the primacy (cf. First Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, DS 3058)[/quote]
I agree with Pope St. Gregory, who said: "Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places [i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch] is the See of one."