 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Talithacumi
Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 30th, 2006 |
| Location: | Eastern Ohio, USA |
| Posts: | 267 |
| First Name: | Cheri | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Cradle Catholic - Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 3rd, 2006 12:38 am |
|
Rick,
You wrote something in another thread ("Apostolic Succession") that spawned a question that's always troubled me - or at least I've always found it confusing. Wonder if you can help me out here. You wrote:
In the Eastern Churches not united with Rome, it is the patriarch of the Church who serves as the primary successor of the apostles. Apostolic succession and authority flows through him.
I guess the thing I've always found hard to understand is why the Eastern Churches can be considered to have Apostolic Succession since they broke from the Western Church back in 1056 (or whenever it was for sure...) and they refuse to acknowledge the Chair of Peter.
Since Peter's primacy is a pretty important tenet of the Faith (isn't it?), I don't completely understand why the Eastern Churches are not considered to be heretical. I guess the truth is I don't understand the difference between "heresy" and "schism", though I did have it explained to me once or twice. It just never really sunk in somehow. Maybe third time'll be a charm... I think it has something to do with the fact that schismatics hold to all the primary doctrines, but just don't acknowledge the leadership of the Pope, whereas with heretical sects (like Protestantism) they don't follow all the doctrines, let alone the leadership. Is that anywhere near close?
JMJ
- Cheri
____________________
“We do not want a Church that will move with the world; we want a Church that will move the world.”
- G.K. Chesterton
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2072 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 3rd, 2006 08:10 am |
|
Here is your kernel of wisdom for today, Cheri:
CCC 2089 …Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;… schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” (quoting Code of Canon Law, can. 751)
David
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5347 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 3rd, 2006 12:51 pm |
|
Talithacumi wrote: I guess the thing I've always found hard to understand is why the Eastern Churches can be considered to have Apostolic Succession since they broke from the Western Church back in 1056 (or whenever it was for sure...) and they refuse to acknowledge the Chair of Peter.
Actually, they do acknowledge the primacy of Rome, but they have a different understanding. In Orthodox thinking, the Patriarch has immediate jurisdiction over his own Church. To them, they recognize the primacy of Rome as a primacy of honor. He is "first among equals." He has the authority to arbitrate disputes, but not the authority to make rules or create doctrine. The Orthodox accept the infallibility of the Church through its bishops, but not the infallibility of the pope himself. Remember that when the schism occurred between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, the infallibility of the pope had not been declared, so they are actually following the doctrines in place at the time.
In those Eastern Churches that have chosen to reunify with Rome, they have had to subjugate themselves to Rome in that they have accepted the immediate jurisdiction of the Holy Father to name bishops and create dioceses, approve liturgies, promulgate doctrine, etc. The Orthodox Churches at this point are not willing to accept the patriarch of the Roman Catholic Church as superior to them. Our Holy Father (John Paul II) agreed to open the papacy to a redefinition that would be more acceptable to the Orthodox (and Benedict XVI follows the same belief), but they have not been willing to give total authority over to the patriarchs.
These are very complex issues and please don't take my explanation as anything other than a brief, inadequate explanation. The gist of it is that the Eastern Orthodox believe they are following the faith as it existed at the time of the schism. If there is any heresy, it took place in the west with the elevation of the Pope to supremacy, and that's why they do not allow their members to receive communion in a Catholic church. Roman Catholics do not accuse the Orthodox of any heresy, which is why we recognize them as legitimate and allow intercommunion.
I guess the truth is I don't understand the difference between "heresy" and "schism"
Heresy involves doctrine; schism involves authority. When the Church of England broke from the Catholic Church, it was a denial of authority so it was a schism. Eventually their doctrine changed as well, so the schism led to heresy. Martin Luther, on the other hand, was a heretic who became a schismatic. His doctrine changed first, and that led to his founding of a new church. Except for the Catholic/Orthodox split, which was really more of a "drift apart" that caused them to split from each other in mutual excommunications, heresy has always led to schism and schism has always led to heresy.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Talithacumi
Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 30th, 2006 |
| Location: | Eastern Ohio, USA |
| Posts: | 267 |
| First Name: | Cheri | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Cradle Catholic - Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 3rd, 2006 08:25 pm |
|
David and Rick,
Thanks, guys. So I guess I was pretty close to the mark? To sum up, heresy has to do with doctrine and schism has to do with Authority, right? But I'm a little bit bothered by something, Rick, that you said, and I'm not sure how to explain how or why it bothers me, or even how to explain what exactly bothers me, but I'll give it a shot. You said:
"Remember that when the schism occurred between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, the infallibility of the pope had not been declared, so they are actually following the doctrines in place at the time."
OK, so if that is the case, if the Orthodox were following the "doctrines in place at the time" (btw, I thought doctrine in the Catholic Church never changes, but only gets defined?), then why are the Orthodox considered to be in schism? I mean, if they are following legitimate doctrinal practices that should never change, are they accountable for what they believe about Authority? And I thought that the primacy of Peter was always a Doctrine of the Church? Sorry if I sound dumb, I'm just not quite sure how to take this... and I hope you understand my questions.
JMJ
- Cheri
Last edited on Fri Nov 3rd, 2006 08:26 pm by Talithacumi
____________________
“We do not want a Church that will move with the world; we want a Church that will move the world.”
- G.K. Chesterton
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5347 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 4th, 2006 12:07 am |
|
Talithacumi wrote:
"Remember that when the schism occurred between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, the infallibility of the pope had not been declared, so they are actually following the doctrines in place at the time."
OK, so if that is the case, if the Orthodox were following the "doctrines in place at the time" (btw, I thought doctrine in the Catholic Church never changes, but only gets defined?), then why are the Orthodox considered to be in schism?
In essence, the Orthodox and Catholic Churches are in schism from each other. The split was mutual. It did not take place in 1054; it had been happening for centuries. If you really want to know more, you'll have to study the geopolitical history of the time. It is much too complex to discuss here, and I am certainly not an expert.
Church doctrine gets refined. For example, "transubstantiation" as an explanation of the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist was not fully understood and defined until the second millennium. That doesn't mean they didn't believe in the Real Presence, but there was not a definite, formal definition until then. Those who accepted the Real Presence prior to that point were not heretics because they were not rejecting a doctrine of the Church.
I mean, if they are following legitimate doctrinal practices that should never change, are they accountable for what they believe about Authority? And I thought that the primacy of Peter was always a Doctrine of the Church?
The Orthodox do not reject the primacy of Peter to this day. However, they have a different concept of how that primacy should be exercised. The Catholic Church sees the pope's role as one of absolute authority and immediate jurisdiction over all of the particular Churches; the Orthodox see the pope's role as that of the "first among equals" with immediate jurisdiction and absolute authority exercised by the patriarch of the particular Churches rather than by the pope. The Orthodox Churches in general use synods of bishops to make the type of decisions that the pope makes in the west.
The Orthodox reject any doctrinal decision in which they did not participate, because they believe infallibility rests on the bishops and patriarchs of all of the Churches reaching common decisions. Therefore, they do not consider the infallibility of the pope, the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption as valid infallible pronouncements. In the case of the Assumption, they certainly do not disagree with the doctrine, only with the pronouncement. For the Immaculate Conception, they believe that Mary was without sin and remained a virgin through her life, but they disagree with our definition of Original Sin so they reject the doctrine; and they do not believe the pope is the source of infallibility but rather it is the bishops in union with the pope and patriarchs. These were the understandings in place in 1054, so we cannot say their doctrines are not valid.
Let's use an analogy. The French Cajuns of south Louisiana left Acadia in Canada in 1754. They continued to speak French, but the development occurred without contact with the French in France for centuries. The language in place in 1754 remained the same, but the languages developed in parallel. French Cajuns can visit France and understand the French people, but some words and idioms are different, and different enough that the differences can lead to serious misunderstandings.
When I visited England in the early 1990's, I was working with a young lady on her computer, and I told her the best way to familiarize herself with the computer was to piddle around with it. I meant to play with it; she heard to urinate on it. I won't explain what I thought she meant when she said she was going outside to cop a fag.
An English person would understand this sentence. "I grabbed a pack of nappies, locked the door to my flat, and took the lift to the street, where I put the baby's pram in the boot, hopped in the right side door and took off for the nearest roundabout, then I headed for the motorway to take me to the chunnel." And we speak the same language!
So we do have different interpretations of doctrine. We recognize theirs as equally valid, but we have to find a common means of expression. We are talking, and that is a good sign. A redefinition of the papacy is necessary in that the Orthodox will never accept the pope's immediate jurisdiction and authority over their Churches, and that's really OK. The pope has never claimed jurisdiction over other apostolic Churches, so a language needs to be defined to express this reality. In the years since Vatican II, we have moved closer together than at any time in the last thousand years, so there is hope.
The next step will likely be their recognition of the Catholic Church as legitimate (which they really already do) and full intercommunion between the Churches. That could happen in our lifetimes. But nothing the Church (Catholic and Orthodox) ever does is quick, so it could just as easily take a few hundred years.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Darlene
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Pocono Mountains, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 868 |
| First Name: | Darlene | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Christian, trusting His love and forgiveness |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 17th, 2006 04:07 pm |
|
Cajunrick,
You are hilarious. I loved your example of British lingo. I had the same kind of communication problems living in Pennsylvania. I worked at an auto parts store at one time, in Pennsylvania Dutch land. They speak a version of German and many of their ancestors come from a specific place in Switzerland. I am of German descent and can communicate in German, but PA Dutch is another story. Anyhow, people would come in to order parts, etc. and speak in broken PA Dutch/English. I would say, "What did you say?" They would have to repeat themselves several times before I "got" it. For example, a PA Dutch person might say (in what I call broken English), "Ve vill go to da wan, but make sure you outen da lights first. Da lightbulbs are all." You get the picture.
BTW, what is the Eastern Orthodox teaching on Original Sin and how does it differ from the Catholics?
Darlene
____________________
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. II Corinthians 13:14
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5347 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 17th, 2006 06:31 pm |
|
Darlene wrote: You are hilarious. I loved your example of British lingo.
The same thing happens everywhere. Only in Louisiana can you walk on the banquette of the batture, cross the neutral ground, make groceries at the store and order your poboy dressed, and then have cafe au lait and beignets. If you're lucky, they'll give you a little laigniappe, and then you can pick up a Lucky Dog on your way home.
BTW, what is the Eastern Orthodox teaching on Original Sin and how does it differ from the Catholics?
Eastern Christians (Catholic and Orthodox) believe in the concept of Theosis or deification in which we are born pure but with a sinful nature (no "original sin" but instead "original sinfulness") that will almost certainly cause us to commit personal sin. To melt it down to a few words, we are born not with a "stain" of sin, but with an "inclination" to sin.
Through our lives, at various times, we are closer to or farther from God. Our journey does not end until we become perfectly purified, whether that comes during this life or after our natural death.
From the Wikipedia article on Theosis: St. Athanasius of Alexandria wrote, "The Son of God became man, that we might become God." His statement is an apt description of the concept. What would otherwise seem absurd, that fallen, sinful man may become holy as God is holy, has been made possible through Jesus Christ, who is God incarnate. Naturally, the crucial Christian assertion, that God is One, sets an absolute limit on the meaning of theosis - it is not possible for any created being to become, ontologically, God, or even part of God.
You might want to look at it like this: We are on a journey toward salvation that begins at our birth and ends with our unity with God, the ultimate perfection. At birth we are as God created us, completely perfect and sinless; this is also the ultimate goal of our journey. Of course, our journey is only possible because of God's grace, which we are free to reject at any time.
So the Roman Catholic conept of the Immaculate Conception is rejected by Eastern Christians because, in essence, they believe we are all created sinless, and through total acceptance of and subservience to God's grace, we all have the potential to live our lives without committing personal sin. Only Mary has achieved that ideal, and Eastern Christians accept her sinlessness and resulting Assumption (which they call the Dormition). What they don't accept is that this is a special grace given only to her; her special grace came in being able to perfectly follow God's plan.
Theosis is a very complicated theology that changes the meaning of many things. I have a basic understanding of it because I wrote a paper on it once, and sent it to the EWTN expert on the Eastern Churches and to a Russian Orthodox priest for review to make sure I got it right.
Theosis might be considered a "unified theory" of salvation. For example, to Eastern Christians, there is no question of what happens to infants who die before baptism because their souls are perfect and without sin of any kind. Roman Catholic teaching on Original Sin, as reflected in the Catechism, is much closer to the Eastern concept than what was taught when I was a kid. Nor is Purgatory necessary because, again, it is part of the journey which David has described as the "foyer of heaven". At death (to Eastern Christians) we are either in heaven or hell, but we may not have been allowed fully into God's presence if our Theosis is not complete.
I have attached a copy of my paper on Salvation, just in case anyone might want to read it. It is, of course, copyrighted by me, so if you decide to publish it somewhere, make the check out in my name.
Attachment: Salvation.pdf (Downloaded 4 times)
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Current time is 04:10 am | |
|
|
|
|
|
