Posted on 05/27/2008 8:03:16 PM PDT by Petrosius
I have checked the Catholic Bishop in question is Romanian
http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bmesian.html
Interestingly enough he was also a representative at the joint Theological dialogue in Baltimore, MD
“...therefore I assumed he was a Byzantine Catholic, not a Latin Catholic.”
I could be wrong, but I am quite sure the Catholic Church in Romania is part of the Church of Rome; so is the one in Bulgaria for that matter.
It is, but by the same token, when an Orthodox hierarch presents himself for the Catholic Communion, he cannot be advised to obey his bishop.
Loosely related to this: when I traveled to my Russian mother's funeral last winter, I asked two of my Latin priests if I could take Orthodox Communion on that occasion. Both replied citing an appropriate canon law affirmatively, since the occasion excluded the possibility of going to a Catholic Church. Of course, they also urged me to ask permission from the Orthodox Father first. As it happened, there was no Communion at the funeral service at all.
“As it happened, there was no Communion at the funeral service at all.”
That’s right. There is no Divine Liturgy attached to the Funeral Liturgy.
Do you have a guess as to what a Russian Orthodox priest would have said in response to your query?
I was discussing “filioque” the other day with my son, The Latin Scholar. I'm only being half-facetious. Although only taking high school Latin so far, as an 8th grader, he is already the winner of national Latin awards for high school students. He's good.
Anyway, we were discussing “filioque,” and what he told me is that the “and” used (I think it's the “que” part) is not a “strong” “and.” In Latin, if you really wanted to say “and” and not mean something else, you'd say “et.” You know, like in “Et tu, Brute?”
On the other hand, the "filio" part is in the ablative case. From what my son tells me, the ablative adds additional meaning (this is how I understand what my son tells me). The ablative can add a variety of meanings to the root word, including separation, origin or source, comparison, means, accompaniment, among others. The two most important meanings of the ablative case are "means" and "agency." The actual meaning given is derived by context.
My son tells me that the ablative case of "filio" may be picking up from the preposition "ex" taking the ablative, in which case, one could translate "from the Father and from the Son." However, that's not the only (or even the best) translation.
The ablative case of "filio" may be imparting the meaning meaning "proceeds from the Father and by the means of the Son."
Although my son says you could do away with "and" altogether, and just translate it as "proceeds from the Father by the means of the Son."
In choosing between them, my son points out that if one wished to mean "proceeds from the Father and the Son," one might have added "ex" somehow (his explanation how eludes my simple mind) explicitly before "filioque." That it wasn't added means that the context makes the more likely translation, "proceeds from the Father and by the means of the Son."
sitetest
I think he’d deny it.
Dear Kolokotronis,
From what I can gather, the Catholic Church in Romania is called “Romanian Church United with Rome, Greek-Catholic.”
From Wiki:
“The Romanian Church United with Rome, Greek-Catholic (Romanian: Biserica Româna Unita cu Roma, Greco-Catolicais) an Eastern Rite or Greek-Catholic Church ranked as a Major Archiepiscopal Church, which uses the Byzantine liturgical rite in the Romanian language.”
sitetest
Bishop Alexandru Mesian belongs to the Romanian Greek-Catholic Church, a sui legis Byzantine rite church, i.e. a Catholic church united with Rome but not a part of the Church of Rome.
To the Orthodox, that is a distinction without a difference (I hope you realize).
““The Romanian Church United with Rome, Greek-Catholic (Romanian: Biserica Româna Unita cu Roma, Greco-Catolicais) an Eastern Rite or Greek-Catholic Church ranked as a Major Archiepiscopal Church, which uses the Byzantine liturgical rite in the Romanian language.”
Well, its always good to learn something new everyday.
BTW, tell your son that the old Greek Classics major says bravo...though I must say that on my way to my degrees in Latin, I never heard such a thing, even when studying Medieval Latin. On the other hand, maybe Latin education in those days wasn’t quite up to snuff. By the way, the ablative form is also completely consistent with “from the Son”; in fact, its one of the give aways that that’s what the Latin means...or so I was taught! It also actually does address the claims of the heretic Arius. :)
“To the Orthodox, that is a distinction without a difference (I hope you realize).”
Truth be told, the only place where such a distinction makes a difference to the Orthodox is in Lebanon with the Maronites and most especially with the Melkites. So called “Byzantine Catholics” to us are nothing more than Latins performing the Divine Liturgy of +John Chrysostomos, for which they are to be commended but which does not make them, in our eyes, sui juris churches.
BTW, using the word “united” is tip off to us. Melkites, for example, would never say that their bishops are “united” with Rome; in communion yes, but “united with” the Church of Rome? Never.
“BTW, tell your son that the old Greek Classics major says bravo...”
Thank you. I'll relay that. He seems to be very good with languages. He's 13 now, finishing up 8th grade. When he was younger, he taught himself much of “elvish” from Tolkien. About three years ago, he started teaching himself Latin. This school year, although he's homeschooled, he was invited by a local Catholic high school to come for one course - Latin. Apparently, he'd taught himself enough Latin on his own that he tested into the second year of high school Latin.
He'll be starting Greek next year, along with more Latin. He's only 13, so who knows what he'll eventually do, but since he started with the Latin, he's been strongly considering majoring in classics in college. He started to teach himself Greek this spring, but decided to hold off until summer, or maybe just wait until he has it in the fall.
“By the way, the ablative form is also completely consistent with ‘from the Son’;”
That's true. That's part of the ambiguity. The ablative can be translated in a number of different ways. My son actually showed me his text book that showed a bunch of different ways the ablative could be translated, given various contexts. It was surprising to me. It makes it clearer to me why there is some controversy concerning “filioque.” It's an inherently ambiguous term.
When my son looks at the Latin, he says it's as if it's trying to say two different things - “from the Father by means of the Son,” but also “from the Father and the Son.” Perhaps both were meant, the first because that is accurately what happens, but the second to counter the Arians.
Just a guess from someone who has a tough enough time with English.
sitetest
One of the greatest teachers of my life, one of those who made me what I am, was my Latin teacher when I was 13 years old. She instilled in me a love for Latin that lead through a college major to both grad school and the Law and which I carry to this very day. 13 is a great age to be when one learns to read Latin well. There’s just so much fabulous stuff to read!
I realize I am starting this thread late so you may have already recieved the answer, but i will give you one anyway.
A metropolitan is a bishop. In different Orthodox Churchs (i.e. Slavic), the metropolitan is usually an archbishop. For instance, the Orthodox Church in Japan is under the Patriarchate of Moscow. It is autonomous in its administration, but not independent (autocephalous, or "self-headed"). The archbishop of Japan is Metropolitan Daniel (who is Japanese).
I was visiting Tokyo's Orthodox Cathedral during my stay there in 2003-2005, and remember one of the priests introducing me to Bishop Daniel. The priest (who was Russian) addressed him simply as "Vladyka," a Slavonic term for a bishop.
You will also notice the the Church of Greece, which is separate from the Patriarchate of Constantinople, is headed by a Metropolitan as an autocephalous, stand-alone Church and that the metropolitan of Greece fulfills all the functions of a Patriarch. the same is true of the Orthodox Church of America, although it is recognized as "autocephalous" only by the Church of Russia.
Now, to a Catholic this must be horribly confusing... :)
True, but then the respective bishops sided with one or the other and dropped the Latin bishops from diptychs and eventually led to two communion camps, a de facto excommunication of the other.
It is true that in 1964 the Pope and the Ecumenical Patriarch annulled the excommunications of 1054 (the Latin one was invalid because Cardinal Humbert had no authority to represent a pope who was deceased), and committed them to oblivion. Thus we are not in mutual heresy, but in disagreement (schism).
The division is an "in-house matter," a family dispute. This is qualitatively different from the heresy of the Protestants who are no longer in the Church (i.e. have no apostolic authority).
The problem with this Romanian Metropolitan is that the Holy Communion is an expression of communion (unity) in faith, and not a means of achieving it.
Yes, I am aware of that and it makes me happy on the one hand, but it also makes me sad on the other because it is not true communion but a mechanical manifestation of one. If these people realized what Communion means, they wouldn't be doing it.
We don't share the same faith (yet). It got off track more than 1,000 years ago and hasn't been the same since. Doing charades and pretending that we can go visit each other and partake in the Eucharist is contrary to our understanding of the mysterion.
Thanky you for jumping in and clairfying this so well.
Correct. Remember the "8th" (Photian) Council(s)? First there was one that condemned +Photius and was signed by a Pope, then 10 years later on the dime, that one was annulled and a "new" 8th council restored Photius and dropped filioque, and was signed by a Pope (a different one). Then, after the Great Schism, Rome reverted back to "first" 8th Council that condemned +Photius and it's still the "official" 8th Council in the Latin Church.
The Greek/Orthodox position is that filioque does change the faith. That's why we are not in communion, Claud. It is very important to affirm that the Spirit eternally proceeds form the Father, that there can be no possibility of double origin.
In any case, an equal cannot bind an equal. So even if this canon did prohibit any additions to the Creed--it being a disciplinary matter and not part of the received and unchangeable Apostolic Tradition--any subsequent Council could easily revoke the prohibition
Ecumenical Councils are part of the Holy Tradition and cannot be changed or revoked. They are believed inspired and inerrant. The Creed must not be changed on a whim. The only other possibility that would "justify" it would be to infer that the Creed contained error.
Neither. They are Romance people. However, until 200 years ago, their divine lituregies were in Church Slavonic and they used Cyrillic alphabet.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.