OrthodoxChristianity.net

Moderated Forums => Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion => Orthodox-Catholic Discussion => Topic started by: NihilNominis on April 04, 2008, 05:13:42 PM

Title: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: NihilNominis on April 04, 2008, 05:13:42 PM
Quote
Man, you take a great deal of interest in me. At the very least I guess I should be flattered. Now in what way would you like me to take responsibility for my statements? I mean, its not like I am denying them. I think he was an absolutely horrible moderator. Probably because he was so biased against those who actually believe in the teachings of the Church. For some reason he could not keep his biases out of his moderation. Anyway, are you expecting me to tell this to him personally? I am not sure what you want.

I do have one question for you, Papist -

How in the world do you justify your name on CAF, i.e. East and West, with this Latinist attitude which, whether you intend it or not, pervades all that you write on this forum.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: NihilNominis on April 05, 2008, 09:23:37 AM
Quote
a poster stating that Eucharistic Adoration is not ordinarily observed in the Eastern Churches, Catholic or Orthodox, because our attitude toward the Eucharist is one of banality (I hope I have that correctly. I was dumbstruck when reading it, particularly as it was posted by a member who is reputedly an Eastern Catholic, not by one of the newcomers over there whose ecclesial affiliations seem to defy definition)

Was this a part of my thread (Eucharistic Adoration and the East) I wonder?  Whose post was it?
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Peter J on April 05, 2008, 10:39:24 AM
Neil,

Great post. For the moment, I'd like to touch on:

Addendum:  I echo the comments by my friend and brother, username. The blatant misinformation bandied about as to Eastern Catholicism (and Eastern Orthodoxy) at that site is an incredible abuse. 

I'm glad you brought that up. I have been wanting to clarify: I don't in any way deny that ignorance of Eastern Catholicism (and Eastern Orthodoxy) is a huge problem among Latins (and at CAF in particular, from what I've heard, but obviously you'd know more about that than I would). I only object to attempts to stereotype Latins. As you said in your next sentence: "There are Latin Catholics who are both knowledgeable and respectful of the East" (emphasis added).

Concerning EWTN, my impression is that question directed to the Eastern Catholic Forum will usually receive an appropriate response. Unfortunately, questions about Eastern Catholicism are sometimes directed to one of the other fora, and the responses sometimes include misinformation.

God bless,
Peter.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: ialmisry on April 05, 2008, 11:58:53 AM
And I have been to Chicago (All Saints) and will probably be visiting again...(she said as she ducked to avoid the theological food fight)  :o.
We have our own building now; we moved in about a month ago.
My daughter is moving to Chicago this fall, (she's Lutheran and has a Church picked out, but when I visit she wants to go to church with me. She met Fr. Reardon at the Lutheran Colloquium and would like to visit) so maybe we'll run into each other sometime.

Now let's get out of this thread, before we get hit with some rotten produce... :laugh:
I'd be interested in what you thought of the Western Rite.


For one thing, I can't see what EO objections can be sustained by any who have seen such a Divine Liturgy.  And the TLM has nothing on you guys.

Please let us know when you and/or your daughter are in town.  Btw, our assitant priest is Fr. David Lynch (please pray for him, he is recovering from cranial surgery) was pastor of St. Augustine WRO in Denver before his retirement.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Papist on April 05, 2008, 11:58:58 AM
I do have one question for you, Papist -

How in the world do you justify your name on CAF, i.e. East and West, with this Latinist attitude which, whether you intend it or not, pervades all that you write on this forum.
I used to attend a Ruthenian Parish and was very much enamored with many of the things that I learned and experienced there. The pastor of our little Parish was an amazing, saintly man. Fr. Chris Zuger. Anyway, I found through reseach that that parish was not the norm. That there was a growing movement among Eastern Catholics to reject certain articles of the Catholic faith, and  then do so as if that is perfectly inline with the Church which is a blatant lie. So, I moved further and further away from all things eastern. Now I am sorta stuck with the screen name I have at CA.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: NihilNominis on April 05, 2008, 02:27:59 PM
Mine's a little bit the opposite, I suppose... ;D

We do have something in common, after all!

Forgive me if I have offended you.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Papist on April 05, 2008, 02:57:13 PM
Not offended in the least bit. It was an honest question.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: kaarina33 on April 06, 2008, 12:34:36 PM
For one thing, I can't see what EO objections can be sustained by any who have seen such a Divine Liturgy.  And the TLM has nothing on you guys.

Please let us know when you and/or your daughter are in town.  Btw, our assitant priest is Fr. David Lynch (please pray for him, he is recovering from cranial surgery) was pastor of St. Augustine WRO in Denver before his retirement.

He is in our prayers.
And thank you for you hospitality.  We will let you know when we are in town; and please, I hope you will do the same next time you visit here.

Having been to TLM (Latin NO an Tridentine EO) at my husband's very traditional RC parish, I have to agree with you, that there is a difference, something that I can't quite wrap words around...
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Apotheoun on April 07, 2008, 04:22:03 AM
We would mind because our tradition and our rubrics for our Liturgy include the filioque. Yes, it does not need to be in the Creed for the Greeks, but it is required in our Liturgy. This would be like me going to a Ruthenian parish and explicitly reciting the filioque as part of the Creed just to make a point. That would be unacceptable.
When I have on rare occasions attended Mass at a Latin parish I never say the words "and the Son" when the creed is recited, but no one really notices because I simply go silent at those words. 
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Apotheoun on April 07, 2008, 04:33:02 AM
I was sorry to hear that Irish Melkite has been banned, because his input in the thread entitled, "4 in UGCC claim consecration as bishops from underground bishops," would have been very helpful.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Irish Melkite on April 07, 2008, 06:16:55 AM
I was sorry to hear that Irish Melkite has been banned, because his input in the thread entitled, "4 in UGCC claim consecration as bishops from underground bishops," would have been very helpful.

Apotheoun,

Thanks for the compliment. Frankly, I don't know that I would have commented - I'm fairly certain that I didn't do so in the thread on the topic at ByzCath. My interest in vagante episcopi notwithstanding, this story is too farcical to merit much discussion. They claim episcopal ordination by bishops of the underground church - a church that has been above-ground for almost two decades now - and don't name them. Their motivation, to save the UGCC from itself; apparently their consecrators saw that need, but weren't up to the task for whatever reason and decided to front these 4 as surrogates.

If you're going to go vagante, pull out the recliner, drape it with some brocade and call it a cathedra, tout the names of your episcopal lineage, and announce that you're ready to accept in communio sacris all those who share your belief in the corrupt nature of whomever you're schisming from - and give a name to your ecclesia. The Holy True Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Patriarchate and Major-Metropolitinate of Pidhirtsi has a ring to it. Then if, as in this case, you are seeking to assure that all understand your intent to remain in communion with Rome, while renouncing His Beatitude, Lubomyr, hie thee off to Rome, and prostrate at the feet of His Holiness, Benedict. Based on whether or not you get front-page coverage in Osservatore Romano, Zenit, or the Ukrainian Times, decide whether to commit to signing a mortgage note on a cathedral or maintain the monastery rec room as your seat of power.

Many years,

Neil

PS - with all due respect to my Ukrainian brethren, Catholic and Orthodox, whom I hold dear, I have got to say that I know of no other body of Eastern Christians among whom there is such a need for everyone - and I mean everyone - to have their own Church. A tongue-in-cheek thread used to appear periodically at ByzCath in which folks would catalogue the latest collection of Ukrainian jurisdictions. Some would disappear, new ones would arise, but the number never decreased, it inevitably grew from year to year.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Apotheoun on April 07, 2008, 06:26:37 AM
They just seem like a group of disgruntled Latinizers to me. 

;D
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 07, 2008, 07:50:03 AM
Has anybody seen the last incredible thread in Eastern Catholicism?

"Eastern and Western Catholicism Dogmas,Doctrines and Traditions"

If anybody with any knowledge of Eastern Christianity is left on that Forum.... HELP!

Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: username! on April 07, 2008, 01:18:55 PM
Papist, please do run a laundry list/a good post of how you think Eastern Catholics misrepresent Papal Catholicism? 
Speak from experience, cite examples, and I am sure you will have specific examples, speak of which doctorine/dogmas, and how they stray.. etc.. let it flow, you are now one with the keyboard.


Note:  In this post I have clearly asked for a list and then support to justify the list, ie, detail, examples, doctorine/dogmas.  It was meant clearly for a list then an explanation to be given for each issue. 
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Papist on April 07, 2008, 01:28:02 PM
Papist, please do run a laundry list/a good post of how you think Eastern Catholics misrepresent Papal Catholicism? 
Speak from experience, cite examples, and I am sure you will have specific examples, speak of which doctorine/dogmas, and how they stray.. etc.. let it flow, you are now one with the keyboard.
Are you seriously asking or ar you baiting?
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Papist on April 07, 2008, 01:35:11 PM
If anyone wants to discuss any of the issues raised above, let's start a new thread. I realize we are off topic now and alot of that has to do with me.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: username! on April 07, 2008, 01:38:45 PM
Are you seriously asking or ar you baiting?

Serious as the Pope on Pascha, I want to know what you're thinking.  I'm not baiting, I am being serious.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Papist on April 07, 2008, 01:42:00 PM
Serious as the Pope on Pascha, I want to know what you're thinking.  I'm not baiting, I am being serious.

When Eastern Catholics do the say that is ok to reject:
1) Purgatory
2) The Immaculate Conception
3) The Ecumenical Councils between the seventh and Vatican II
4) Original Sin
5) Papal Infallibility
6) The Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope
7) The procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son
etc.
When they reject these and then state that its ok with the Church to do so, they are misrepresenting Catholicism to the world.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: username! on April 07, 2008, 01:43:41 PM
When Eastern Catholics do the say that is ok to reject:
1) Purgatory
2) The Immaculate Conception
3) The Ecumenical Councils between the seventh and Vatican II
4) Original Sin
5) Papal Infallibility
6) The Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope
7) The procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son
etc.
When they reject these and then state that its ok with the Church to do so, they are misrepresenting Catholicism to the world.

Ok, still interested, expand and explain, and give personal experiences if need be.  We could make this another thread?
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Papist on April 07, 2008, 01:44:50 PM
We can make this another thread. But I am off to lunch, so I'll have to back to this later
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: username! on April 07, 2008, 01:50:24 PM
We can make this another thread. But I am off to lunch, so I'll have to back to this later


Sounds good! 
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Peter J on April 07, 2008, 03:22:58 PM
When Eastern Catholics do the say that is ok to reject:
1) Purgatory
2) The Immaculate Conception
3) The Ecumenical Councils between the seventh and Vatican II
4) Original Sin
5) Papal Infallibility
6) The Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope
7) The procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son
etc.
When they reject these and then state that its ok with the Church to do so, they are misrepresenting Catholicism to the world.

Why Papist, I'm surprised at you!

Not surprised that you would complain about those things, but surprised by what you didn't include in your list. For example, I notice you made no complaint about ECs considering Gregory Palamas to be a saint, whereas in the not-to-distant past you went so far as to call his philosophy "vile".

I think we may be having a positive influence on you! (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/happy066.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org)

God bless,
Peter.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: username! on April 07, 2008, 04:10:35 PM
Ok, let's not go the St. Gregory route in this thread.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: alexp4uni on April 07, 2008, 04:25:54 PM

I think we may be having a positive influence on you!
Papist will eventually write his thesis on a clean desk with stuffed cluttered desk drawers.

He just has to slay vile a dogma one at a time before he realizes he didn't sharpen his pencil.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Peter J on April 07, 2008, 05:37:25 PM
For example, I notice you made no complaint about ECs considering Gregory Palamas to be a saint, whereas in the not-to-distant past you went so far as to call his philosophy "vile".

Ok, let's not go the St. Gregory route in this thread.

Well, perhaps that example is a little trite. A substitute example could be the fact the his definition of "Latinizers" was "those who profess the Catholic faith handed on by the Apostles".
-Peter.

P.S. Of course, that was this morning, which begets the question of whether he's actually changed, or whether he just has pro-EC/anti-EC mood swings.
(http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/angelic008.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org)
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: ozgeorge on April 07, 2008, 07:06:50 PM
When Eastern Catholics do the say that is ok to reject:
1) Purgatory.....
When they reject these and then state that its ok with the Church to do so, they are misrepresenting Catholicism to the world.
Before you berate your Eastern Catholic brethren about "misrepresenting" Catholic beliefs, you should update yourself with what the Catholic Church currently believes.
Have you read your Pope's encyclical "Spe Salvi" (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20071130_spe-salvi_en.html)? He is saying what the Orthodox have been saying for 2000 years. The concept is akin to "the river of fire" where the fires of "purgatory" are in fact, the Divine Energies, and that the old Latin concept of measurable duration of "time" in purgatory is in fact nonsensical.
Is Pope Benedict XVI also misrepresenting Catholicism?

Here is the relevant quote from "Spe Salvi" (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20071130_spe-salvi_en.html):

Quote
47. Some recent theologians are of the opinion that the fire which both burns and saves is Christ himself, the Judge and Saviour. The encounter with him is the decisive act of judgement. Before his gaze all falsehood melts away. This encounter with him, as it burns us, transforms and frees us, allowing us to become truly ourselves. All that we build during our lives can prove to be mere straw, pure bluster, and it collapses. Yet in the pain of this encounter, when the impurity and sickness of our lives become evident to us, there lies salvation. His gaze, the touch of his heart heals us through an undeniably painful transformation “as through fire”. But it is a blessed pain, in which the holy power of his love sears through us like a flame, enabling us to become totally ourselves and thus totally of God. In this way the inter-relation between justice and grace also becomes clear: the way we live our lives is not immaterial, but our defilement does not stain us for ever if we have at least continued to reach out towards Christ, towards truth and towards love. Indeed, it has already been burned away through Christ's Passion. At the moment of judgement we experience and we absorb the overwhelming power of his love over all the evil in the world and in ourselves. The pain of love becomes our salvation and our joy. It is clear that we cannot calculate the “duration” of this transforming burning in terms of the chronological measurements of this world. The transforming “moment” of this encounter eludes earthly time-reckoning—it is the heart's time, it is the time of “passage” to communion with God in the Body of Christ[39]. The judgement of God is hope, both because it is justice and because it is grace. If it were merely grace, making all earthly things cease to matter, God would still owe us an answer to the question about justice—the crucial question that we ask of history and of God. If it were merely justice, in the end it could bring only fear to us all. The incarnation of God in Christ has so closely linked the two together—judgement and grace—that justice is firmly established: we all work out our salvation “with fear and trembling” (Phil 2:12). Nevertheless grace allows us all to hope, and to go trustfully to meet the Judge whom we know as our “advocate”, or parakletos (cf. 1 Jn 2:1).
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: lubeltri on April 08, 2008, 03:43:23 PM
George, you've read Spe Salvi? I'm impressed! Perhaps that wasn't an April Fool's joke after all... ;)

Re: the "time durations" in Purgatory. You accurately convey the common popular misconception of this but inaccurately convey the official teaching. The time durations do not measure time spent in Purgatory but the number of days of penance a penitent would have had to perform in the early Church for a certain offense. To clear up this frequent misconception, Servant of God Pope Paul VI wisely issued a new Enchiridion of Indulgences in 1968 which simply distinguished indulgences as partial and plenary.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: ozgeorge on April 08, 2008, 05:41:04 PM
George, you've read Spe Salvi? I'm impressed!
Why?

Re: the "time durations" in Purgatory. You accurately convey the common popular misconception of this but inaccurately convey the official teaching. The time durations do not measure time spent in Purgatory but the number of days of penance a penitent would have had to perform in the early Church for a certain offense. To clear up this frequent misconception, Servant of God Pope Paul VI wisely issued a new Enchiridion of Indulgences in 1968 which simply distinguished indulgences as partial and plenary.
Fine and dandy, except that you still run into a problem with the "Sabbatine Privilege"  (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13289b.htm) unless there are days of the week in Eternity. But anyway, this thread isn't about the Latin errors, it's about how Latins (and one Latin in particular) treat their Eastern Catholic brothers. If anything, their Eastern Catholic brothers can help the Latins out of the Labyrinth of logical and theological errors they have placed themselves.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: lubeltri on April 08, 2008, 06:12:00 PM
Why?

You answered that question yourself:

Fine and dandy, except that you still run into a problem with the "Sabbatine Privilege"  (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13289b.htm) unless there are days of the week in Eternity. But anyway, this thread isn't about the Latin errors, it's about how Latins (and one Latin in particular) treat their Eastern Catholic brothers. If anything, their Eastern Catholic brothers can help the Latins out of the Labyrinth of logical and theological errors they have placed themselves.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Jakub on April 08, 2008, 08:00:08 PM
If anything, their Eastern Catholic brothers can help the Latins out of the Labyrinth of logical and theological errors they have placed themselves.


I'm pretty positive Papa Benedict has plans to reform, redirect and correct the Latin Rite...

pax

Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Ung-Certez on April 10, 2008, 03:48:35 PM
Papist, please do run a laundry list/a good post of how you think Eastern Catholics misrepresent Papal Catholicism? 
Speak from experience, cite examples, and I am sure you will have specific examples, speak of which doctorine/dogmas, and how they stray.. etc.. let it flow, you are now one with the keyboard.

Love your photo of Archbishop John Ireland! :laugh:

Ung-Certez
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Peter J on April 10, 2008, 04:02:05 PM
Love your photo of Archbishop John Ireland! :laugh:

Me too. Often times we focus too much on those things we disagree about; it's nice to be reminded that, for example, we are in agreement with respect to rejecting Archbishop Ireland's approach.

Peter
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: username! on April 12, 2008, 06:13:50 PM
If you don't want a complete answer, then don't ask the question.

speaking of complete answers,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, you haven't finished your answers over in the thread about Byzantine Catholicism.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15373.0.html

Here is the link~
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Papist on April 13, 2008, 02:42:57 PM
Why Papist, I'm surprised at you!

Not surprised that you would complain about those things, but surprised by what you didn't include in your list. For example, I notice you made no complaint about ECs considering Gregory Palamas to be a saint, whereas in the not-to-distant past you went so far as to call his philosophy "vile".

I think we may be having a positive influence on you! (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/happy066.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org)

God bless,
Peter.

I am so sorry. Let me correct my error. There is also a huge problem with Eastern Catholics considering people like Palamas, saints.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Papist on April 13, 2008, 02:45:05 PM
speaking of complete answers,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, you haven't finished your answers over in the thread about Byzantine Catholicism.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15373.0.html

Here is the link~
I am not sure what you want me to say. I have already explained how the ECs misrepresent the Catholic faith.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Peter J on April 13, 2008, 03:06:09 PM
I am so sorry.

No problem.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: prodromas on April 13, 2008, 08:34:08 PM
Me too. Often times we focus too much on those things we disagree about; it's nice to be reminded that, for example, we are in agreement with respect to rejecting Archbishop Ireland's approach.

Peter

Peter, Username is praising Archbishop Ireland's for returning the flock of believers back to their Church.  :angel:
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Ung-Certez on April 13, 2008, 08:45:21 PM
...maybe Archbishop Ireland should have also been canonized along with St. Alexis? :laugh:

Ung-Certez
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: The Iambic Pen on April 16, 2008, 07:12:34 AM
So, do Western and Eastern Catholics disagree on matters of doctrine?  In my own search for the Church, people have often suggested that I become an Eastern Catholic.  This would be a way for me to have the best of both worlds (the worlds being Catholicism and Orthodoxy).  However, the impression I have been getting is that many Eastern Catholics do not accept doctrines which are required belief in the Catholic Church.  It seems that many Eastern Catholics say to themselves, "We will acknowledge the existence of papal authority, but we will not accept any commands from this authority that are not in accord with our own Eastern tradition."  Others seem to simply pretend that these theological differences do not exist.

I have absolutely no problem with Eastern Catholics having different practices about clerical celibacy, offering the Eucharist to infants, using leavened bread, using a different liturgy, following different fasting guidelines, or having various other different disciplinary practices.  What troubles me is that there are teachings which are binding upon Catholics that many Eastern Catholics seem to either ignore or oppose.

Eastern Catholics should be able to be both Catholic and Eastern.  However, when an apparent conflict occurs, which is more important, to be Catholic or to be Eastern?  St. Alexis chose Eastern.  The various Eastern Catholic posters who come here and complain to the Orthodox that the Western Catholics do not appreciate or understand them seem very close to making the same choice.

I am trying to be very diplomatic and courteous about it, but perhaps I see some of the same difficulties with Eastern Catholicism that Papist does.

If the Eastern Catholics are absolutely correct in every doctrine and teaching, including those which are in opposition to that taught by Rome, why not just be Orthodox?  Would it not be better to be in communion with those also holding to the true faith, rather than be in communion with those holding to western heresies?  If one can hold to the Orthodox faith and be in communion with Rome, what is everyone arguing about, and why has reunion not already occured?

I'm not making a judgment in this post about whether or not the Orthodox Church or the Catholic Church is the true Church.  I haven't made up my mind about that yet.  I am simply remarking that I observe a contradiction between the beliefs of Eastern and Western Catholics, and I am wondering how this can be.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Papist on April 16, 2008, 09:54:10 AM
So, do Western and Eastern Catholics disagree on matters of doctrine?  In my own search for the Church, people have often suggested that I become an Eastern Catholic.  This would be a way for me to have the best of both worlds (the worlds being Catholicism and Orthodoxy).  However, the impression I have been getting is that many Eastern Catholics do not accept doctrines which are required belief in the Catholic Church.  It seems that many Eastern Catholics say to themselves, "We will acknowledge the existence of papal authority, but we will not accept any commands from this authority that are not in accord with our own Eastern tradition."  Others seem to simply pretend that these theological differences do not exist.
The problem is very complicated. If you ask people like Todd, they will outright deny essential Catholic dogmas what that are de fide statements. For example: Papal infallibility, Universial Jurisidiction, the Councils after number seven, etc. Others will accept the entirety of the Catholic faith but simply look at it from an Eastern perspective. Melikites tend to be for the former type. Most Ruthenians that I have met in person tend to be of the latter.
I have absolutely no problem with Eastern Catholics having different practices about clerical celibacy, offering the Eucharist to infants, using leavened bread, using a different liturgy, following different fasting guidelines, or having various other different disciplinary practices.  What troubles me is that there are teachings which are binding upon Catholics that many Eastern Catholics seem to either ignore or oppose.
Which is exactly the problem that I have with the current state of Eastern Catholicism. While there are many good, faithful, and saintly Eastern Catholics, there are those who took the Church's call to de-latinize as permission to abandon the Catholic faith while maintaining the name "Catholic".
Eastern Catholics should be able to be both Catholic and Eastern.  However, when an apparent conflict occurs, which is more important, to be Catholic or to be Eastern?  St. Alexis chose Eastern.  The various Eastern Catholic posters who come here and complain to the Orthodox that the Western Catholics do not appreciate or understand them seem very close to making the same choice.
This seems to echo my thoughts exactly. I cannot even begin to sympathize with a person who claims to be Catholic yet rejects the Catholic faith simply in order to be "Eastern". I don't think being an Eastern Catholic requires that one reject the faith of the Church. But some do.
I am trying to be very diplomatic and courteous about it, but perhaps I see some of the same difficulties with Eastern Catholicism that Papist does.
I probably come off as very harsh because of my zeal for the truth of the Catholic faith, but I just believe it to be gravely immoral to call oneself Catholic and then reject the truths of the Church. In this day of reletivism the Church must speak with one voice, the voice she has always spoken with. Eastern Catholics need to remember the words of St. Iraneaus who says, "With this Church [Rome] all churches must agree...becuase her superior origin."

If the Eastern Catholics are absolutely correct in every doctrine and teaching, including those which are in opposition to that taught by Rome, why not just be Orthodox?  Would it not be better to be in communion with those also holding to the true faith, rather than be in communion with those holding to western heresies?  If one can hold to the Orthodox faith and be in communion with Rome, what is everyone arguing about, and why has reunion not already occured?
Both excellent question that I have been asking for the last few years. To the first one, I have never been given a sufficient answer. To the second, the EOs believe that Catholics are heretics and schismatics. Which, of course, is what traditional Latin Catholics like myself believe about the EOs (which I do not mean as an insult. I am just illustrating what the traditional Latin Catholic view is).
I'm not making a judgment in this post about whether or not the Orthodox Church or the Catholic Church is the true Church.  I haven't made up my mind about that yet.  I am simply remarking that I observe a contradiction between the beliefs of Eastern and Western Catholics, and I am wondering how this can be.
Many of us wonder about the same thing. Apostolic Christianity is simply a mess right now.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Mickey on April 16, 2008, 12:22:58 PM
If the Eastern Catholics are absolutely correct in every doctrine and teaching, including those which are in opposition to that taught by Rome, why not just be Orthodox?  Would it not be better to be in communion with those also holding to the true faith, rather than be in communion with those holding to western heresies? 
Exactly!

I was an Eastern Catholic and was often told by clergy and laity alike that it is not mandatory to hold the same understandings on issues and doctrines as that of the Latin Church such as: Filoque, papal infallibility, IC, and purgatory, original sin, etc.

It caused a confusing dichotmy in my mind. I thought to myself: "These issues and doctrines are innovations of the post-schism Latin Church. As Eastern Catholics, why do we not come into union with Holy Orthodoxy."

I was strernly rebuked for such remarks.

I was consistently told to study Orthodoxy, to worship like the Orthodox, to hold Orthodox theological precepts and praxis, but do not be Orthodox---they are schismatics!!!

I was injured by the identity crisis in the Eastern Catholic Church and I was opposed to the innovations of Rome. So I made the only logical decision. I joined the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church---the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church!  :)
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: ozgeorge on April 16, 2008, 12:37:50 PM
I was strernly rebuked for such remarks.
By both sides (i.e, Latin and Eastern Catholic) or just one?
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Papist on April 16, 2008, 12:44:38 PM
Exactly!

I was an Eastern Catholic and was often told by clergy and laity alike that it is not mandatory to hold the same understandings on issues and doctrines as that of the Latin Church such as: Filoque, papal infallibility, IC, and purgatory, original sin, etc.

It caused a confusing dichotmy in my mind. I thought to myself: "These issues and doctrines are innovations of the post-schism Latin Church. As Eastern Catholics, why do we not come into union with Holy Orthodoxy."

I was strernly rebuked for such remarks.

I was consistently told to study Orthodoxy, to worship like the Orthodox, to hold Orthodox theological precepts and praxis, but do not be Orthodox---they are schismatics!!!

I was injured by the identity crisis in the Eastern Catholic Church and I was opposed to the innovations of Rome. So I made the only logical decision. I joined the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church---the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church!  :)
If this was your experience, then I am not surprised that you are Eastern Orthodox. It sounds like the EO church is much more suited to your belief system.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Mickey on April 16, 2008, 12:57:44 PM
By both sides (i.e, Latin and Eastern Catholic) or just one?
Eastern Catholic clergy and laity. (I had not much contact with the Latins at this point.)

Besides, most Latin Catholics that I know think that the Eastern Catholic Church is the Orthodox Church.  :-\
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Papist on April 16, 2008, 01:02:59 PM
Eastern Catholic clergy and laity. (I had not much contact with the Latins at this point.)
Were you originally a Latin Catholic? If so, what made you change cannonical status?
Besides, most Latin Catholics that I know think that the Eastern Catholic Church is the Orthodox Church.  :-\
I am always shocked by this. I learned about Eastern Catholics when I was in high school, around sixteen years old.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Heracleides on April 16, 2008, 01:06:35 PM
Exactly!

I was an Eastern Catholic and was often told by clergy and laity alike that it is not mandatory to hold the same understandings on issues and doctrines as that of the Latin Church such as: Filoque, papal infallibility, IC, and purgatory, original sin, etc.

It caused a confusing dichotmy in my mind. I thought to myself: "These issues and doctrines are innovations of the post-schism Latin Church. As Eastern Catholics, why do we not come into union with Holy Orthodoxy."

I was strernly rebuked for such remarks.

I was consistently told to study Orthodoxy, to worship like the Orthodox, to hold Orthodox theological precepts and praxis, but do not be Orthodox---they are schismatics!!!

I was injured by the identity crisis in the Eastern Catholic Church and I was opposed to the innovations of Rome. So I made the only logical decision. I joined the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church---the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church!  :)

Mickey, I have followed your journey to Holy Orthodoxy on many fora and I simply want to chime in and say that we are all greatly blessed by your presence & witness.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Papist on April 16, 2008, 01:08:01 PM
Mickey, I have followed your journey to Holy Orthodoxy on many fora and I simply want to chime in and say that we are all greatly blessed by your presence.
I would like to add that although I lament the loss of Mickey in the Roman Catholic Church, he is one of the most charitable and loving Orthodox Christians that I have ever come across on line. I could learn alot form him and I think he is an alround great guy.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Mickey on April 16, 2008, 03:09:28 PM
Mickey, I have followed your journey to Holy Orthodoxy on many fora and I simply want to chime in and say that we are all greatly blessed by your presence & witness.
Thank you my brother in Christ. It has been a bumpy road--filled with abundant tears and glorious triumphs. I have been blessed by many of your posts. (and others)
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Mickey on April 16, 2008, 03:10:42 PM
Were you originally a Latin Catholic? If so, what made you change cannonical status?
One Divine Liturgy and I was hooked by the East! (my wife too)  ;D
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Mickey on April 16, 2008, 03:14:02 PM
I would like to add that although I lament the loss of Mickey in the Catholic Church, he is one of the most charitable and loving Orhtodox Christians that I have ever come across on line. I could learn alot form him and I think he is an alround great guy.
Thank you my brother in Christ. You are damaging my quest for humility!  :-[

We have had our differences in the past, but I am grateful that we have come to a place where we can converse amicably in all Christian charity.

Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Papist on April 16, 2008, 03:17:41 PM
One Divine Liturgy and I was hooked by the East! (my wife too)  ;D
I have to admitt that the Divine Liturgy had me hooked on my old Ruthenian Parish for a good year. There were many things about the Easte that I loved, but when all was said and done, I am a Thomist, through and through. But I certainly understand you attraction to such a beautiful Liturgy.  I actually prefer the Byzanite over the the Tridentine Rite.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Mickey on April 16, 2008, 03:58:01 PM
I have to admitt that the Divine Liturgy had me hooked on my old Ruthenian Parish for a good year. There were many things about the East that I loved, but when all was said and done, I am a Thomist, through and through. But I certainly understand your attraction to such a beautiful Liturgy.  I actually prefer the Byzanite over the the Tridentine Rite.
I have very fond memories of the old Latin Mass of my childhood. Even though I could not understand a lick of Latin, the Liturgy somehow spoke to my heart (like Church Slavonic does today). I was saddened when the Novus Ordo swept the country (but that is for another thread).

I am not a big fan of Aquinas. Thomism is not very appealing to me and the way he delivers his odd mixture of Aristotlean/Platonic philosophy hurts my head. Scholasticism is not my cup of tea. However, I must admit I am intrigued that he did not finish the Summa because he had a mystical experience. He claimed that all his writings were as straw. I wonder about this vision/experience. He died shortly thereafter. Could it have been the uncreated light? Perhaps he was moving toward Holy Orthodoxy!  ;)
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Papist on April 16, 2008, 04:10:58 PM
I have very fond memories of the old Latin Mass of my childhood. Even though I could not understand a lick of Latin, the Liturgy somehow spoke to my heart (like Church Slavonic does today). I was saddened when the Novus Ordo swept the country (but that is for another thread).
You are gonna laught at me but I actually prefer the NO over the Tridentine rite, as long as the NO is celebrated properly. My pastor celebrated the NO ad orientem for Easter Vigil.
I am not a big fan of Aquinas. Thomism is not very appealing to me and the way he delivers his odd mixture of Aristotlean/Platonic philosophy hurts my head. Scholasticism is not my cup of tea.

That's interesting. My biggest problem with Palamite theology is his odd mixture of Neo-Platonic philosophy, especially with regard to his distinction between essence and engergies.
However, I must admit I am intrigued that he did not finish the Summa because he had a mystical experience. He claimed that all his writings were as straw. I wonder about this vision/experience. He died shortly thereafter. Could it have been the uncreated light? Perhaps he was moving toward Holy Orthodoxy!  ;)
Goodness, I hope not!!!  ;) Most Catholics have understood his statement about his works being straw as a profession of humility. Even the Summa, as amazing as it is, is nothing compared to God himself. No theological work can even begin to touch on who and what God is. At best they use human language to describe the undescribeable. I think St. Thomas recognized this.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Peter J on April 16, 2008, 11:32:08 PM
Wow, Papist. Reading what you've posted in this thread today ... the civility, the reasonableness, the lack of ... well never mind.

If I didn't know better I'd think I was reading a thread from last year -- you know, before the "new and improve" Papist appeared on the scene.

Is it possible Classic Papist has just been hiding inside of you?
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: wynd on April 16, 2008, 11:34:36 PM
Wow, Papist. Reading what you've posted in this thread today ... the civility, the reasonableness, the lack of ... well never mind.

If I didn't know better I'd think I was reading a thread from last year -- you know, before the "new and improve" Papist appeared on the scene.

Is it possible Classic Papist has just been hiding inside of you?

Now that New Papist has been taken off the market, Papist Classic will be that much more appealing. A clever marketing ploy! :D
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: ozgeorge on April 17, 2008, 02:30:41 AM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6c/CokeII.jpg)

It's still full of rubbish- only sweeter.











Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Mickey on April 17, 2008, 01:06:04 PM
No theological work can even begin to touch on who and what God is.
Now you are sounding like a Palamist.  :laugh:
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Papist on April 17, 2008, 02:02:58 PM
Now you are sounding like a Palamist.  :laugh:
Hey. Not everything he said was that bad.  ;)
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: username! on April 17, 2008, 03:47:05 PM
I am not sure what you want me to say. I have already explained how the ECs misrepresent the Catholic faith.

You didn't complete your entire thoughts, you just ran a laundry list and didn't give a reason for the list.  A child can point out what he thinks is wrong and a man can back up and explain what he thinks is wrong.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Papist on April 17, 2008, 03:52:15 PM
You didn't complete your entire thoughts, you just ran a laundry list and didn't give a reason for the list.  A child can point out what he thinks is wrong and a man can back up and explain what he thinks is wrong.

All you asked was how I believe that the EC's misrepresent the Catholic Church. If you wanted more you should have asked for more. A real man asks the question he wants answered.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: username! on April 17, 2008, 05:17:16 PM
All you asked was how I believe that the EC's misrepresent the Catholic Church. If you wanted more you should have asked for more. A real man asks the question he wants answered.

Frankly I am sick and tired of your attitude towards the Orthodox and everyone here.  I asked you to explain your laundry list, my question was full to you.  You are the one who didn't answer it correctly.  If you have such issues with Orthodoxy and with not answering questions posed to you in full and resort to accusing others of malice, why stay here?  All you have done is place broad accusations against the moderators and staff here at oc.net and towards posters here.  A real man doesn't act like a 6 year old and blame everyone but himself when he is confronted with a question.  Please go to the Byzantine Catholic thread and find where I originally said use explanations and detail for the list you provided.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Peter J on April 17, 2008, 08:09:44 PM
In my own search for the Church, people have often suggested that I become an Eastern Catholic.  This would be a way for me to have the best of both worlds (the worlds being Catholicism and Orthodoxy).

I have a great deal of respect for Eastern Catholicism; nevertheless some of the "Eastern Catholicism is the best of both worlds" conversations that I've heard (and I've heard quite a few, BTW) seemed to me little simplistic. Would that mean that WRO is the worst of both worlds?
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: username! on April 18, 2008, 04:13:01 AM
True, although that cuts both ways.

-Peter.

You too can expand on your observations of Eastern Catholicism through the Latin perspective, any insight to actually make this thread adhere to its original meaning.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: The Iambic Pen on April 19, 2008, 04:21:25 PM
I was an Eastern Catholic and was often told by clergy and laity alike that it is not mandatory to hold the same understandings on issues and doctrines as that of the Latin Church such as: Filoque, papal infallibility, IC, and purgatory, original sin, etc.
Which, to me, says that these clergy and laity need to do the intellectually honest thing and either accept the teachings of Rome or become Orthodox.

Quote
It caused a confusing dichotmy in my mind.
Indeed it would.  It certainly confuses me.

Quote
So I made the only logical decision. I joined the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church---the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church!  :)
*verifies that this is the "Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion" forum, rather than "Faith Issues" or some other forum where the non-Orthodox must tread lightly  ;) *

Well, technically, you could have decided that the Latin innovations were legitimate developments (like maybe Hesychasm...) and fully embraced the fullness of Catholic (that is to say, the Church calling itself "Catholic" which holds to union with the pope, also known as the Bishop of Rome) teaching.  So, you had two choices.  Several centuries worth of brilliant men and women with a great love for God are in disagreement as to whether or not you made the right one (or were in disagreement; one imagines they know the truth of the matter now).
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Αριστοκλής on April 19, 2008, 06:45:38 PM
Which, to me, says that these clergy and laity need to do the intellectually honest thing and either accept the teachings of Rome or become Orthodox.
It might be a bit more than an intellectual imperative. Rome holds that they MUST ultimately adhere to Roman dogma.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Mickey on April 21, 2008, 01:23:33 PM
So, you had two choices. 
Ultimately, yes. There was a time when I thought there was a third choice--Eastern Catholicism. I used to tell people that the pre-schism Church looked like the Eastern Catholic Church---Eastern in union with Rome. But that came crashing down on me over time. I learned that the Eastern Catholic Church used to be Orthodox. I learned that the post schism innovated doctrines of Rome were not known to the undivided Church. I learned that the fullness of truth existed in the Holy Orthodox Church.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: The Iambic Pen on April 21, 2008, 03:34:03 PM
It might be a bit more than an intellectual imperative. Rome holds that they MUST ultimately adhere to Roman dogma.
Of course.  This is why it seems to me that they must either adhere to Roman dogma or become Orthodox.  Otherwise they are living with a rather significant contradiction.

Ultimately, yes. There was a time when I thought there was a third choice--Eastern Catholicism. I used to tell people that the pre-schism Church looked like the Eastern Catholic Church---Eastern in union with Rome. But that came crashing down on me over time. I learned that the Eastern Catholic Church used to be Orthodox. I learned that the post schism innovated doctrines of Rome were not known to the undivided Church. I learned that the fullness of truth existed in the Holy Orthodox Church.
Perhaps you are right about all of this...
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: username! on April 21, 2008, 05:45:23 PM
Ultimately, yes. There was a time when I thought there was a third choice--Eastern Catholicism. I used to tell people that the pre-schism Church looked like the Eastern Catholic Church---Eastern in union with Rome. But that came crashing down on me over time. I learned that the Eastern Catholic Church used to be Orthodox. I learned that the post schism innovated doctrines of Rome were not known to the undivided Church. I learned that the fullness of truth existed in the Holy Orthodox Church.

^post of the month nominee. 
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Peter J on April 27, 2008, 08:52:56 PM
Ultimately, yes. There was a time when I thought there was a third choice--Eastern Catholicism.

Hi Mickey,

I was wondering if you might elaborate on this any further.

I quite understand the part where you're saying that Orthodoxy is what you choose. What I'm not quite clear on is when you say that Latin Catholicism is a real choice, albeit one you reject, but Eastern Catholicism isn't a choice at all. Is that what you're saying, and if so can you help to understand it better?

Happy Pasha!
-Peter.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Mickey on May 01, 2008, 10:30:22 AM
Hi Mickey,

I was wondering if you might elaborate on this any further.

I quite understand the part where you're saying that Orthodoxy is what you choose. What I'm not quite clear on is when you say that Latin Catholicism is a real choice, albeit one you reject, but Eastern Catholicism isn't a choice at all. Is that what you're saying, and if so can you help to understand it better?
I am saying that the schism is painful and it is a tragedy. I am saying that the Latin Church and the Holy Orthodox Church have Apostolic roots. I am saying that I believe the Latin Church has veered from the Apostolic Traditions through innovations. I am saying that I believed (at one time) that the Eastern Catholic Church was a wonderful melding of the Latin and Holy Orthodox Church--perhaps mimicking the pre-schism ancient Church. I am saying that I now believe that the Eastern Catholic Church is simply subject, submissive and obedient to the Latin Church. I am saying that the true patrimony of the Eastern Catholic Church is...well...the Holy Orthodox Church! I am saying that I believe the Holy Orthodox Church is the Church of antiquity---the Church that Jesus Christ established at Pentacost--the 2000 year old Church of our Fathers.

Is that more clear, Peter?
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Ung-Certez on May 01, 2008, 10:40:05 AM
I am saying that the schism is painful and it is a tragedy. I am saying that the Latin Church and the Holy Orthodox Church have Apostolic roots. I am saying that I believe the Latin Church has veered from the Apostolic Traditions through innovations. I am saying that I believed (at one time) that the Eastern Catholic Church was a wonderful melding of the Latin and Holy Orthodox Church--perhaps mimicking the pre-schism ancient Church. I am saying that I now believe that the Eastern Catholic Church is simply subject, submissive and obedient to the Latin Church. I am saying that the the true patrimony of the Eastern Catholic Church is...well...the Holy Orthodox Church! I am saying that I believe the Holy Orthodox Church is the Church of antiquity---the Church that Jesus Christ established at Pentacost--the 2000 year old Church of our Fathers.

Is that more clear, Peter?

Mickey,

...well put!  As an Eastern Catholic, I concur 100%!

Christos Voskrese!  Voistinnu Voskrese!

Ung-Certez

Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Mickey on May 01, 2008, 10:45:27 AM
Mickey,

...well put!  As an Eastern Catholic, I concur 100%!

Christos Voskrese!  Voistinnu Voskrese!

Ung-Certez


Christos Voskrese!  Voistinnu Voskrese!

God bless you my friend!
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Peter J on May 01, 2008, 10:46:10 AM
Is that more clear, Peter?

Not entirely. Are you 'saying' that you consider Latin Catholicism an option, but you don't consider Eastern Catholicism an option? Or are you 'saying' that you used to consider Latin Catholicism and Eastern Catholicism as two different options, but now see them as the same option (so that by rejecting the one you automatically reject the other)?
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Peter J on May 01, 2008, 10:49:12 AM
Mickey,

...well put!  As an Eastern Catholic, I concur 100%!

Christos Voskrese!  Voistinnu Voskrese!

Ung-Certez

Now now (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/rolleyes005.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org) Ung-Certez, it's not nice to try to confuse me. ;) ;D
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Mickey on May 01, 2008, 10:49:41 AM
Not entirely. Are you 'saying' that you consider Latin Catholicism an option, but you don't consider Eastern Catholicism an option?
I am saying that the Eastern Catholic Church is a subset of the Latin Church and must adhere to all dogmas thereof.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Peter J on May 01, 2008, 11:20:09 AM
I am saying that the Eastern Catholic Church is a subset of the Latin Church and must adhere to all dogmas thereof.

No offense intended, but doesn't it seem slightly presumptuous of you to tell ECs what they must adhere to in order to be ECs?
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Ung-Certez on May 01, 2008, 11:29:39 AM
No offense intended, but doesn't it seem slightly presumptuous of you to tell ECs what they must adhere to in order to be ECs?

Ah, hello?  Every educated RC claims the same statement, that we must accept every RC dogma in order to exist within the Catholic Church.    I, personally don't believe this, but this is what is assumed by RC's when the subject of what do Eastern Catholics have to believe (dogmas) in to be truly Catholic comes up. I don't
remember reading any such statements for any of the Particular Eastern Churches that reunited with Rome.  Show me documents where it has been spelled out?

Christos Anesti!  Alithos Anesti!

U-C
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Peter J on May 01, 2008, 11:57:57 AM
But Mickey said "must adhere to", not "the pope says they must adhere to".

Perhaps the question I should be asking Mickey is whether, in his mind, the pope saying something necessarily means that it's true? (If so, I think he should consider becoming Catholic. :))

-Peter.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Peter J on May 01, 2008, 11:59:05 AM
(If so, I think he should consider becoming Catholic. :))

I mean ... again.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Mickey on May 01, 2008, 12:33:40 PM
No offense intended, but doesn't it seem slightly presumptuous of you to tell ECs what they must adhere to in order to be ECs?
I am not here to play word games Peter. And I am not interested in being in communion with Rome as I'm sure you are not interested in being in communion with Holy Orthodoxy (unless of course the schism is suddenly healed).  ;)

As an Eastern Catholic, I experienced a strange dichotomy. I was often told that we are in communion with Rome, but we have our own unique "Orthodox" understanding of certain teachings and doctrines. I was told that Eastern Catholics are "Orthodox in communion with Rome". I came to understand this to be a fallacy.

The Latin Church teaches that the Pope of Rome is the supreme pontiff and is infallible when teaching ex-cathedra. This leaves no room for alternate understandings in a Church (Eastern Catholic) who is submissive to Rome. It is very cut and dry. Since I am in disagreement with much of what Rome teaches,(Filioque, purgatory, IC, Infallibility, original sin, etc), I find it impossible to be in communion with Rome--whether Latin or any of the 23 sui juris Eastern Catholic Churches.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: ozgeorge on May 01, 2008, 12:42:53 PM
Your posts have got me thinking Mickey.
I wonder if some become Eastern Catholic believing that they will be fully accepted by both Roman Catholics and Orthodox, whereas the reality is that neither fully accepts them?
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Ung-Certez on May 01, 2008, 12:54:26 PM
Your posts have got me thinking Mickey.
I wonder if some become Eastern Catholic believing that they will be fully accepted by both Roman Catholics and Orthodox, whereas the reality is that neither fully accepts them?

...yes, we are like orphans living with our foster parents until the time we are reunited with our "biological" ecclesiastical parents! :angel:

Christos Voskres! Voistynu Voskres!

Ung
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: ozgeorge on May 01, 2008, 12:56:42 PM
...yes, we are like orphans living with our foster parents until the time we are reunited with our "biological" ecclesiastical parents! :angel:

That must feel terrible. I'm ashamed to admit that I've never thought of this before now.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Peter J on May 01, 2008, 01:04:49 PM
...yes, we are like orphans living with our foster parents until the time we are reunited with our "biological" ecclesiastical parents! :angel:

Christos Voskres! Voistynu Voskres!

Ung

I like that analogy.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Peter J on May 01, 2008, 01:05:22 PM
I am not here to play word games Peter.

Well that's a relief.

I was told that Eastern Catholics are "Orthodox in communion with Rome". I came to understand this to be a fallacy.

I myself have come to dislike the "Orthodox in communion with Rome" rhetoric -- or at least, much of the "Orthodox in communion with Rome" rhetoric. I think it's often used as a way to, putting it in the most polite terms, avoid listening to the Orthodox p.o.v.

Since I am in disagreement with much of what Rome teaches,(Filioque, purgatory, IC, Infallibility, original sin, etc), I find it impossible to be in communion with Rome--whether Latin or any of the 23 sui juris Eastern Catholic Churches.

If I believed the pope to be in heresy, then I certainly would not want to be in full communion with him. (Of course, I also wouldn't consider him to be pope.) But I sympathize with ECs who don't agree with him on everything, but also don't consider him to be in heresy. After all, weren't there Patriarchs of Constantinople in the first millennium who remained in full communion with the pope but didn't agree with everything he said?

Blessings,
Peter.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: lubeltri on May 01, 2008, 01:07:24 PM
...yes, we are like orphans living with our foster parents until the time we are reunited with our "biological" ecclesiastical parents! :angel:

(extending the analogy) Well, I'm glad we took you in when your biological parents left you.  ;)

And I admit that it has been only recently that we've begun to allow you to sit at the big dinner table. May this trend continue!
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: ozgeorge on May 01, 2008, 01:08:11 PM
After all, weren't there Patriarchs of Constantinople in the first millennium who remained in full communion with the pope but didn't agree with everything he said?
But they never claimed infallibility.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Mickey on May 01, 2008, 01:10:03 PM
Your posts have got me thinking Mickey.
I wonder if some become Eastern Catholic believing that they will be fully accepted by both Roman Catholics and Orthodox, whereas the reality is that neither fully accepts them?
Exactly! There was a time that I felt that I was part of the bridge that would heal the schism. Little did I know that the Eastern Catholics helped to widen the gap!  :o
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Ung-Certez on May 01, 2008, 01:13:22 PM
(extending the analogy) Well, I'm glad we took you in when your biological parents left you.  ;)

...we were orphaned during the time of the Great Spiritual and Theological Divorce 1054-till the present, and were taken by CYS and handed over to our foster parents until we can be reunited with our "Eccesiastical " parents when this settlement/reconcilliation is finished! ;)

Christos Anesti!  Alithos Anesti!

Ung
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Mickey on May 01, 2008, 01:13:46 PM
After all, weren't there Patriarchs of Constantinople in the first millennium who remained in full communion with the pope but didn't agree with everything he said?
Can you disagree with post schism Latin Catholic doctrine and remain in communion with Rome today?
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: ozgeorge on May 01, 2008, 01:23:05 PM
...we were orphaned during the time of the Great Spiritual and Theological Divorce 1054-till the present, and were taken by CYS and handed over to our foster parents until we can be reunited with our "Eccesiastical " parents when this settlement/reconcilliation is finished! ;)
What is "CYS"?
May I ask to which Eastern Catholic Church you belong? How was it left "orphaned" by the Great Schism?
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Entscheidungsproblem on May 01, 2008, 01:25:35 PM
What is "CYS"?

Child & Youth Services, I believe.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: ozgeorge on May 01, 2008, 01:28:14 PM
Child & Youth Services, I believe.
Ah! It's DOCS here in Australia- "Department of Community Services".
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Ung-Certez on May 01, 2008, 01:32:15 PM
What is "CYS"?
May I ask to which Eastern Catholic Church you belong? How was it left "orphaned" by the Great Schism?

Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic.  The East Slavic Church in the lands of the Polish and Hungarian Kingdoms became a coveted pawn in the East-West Schism.  While the people and the churches always believed they were under the Ecumenical Patriarchal mantle, the Polish and Hungarian Catholic rulers wanted a way to solve their "Schismatic" problems, and created the Unia.

Christ is Risen!  Indeed He is Risen!

Ung
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: ozgeorge on May 01, 2008, 01:44:31 PM
Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic.  The East Slavic Church in the lands of the Polish and Hungarian Kingdoms became a coveted pawn in the East-West Schism.  While the people and the churches always believed they were under the Ecumenical Patriarchal mantle, the Polish and Hungarian Catholic rulers wanted a way to solve their "Schisamatic" problems, and created the Unia.
Thank you for that.
I've done a bit of reading thanks to your keywords on this page: http://www.faswebdesign.com/ECPA/Byzantine/Ruthenian.html
Is this a fairly accurate history?
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Peter J on May 01, 2008, 03:26:45 PM
To be honest, I myself am trying to work out exactly how that works.

I think it's quite clear that the pope can excommunicate anyone who ... well, I don't want to say "anyone who disagrees with Latin theology", but at least anyone who disagrees with certain key points (e.g. that Mary was assumed into heaven).

But how much different is that from the early church? Technically, isn't it true that a pope (or indeed that any patriarch) back then could have excommunicated (or broken communion with) another patriarch for whatever reason?
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Mickey on May 01, 2008, 03:57:14 PM
To be honest, I myself am trying to work out exactly how that works.
Okay. Let's try another angle.

Were Popes in the undivided Church able to establish dogmas apart from a council?
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Peter J on May 01, 2008, 04:45:46 PM
This isn't "Twenty Questions".
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Peter J on May 01, 2008, 04:52:11 PM
Okay. Let's try another angle.

Were Popes in the undivided Church able to establish dogmas apart from a council?

If that's a question you're interested in, perhaps you should start a new thread for it.

God bless,
Peter.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Mickey on May 02, 2008, 08:22:04 AM
This isn't "Twenty Questions".
No. It is one question. You do not have to answer it--but there is no need to be testy.  :(
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Mickey on May 02, 2008, 08:22:36 AM
If that's a question you're interested in, perhaps you should start a new thread for it.
Perhaps I will.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: antiderivative on June 29, 2008, 04:59:53 PM
What exactly do Catholics have against St. Gregory Palamas' theology? Besides the fact that he's after the schism, do they disagree with hesychasm?
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Mardukm on July 08, 2008, 06:14:01 AM
Hello brother Mickey,

Okay. Let's try another angle.

Were Popes in the undivided Church able to establish dogmas apart from a council?

Could you please answer brother Peter's question? I mean, how is the Pope's ability to excommunicate different from any other bishop's ability to excommunicate?  I assume someone criticized this episcopal prerogative before for brother Peter to ask the question?

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. Yes, after many invitations from former CAF members, I've finally found the time to come here.  But I can't post much for the next two weeks.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Papist on July 08, 2008, 05:36:26 PM
What exactly do Catholics have against St. Gregory Palamas' theology? Besides the fact that he's after the schism, do they disagree with hesychasm?
Palamas' Theology is contrary to Catholic Thomistic theology which teaches that God is not composed, (as in essence and energies) but rather that God is simple. Further, Palamite theology is in contrast to the Catholic principle of the Beatific vision. While I do no hate Palamas and agree that he was a brilliant man, I don't believe that his theology is compatible with Catholic theology.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: antiderivative on September 26, 2008, 01:21:13 AM
Quote
When Eastern Catholics say that is ok to reject:
1) Purgatory
2) The Immaculate Conception
3) The Ecumenical Councils between the seventh and Vatican II
4) Original Sin
5) Papal Infallibility
6) The Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope
7) The procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son
etc.

Wait, how on earth are these people Catholic in any way? Isn't that like saying Western Rite Orthodox accepting all of the above? If they reject all that than what's the point?
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Αριστοκλής on September 26, 2008, 04:31:26 AM
Quote
When Eastern Catholics say that is ok to reject:
1) Purgatory
2) The Immaculate Conception
3) The Ecumenical Councils between the seventh and Vatican II
4) Original Sin
5) Papal Infallibility
6) The Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope
7) The procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son
etc.

Wait, how on earth are these people Catholic in any way? Isn't that like saying Western Rite Orthodox accepting all of the above? If they reject all that than what's the point?


A good question. In point of fact, they cannot reject any of the list above according to Rome, despite some (such as the Melkites') assertion that they can.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Alpo on September 26, 2008, 06:15:35 AM
I find quite confusing that some Eastern Catholics feel they can ignore "latin" dogmas just because they are Eastern Catholis. How common is this kind of belief among Eastern Catholics?
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: The young fogey on September 26, 2008, 09:13:06 AM
I find quite confusing that some Eastern Catholics feel they can ignore "latin" dogmas just because they are Eastern Catholics. How common is this kind of belief among Eastern Catholics?

You're right and to answer your question, not very many!

'We don't believe that; we're really Orthodox... in communion with Rome' is largely an Internet phenomenon you don't see in their parishes. A few people, usually not born Eastern Catholics, passing through on their way to Orthodoxy as was Fr Anastasios' experience.

Most Eastern Catholics are really Roman Catholics with a slightly different Mass, end of story. As somebody on another board said of his Ukrainian Catholic friends, they're fine with being called anything (Ukrainian Catholic, Byzantine Catholic, Greek Catholic, Uniate, Roman Catholic) but Russian Orthodox.

I wrote about this recently on still another board. (http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/298569/Re_Orthodox_Christian_in_Commu#Post298569)
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: ialmisry on September 26, 2008, 10:45:12 AM
To be honest, I myself am trying to work out exactly how that works.

I think it's quite clear that the pope can excommunicate anyone who ... well, I don't want to say "anyone who disagrees with Latin theology", but at least anyone who disagrees with certain key points (e.g. that Mary was assumed into heaven).

But how much different is that from the early church? Technically, isn't it true that a pope (or indeed that any patriarch) back then could have excommunicated (or broken communion with) another patriarch for whatever reason?

Yes, he could, but if it was for a dumb reason, he soon found himself out in the cold.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: ialmisry on September 26, 2008, 10:56:42 AM
Exactly!

I was an Eastern Catholic and was often told by clergy and laity alike that it is not mandatory to hold the same understandings on issues and doctrines as that of the Latin Church such as: Filoque, papal infallibility, IC, and purgatory, original sin, etc.

It caused a confusing dichotmy in my mind. I thought to myself: "These issues and doctrines are innovations of the post-schism Latin Church. As Eastern Catholics, why do we not come into union with Holy Orthodoxy."

I was strernly rebuked for such remarks.

I was consistently told to study Orthodoxy, to worship like the Orthodox, to hold Orthodox theological precepts and praxis, but do not be Orthodox---they are schismatics!!!

I was injured by the identity crisis in the Eastern Catholic Church and I was opposed to the innovations of Rome. So I made the only logical decision. I joined the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church---the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church!  :)

Mickey, I have followed your journey to Holy Orthodoxy on many fora and I simply want to chime in and say that we are all greatly blessed by your presence & witness.
Many years!
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: ialmisry on September 26, 2008, 11:13:44 AM
Child & Youth Services, I believe.
Ah! It's DOCS here in Australia- "Department of Community Services".

DCFS here: Department of Children and Family Services.  In the case at hand, I'm not sure it wasn't child abduction.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: ytterbiumanalyst on September 26, 2008, 05:36:10 PM
Child & Youth Services, I believe.
Ah! It's DOCS here in Australia- "Department of Community Services".
DCFS here: Department of Children and Family Services.  In the case at hand, I'm not sure it wasn't child abduction.
We call it DSS: Division of Social Services. Funny how the same thing can be called by many names.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Ivan Putovati on November 15, 2008, 06:35:25 PM
By both sides (i.e, Latin and Eastern Catholic) or just one?
Eastern Catholic clergy and laity. (I had not much contact with the Latins at this point.)

Besides, most Latin Catholics that I know think that the Eastern Catholic Church is the Orthodox Church.  :-\

----

Very common. Also, Latin-rite communicants of the Church of Rome are frequently flabbergasted to find that there are Christians from any other Church out there. They tend to see the world as Roman Catholic or Protestant.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Papist on November 15, 2008, 08:27:40 PM
By both sides (i.e, Latin and Eastern Catholic) or just one?
Eastern Catholic clergy and laity. (I had not much contact with the Latins at this point.)

Besides, most Latin Catholics that I know think that the Eastern Catholic Church is the Orthodox Church.  :-\

----

Very common. Also, Latin-rite communicants of the Church of Rome are frequently flabbergasted to find that there are Christians from any other Church out there. They tend to see the world as Roman Catholic or Protestant.
That's never been my experience and I have been a Latin Catholic all of my life.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: wynd on November 15, 2008, 11:15:50 PM
That's never been my experience and I have been a Latin Catholic all of my life.

Must be the circles we move in. This is typical the vast majority of the Latin Catholics I know.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Papist on November 16, 2008, 02:01:23 AM
That's never been my experience and I have been a Latin Catholic all of my life.

Must be the circles we move in. This is typical the vast majority of the Latin Catholics I know.
Agreed. There is definitely varying degrees of understanding amongst Catholics. One thing that binds most of my friends together is our understanding of the Catholic faith.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Peter J on June 30, 2011, 10:24:01 PM
Hi all. Excuse me for popping back into this thread after a 3-year absence. (It seems that I stopped participating on OC-net in the middle of 2008, because I was spending a lot of time on CAF.)

Your posts have got me thinking Mickey.
I wonder if some become Eastern Catholic believing that they will be fully accepted by both Roman Catholics and Orthodox, whereas the reality is that neither fully accepts them?
Exactly! There was a time that I felt that I was part of the bridge that would heal the schism. Little did I know that the Eastern Catholics helped to widen the gap!  :o

I think a better way to put it would be "Eastern Catholicism helped to widen the gap".
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Peter J on June 30, 2011, 10:25:12 PM
...yes, we are like orphans living with our foster parents until the time we are reunited with our "biological" ecclesiastical parents! :angel:

(extending the analogy) Well, I'm glad we took you in when your biological parents left you.  ;)

And I admit that it has been only recently that we've begun to allow you to sit at the big dinner table. May this trend continue!

In this analogy, what would "your biological parents left you" refer to exactly?
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: FrChris on June 30, 2011, 10:36:07 PM
...yes, we are like orphans living with our foster parents until the time we are reunited with our "biological" ecclesiastical parents! :angel:

(extending the analogy) Well, I'm glad we took you in when your biological parents left you.  ;)

And I admit that it has been only recently that we've begun to allow you to sit at the big dinner table. May this trend continue!

In this analogy, what would "your biological parents left you" refer to exactly?

If you were directing this towards Ung-Certez, he has not been here since March 22, 2010.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Peter J on July 01, 2011, 07:53:02 AM
...yes, we are like orphans living with our foster parents until the time we are reunited with our "biological" ecclesiastical parents! :angel:

(extending the analogy) Well, I'm glad we took you in when your biological parents left you.  ;)

And I admit that it has been only recently that we've begun to allow you to sit at the big dinner table. May this trend continue!

In this analogy, what would "your biological parents left you" refer to exactly?

If you were directing this towards Ung-Certez, he has not been here since March 22, 2010.

That's alright, actually, "when your biological parents left you" is from lubeltri's post.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: FrChris on July 01, 2011, 07:59:55 AM
...yes, we are like orphans living with our foster parents until the time we are reunited with our "biological" ecclesiastical parents! :angel:

(extending the analogy) Well, I'm glad we took you in when your biological parents left you.  ;)

And I admit that it has been only recently that we've begun to allow you to sit at the big dinner table. May this trend continue!

In this analogy, what would "your biological parents left you" refer to exactly?

If you were directing this towards Ung-Certez, he has not been here since March 22, 2010.

That's alright, actually, "when your biological parents left you" is from lubeltri's post.

Thank you for the clarification. I was unsure to whom your post was directed!
Title: About me (Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism)
Post by: Peter J on January 23, 2012, 09:58:07 AM
Hi all. I know this thread is about Papist, but with all due respect to him I would like to share a little about where I'm coming from. (So don't say I didn't warn you that I'm going to be talking about myself. ;))

Most of you probably don't know that I began attending a Melkite Catholic parish weekly back in 2002 – so 3,000 or so Divine Liturgies in total, I suppose. Often, in the last 10 years, I felt that I was close to joining the Melkite Church officially. Just several months ago I began to feel that perhaps it wasn't “just a matter of time” until I join officially – that is to say, I began to consider not joining, period.

For the record, I do not wish to provide a full explanation of my reasons for this decision, and nothing I say should be taken as such. (I want to emphasize this, because I'm certain that I will occasionally make statements which a casual observer could interpret as “I'm not becoming Eastern Catholic because of such-and-such.”) I have given some thought to what I could say by way of explanation, if I really tried, and I came to the conclusion that such an attempt could be not only futile but possibly harmful, due to the complexity of the different factors. Let me just say that the reasons are both intellectual and experiential.

On a related but slightly different note, during the last 10 years (or more) I have gradually come to realize that I no longer identify with neo-conservative Catholicism, nor can I support it. (My upbringing was definitely neo-conservative Catholic.) To make another long story short, I now feel that I have “arrived” somewhere – see my profile – that's neither where I started (neo-conservative Catholicism), nor where I thought I was heading for a long time (the Melkite Church).

So that's a little about me and my journey. If you're wondering why you should care … well, I don't really have an answer to that.  :-[ But at least I kept it short.  :)
Title: Re: About me (Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism)
Post by: ialmisry on January 23, 2012, 10:44:12 AM
Hi all. I know this thread is about Papist, but with all due respect to him I would like to share a little about where I'm coming from. (So don't say I didn't warn you that I'm going to be talking about myself. ;))

Most of you probably don't know that I began attending a Melkite Catholic parish weekly back in 2002 – so 3,000 or so Divine Liturgies in total, I suppose. Often, in the last 10 years, I felt that I was close to joining the Melkite Church officially. Just several months ago I began to feel that perhaps it wasn't “just a matter of time” until I join officially – that is to say, I began to consider not joining, period.

For the record, I do not wish to provide a full explanation of my reasons for this decision, and nothing I say should be taken as such. (I want to emphasize this, because I'm certain that I will occasionally make statements which a casual observer could interpret as “I'm not becoming Eastern Catholic because of such-and-such.”) I have given some thought to what I could say by way of explanation, if I really tried, and I came to the conclusion that such an attempt could be not only futile but possibly harmful, due to the complexity of the different factors. Let me just say that the reasons are both intellectual and experiential.

On a related but slightly different note, during the last 10 years (or more) I have gradually come to realize that I no longer identify with neo-conservative Catholicism, nor can I support it. (My upbringing was definitely neo-conservative Catholic.) To make another long story short, I now feel that I have “arrived” somewhere – see my profile – that's neither where I started (neo-conservative Catholicism), nor where I thought I was heading for a long time (the Melkite Church).

So that's a little about me and my journey. If you're wondering why you should care … well, I don't really have an answer to that.  :-[ But at least I kept it short.  :)

and vaguge-what's a "High Church"?
Title: Re: About me (Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism)
Post by: Wyatt on January 23, 2012, 11:34:06 AM
Hi all. I know this thread is about Papist, but with all due respect to him I would like to share a little about where I'm coming from. (So don't say I didn't warn you that I'm going to be talking about myself. ;))

Most of you probably don't know that I began attending a Melkite Catholic parish weekly back in 2002 – so 3,000 or so Divine Liturgies in total, I suppose. Often, in the last 10 years, I felt that I was close to joining the Melkite Church officially. Just several months ago I began to feel that perhaps it wasn't “just a matter of time” until I join officially – that is to say, I began to consider not joining, period.

For the record, I do not wish to provide a full explanation of my reasons for this decision, and nothing I say should be taken as such. (I want to emphasize this, because I'm certain that I will occasionally make statements which a casual observer could interpret as “I'm not becoming Eastern Catholic because of such-and-such.”) I have given some thought to what I could say by way of explanation, if I really tried, and I came to the conclusion that such an attempt could be not only futile but possibly harmful, due to the complexity of the different factors. Let me just say that the reasons are both intellectual and experiential.

On a related but slightly different note, during the last 10 years (or more) I have gradually come to realize that I no longer identify with neo-conservative Catholicism, nor can I support it. (My upbringing was definitely neo-conservative Catholic.) To make another long story short, I now feel that I have “arrived” somewhere – see my profile – that's neither where I started (neo-conservative Catholicism), nor where I thought I was heading for a long time (the Melkite Church).

So that's a little about me and my journey. If you're wondering why you should care … well, I don't really have an answer to that.  :-[ But at least I kept it short.  :)

and vaguge-what's a "High Church"?
I believe he's gone Anglican.
Title: Re: About me (Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism)
Post by: Peter J on January 23, 2012, 12:14:17 PM
and vaguge-what's a "High Church"?

The adjective “High Church” is not very specific. That's actually one of the reasons I chose it.

My thinking is somewhat Anglo-Catholic, but also somewhat High Church Lutheran, somewhat Anglo-Orthodox, and somewhat Anglo-Papalist, and “High Church” includes all of those. (I also like the fact that it doesn't specify with whom I am in full communion.)

Thanks for asking. :)
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: mike on January 23, 2012, 12:20:53 PM
and vaguge-what's a "High Church"?

The adjective “High Church” is not very specific. That's actually one of the reasons I chose it.

My thinking is somewhat Anglo-Catholic, but also somewhat High Church Lutheran, somewhat Anglo-Orthodox, and somewhat Anglo-Papalist, and “High Church” includes all of those. (I also like the fact that it doesn't specify with whom I am in full communion.)

Thanks for asking. :)


So hipster.
Title: Re: About me (Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism)
Post by: primuspilus on January 23, 2012, 02:26:54 PM
and vaguge-what's a "High Church"?

The adjective “High Church” is not very specific. That's actually one of the reasons I chose it.

My thinking is somewhat Anglo-Catholic, but also somewhat High Church Lutheran, somewhat Anglo-Orthodox, and somewhat Anglo-Papalist, and “High Church” includes all of those. (I also like the fact that it doesn't specify with whom I am in full communion.)

Thanks for asking. :)
So the tag line under your posts are a lie? Concervative Roman Catholic?

PP
Title: Re: About me (Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism)
Post by: Peter J on January 23, 2012, 03:29:42 PM
So the tag line under your posts are a lie?

Not at all. Perhaps you misread or misunderstood the symbol
Quote
<>
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Peter J on January 23, 2012, 03:32:54 PM
P.S. Is that better?
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: primuspilus on January 23, 2012, 03:34:32 PM
P.S. Is that better?
Ah, better. I wasnt trying to nit-pick, just confused thats all.

PP
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Peter J on January 23, 2012, 04:17:20 PM
P.S. Is that better?
Ah, better. I wasnt trying to nit-pick, just confused thats all.

PP

Oh no problem. I don't think you were nit-picking either; it's just that I was using in a "math nerd" or "computer geek" language that you cool people might not understand.  8)
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: primuspilus on January 23, 2012, 04:18:42 PM
P.S. Is that better?
Ah, better. I wasnt trying to nit-pick, just confused thats all.

PP

Oh no problem. I don't think you were nit-picking either; it's just that I was using in a "math nerd" or "computer geek" language that you cool people might not understand.  8)

It has been proven on here that I am not up on the nifty math thingys.

PP
Title: Re: About me (Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism)
Post by: Cavaradossi on January 23, 2012, 05:44:22 PM
and vaguge-what's a "High Church"?

The adjective “High Church” is not very specific. That's actually one of the reasons I chose it.

My thinking is somewhat Anglo-Catholic, but also somewhat High Church Lutheran, somewhat Anglo-Orthodox, and somewhat Anglo-Papalist, and “High Church” includes all of those. (I also like the fact that it doesn't specify with whom I am in full communion.)

Thanks for asking. :)

If I may ask, how do you define neoconservative Catholics? Is there a distinction between neoconservative and traditionalist Catholics?
Title: Re: About me (Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism)
Post by: Peter J on January 23, 2012, 06:17:06 PM
If I may ask, how do you define neoconservative Catholics?

Peter W. Miller calls them "'conservative' Catholics". Here's his definition:

Quote
As the heretics of yesterday have become the liberals of today, the liberals of yesterday now lay claim to the title "conservative". Consequentially the conservatives came to be known as "traditionalists". Unfortunately, these terms are no longer completely accurate descriptions. So for the purposes of this essay, I will use the following general definitions to delineate the differences between traditionalists and "conservatives":

TRADITIONALIST: One who challenges the novel practices and teachings of Catholics (including bishops and priests) which appear to contradict the prior teaching of the Church. A traditionalist questions the prudence of new pastoral approaches and holds the belief that those things generally deemed objectively good or evil several decades ago remain so today.

"CONSERVATIVE": One who upholds and defends the current policies and positions of the Church hierarchy regardless of their novelty. A "conservative" extends the definitions of "infallibility" and "Magisterium" to include most every action and speech of the Pope and those Cardinals around him, but may exclude those Cardinals and bishops outside of Rome. A "conservative's" opinion is also subject to change depending on the current actions of the Holy Father. "Conservative" will be used it in quotation marks to avoid the misleading connotation of being diametrically opposed to liberalism or on the far right of the spectrum. Also since there only exists a desire to "conserve" only those traditions and practices of the past deemed appropriate at any given time by the present Pope. The quotation marks will also ensure a proper dissociation between the actual conservatives active prior to and during Vatican II (Ottaviani, Lefebvre, Fenton, etc.).

Both traditionalists and "conservatives" acknowledge the existence of problems in the Church but disagree as to their nature, extent, causes and remedies.

"Conservatives" see it as an "illness" — an incidental problem like a gangrene limb. In the English-speaking world, this problem may be limited to the actions of certain American bishops. "Conservatives" see the novelties of Vatican II and the New Mass as natural and acceptable developments in the course of the Church, but take issue with those seeking to expand upon those novelties, or take them to their next logical progression. They see the crisis in the Church as a societal issue that would have happened regardless of what actions the Church leadership had taken. Their solution is to return to Vatican II and embark on another attempt to "renew" the Church.

Traditionalists see the illness as a widespread cancer affecting the whole body put most particularly and critically the heart. They question the prudence of making significant changes in the Mass and the Church's pastoral orientation. They attribute the destruction to liberal and Modernist ideals given a certain degree of acceptability once the Church decided to stop fighting them with extreme vigilance. They see the Church leadership as sharing in the responsibility for the crisis due to its governance (or lack thereof). Their solution is not another attempt at a reform that may be "more in line with the 'spirit' of Vatican II" (shudder), but a return to the practices and beliefs of the Church that sustained it for hundreds of years prior.

- A Brief Defense of Traditionalism
Peter W. Miller
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Peter J on January 23, 2012, 06:22:30 PM
Is there a distinction between neoconservative and traditionalist Catholics?

Surely you're not serious?

Is there a distinction between denim and french fries?

Actually though, you're in good company. Just in the process of looking for that passage I just quoted, I happened across posts from 2 different posters (ialmisry and Jetavan) asking a similar question as you.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: dzheremi on January 23, 2012, 06:27:39 PM
Hmm. Looking at all those words makes me so glad I no longer have to bother. In the Coptic church, the fight against "modernism" in the church means arguing over the pronunciation of a language that no one has spoken natively in about 600 years. ;)
Title: Re: About me (Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism)
Post by: Peter J on March 04, 2012, 09:33:26 PM
and vaguge-what's a "High Church"?

The adjective “High Church” is not very specific. That's actually one of the reasons I chose it.

My thinking is somewhat Anglo-Catholic, but also somewhat High Church Lutheran, somewhat Anglo-Orthodox, and somewhat Anglo-Papalist, and “High Church” includes all of those. (I also like the fact that it doesn't specify with whom I am in full communion.)

Thanks for asking. :)

Addendum: A few weeks ago I started using the descriptor "High Church" to explain where I am religiously. Not long after that, I began to think that I should perhaps be a little more specific, to avoid misunderstandings.

This line of thought led me, especially, to one particular question: am I still a Catholic, or am I now an Anglican? (I don't want to get into a lengthy explanation of what Anglican means; but for the sake of interpreting the preceding sentence, suffice it to say that for me "Anglican" includes not only the Anglican Communion, but the Continuing Anglicans as well.) I pondered this question for some weeks, and in the end the answer seemed quite clear: I am a Catholic. I do have a great liking for Anglicanism, at least as understood by the Continuing Anglicans, but it isn't who I am.

Having said all that, I want to set the record straight for anyone who may be wondering if I'm SSPX. I'm not. I definitely believe that the SSPX is and has always been Catholic, and I definitely think that studying them has been very helpful to me as a Catholic, but I'm not SSPX myself.

Thanks for reading.  :)
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: erimos on March 08, 2013, 07:42:31 PM
Serious as the Pope on Pascha, I want to know what you're thinking.  I'm not baiting, I am being serious.

When Eastern Catholics do the say that is ok to reject:
1) Purgatory
2) The Immaculate Conception
3) The Ecumenical Councils between the seventh and Vatican II
4) Original Sin
5) Papal Infallibility
6) The Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope
7) The procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son
etc.
When they reject these and then state that its ok with the Church to do so, they are misrepresenting Catholicism to the world.

From this i read Papist saying that ECatholics are not Orthodox and they should stop pretending to represent the Church in Rome, which they are part of. Is that correct Papist?
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Papist on March 08, 2013, 07:46:42 PM
Serious as the Pope on Pascha, I want to know what you're thinking.  I'm not baiting, I am being serious.

When Eastern Catholics do the say that is ok to reject:
1) Purgatory
2) The Immaculate Conception
3) The Ecumenical Councils between the seventh and Vatican II
4) Original Sin
5) Papal Infallibility
6) The Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope
7) The procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son
etc.
When they reject these and then state that its ok with the Church to do so, they are misrepresenting Catholicism to the world.

From this i read Papist saying that ECatholics are not Orthodox and they should stop pretending to represent the Church in Rome, which they are part of. Is that correct Papist?
You realize that I wrote this in 2008, right? My views on Eastern Catholics may have changed a bit since then.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Maria on March 08, 2013, 07:57:11 PM
Serious as the Pope on Pascha, I want to know what you're thinking.  I'm not baiting, I am being serious.

When Eastern Catholics do the say that is ok to reject:
1) Purgatory
2) The Immaculate Conception
3) The Ecumenical Councils between the seventh and Vatican II
4) Original Sin
5) Papal Infallibility
6) The Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope
7) The procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son
etc.
When they reject these and then state that its ok with the Church to do so, they are misrepresenting Catholicism to the world.

From this i read Papist saying that ECatholics are not Orthodox and they should stop pretending to represent the Church in Rome, which they are part of. Is that correct Papist?
You realize that I wrote this in 2008, right? My views on Eastern Catholics may have changed a bit since then.

Good to hear from you.

To be fair, I think we all grow and increase in wisdom. If we are not struggling to be good, well, we are in decline, and that would be awful.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Papist on March 08, 2013, 07:59:39 PM
Serious as the Pope on Pascha, I want to know what you're thinking.  I'm not baiting, I am being serious.

When Eastern Catholics do the say that is ok to reject:
1) Purgatory
2) The Immaculate Conception
3) The Ecumenical Councils between the seventh and Vatican II
4) Original Sin
5) Papal Infallibility
6) The Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope
7) The procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son
etc.
When they reject these and then state that its ok with the Church to do so, they are misrepresenting Catholicism to the world.

From this i read Papist saying that ECatholics are not Orthodox and they should stop pretending to represent the Church in Rome, which they are part of. Is that correct Papist?
You realize that I wrote this in 2008, right? My views on Eastern Catholics may have changed a bit since then.

Good to hear from you.

To be fair, I think we all grow and increase in wisdom. If we are not struggling to be good, well, we are in decline, and that would be awful.
Good to hear from you too. :)
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Peter J on March 08, 2013, 08:44:56 PM
Serious as the Pope on Pascha, I want to know what you're thinking.  I'm not baiting, I am being serious.

When Eastern Catholics do the say that is ok to reject:
1) Purgatory
2) The Immaculate Conception
3) The Ecumenical Councils between the seventh and Vatican II
4) Original Sin
5) Papal Infallibility
6) The Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope
7) The procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son
etc.
When they reject these and then state that its ok with the Church to do so, they are misrepresenting Catholicism to the world.

From this i read Papist saying that ECatholics are not Orthodox and they should stop pretending to represent the Church in Rome, which they are part of. Is that correct Papist?

I'm not going to try to say what Papist meant almost 5 years ago, but here's a thought that might help: it isn't too easy being Eastern Catholic, because on the one hand we've got Rome saying "You should believe such-and-such", but we also get "You're not a real Eastern Christian unless you agree with such-and-such" from the Orthodox.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: erimos on March 08, 2013, 08:49:36 PM
Serious as the Pope on Pascha, I want to know what you're thinking.  I'm not baiting, I am being serious.

When Eastern Catholics do the say that is ok to reject:
1) Purgatory
2) The Immaculate Conception
3) The Ecumenical Councils between the seventh and Vatican II
4) Original Sin
5) Papal Infallibility
6) The Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope
7) The procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son
etc.
When they reject these and then state that its ok with the Church to do so, they are misrepresenting Catholicism to the world.

From this i read Papist saying that ECatholics are not Orthodox and they should stop pretending to represent the Church in Rome, which they are part of. Is that correct Papist?
You realize that I wrote this in 2008, right? My views on Eastern Catholics may have changed a bit since then.

That is interesting; the implication is either Papist is becoming Orthodox-like or he is inconsistent with his views.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Papist on March 08, 2013, 09:19:27 PM
Serious as the Pope on Pascha, I want to know what you're thinking.  I'm not baiting, I am being serious.

When Eastern Catholics do the say that is ok to reject:
1) Purgatory
2) The Immaculate Conception
3) The Ecumenical Councils between the seventh and Vatican II
4) Original Sin
5) Papal Infallibility
6) The Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope
7) The procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son
etc.
When they reject these and then state that its ok with the Church to do so, they are misrepresenting Catholicism to the world.

From this i read Papist saying that ECatholics are not Orthodox and they should stop pretending to represent the Church in Rome, which they are part of. Is that correct Papist?
You realize that I wrote this in 2008, right? My views on Eastern Catholics may have changed a bit since then.

That is interesting; the implication is either Papist is becoming Orthodox-like or he is inconsistent with his views.
Or maybe I realize that the historical, theological, and ecclesial experience of Eastern Catholics is more complex than some would like to realize. We all have to work out our salvation with fear and trembling, and I am certainly not in any place to judge the faith experience of my Eastern Catholuc brothers and sisters. Do I think every Catholic should profess every Catholic doctrine? Absolutely! But I'm not going to tell many the many Eastern Catholics who are much holier than me how to practice the faith. That is between them, their Bishop, and God.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Eastern Mind on March 08, 2013, 09:32:35 PM
Maronites believe in all that. Of course, they have become more Latinized as time has gone on (not saying that's a bad thing, even Maronites admit to that). When I was Catholic I looked into Maronite Catholicism for a bit.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Peter J on March 08, 2013, 09:36:10 PM
Serious as the Pope on Pascha, I want to know what you're thinking.  I'm not baiting, I am being serious.

When Eastern Catholics do the say that is ok to reject:
1) Purgatory
2) The Immaculate Conception
3) The Ecumenical Councils between the seventh and Vatican II
4) Original Sin
5) Papal Infallibility
6) The Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope
7) The procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son
etc.
When they reject these and then state that its ok with the Church to do so, they are misrepresenting Catholicism to the world.

From this i read Papist saying that ECatholics are not Orthodox and they should stop pretending to represent the Church in Rome, which they are part of. Is that correct Papist?
You realize that I wrote this in 2008, right? My views on Eastern Catholics may have changed a bit since then.

That is interesting; the implication is either Papist is becoming Orthodox-like or he is inconsistent with his views.
Or maybe I realize that the historical, theological, and ecclesial experience of Eastern Catholics is more complex than some would like to realize. We all have to work out our salvation with fear and trembling, and I am certainly not in any place to judge the faith experience of my Eastern Catholuc brothers and sisters. Do I think every Catholic should profess every Catholic doctrine? Absolutely! But I'm not going to tell many the many Eastern Catholics who are much holier than me how to practice the faith. That is between them, their Bishop, and God.

:thumbsup:

I've commented before that if I were Orthodox, I wouldn't switch to Catholicism. But that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm going to convert to Orthodoxy.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: erimos on March 08, 2013, 11:03:19 PM
That is interesting; the implication is either Papist is becoming Orthodox-like or he is inconsistent with his views.
[/quote]
Or maybe I realize that the historical, theological, and ecclesial experience of Eastern Catholics is more complex than some would like to realize. We all have to work out our salvation with fear and trembling, and I am certainly not in any place to judge the faith experience of my Eastern Catholuc brothers and sisters. Do I think every Catholic should profess every Catholic doctrine? Absolutely! But I'm not going to tell many the many Eastern Catholics who are much holier than me how to practice the faith. That is between them, their Bishop, and God.
[/quote]

That is benevolent of you. Do you concede the same for Orthodox Christians?
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Papist on March 09, 2013, 01:33:27 PM
That is interesting; the implication is either Papist is becoming Orthodox-like or he is inconsistent with his views.
Or maybe I realize that the historical, theological, and ecclesial experience of Eastern Catholics is more complex than some would like to realize. We all have to work out our salvation with fear and trembling, and I am certainly not in any place to judge the faith experience of my Eastern Catholuc brothers and sisters. Do I think every Catholic should profess every Catholic doctrine? Absolutely! But I'm not going to tell many the many Eastern Catholics who are much holier than me how to practice the faith. That is between them, their Bishop, and God.
[/quote]

That is benevolent of you. Do you concede the same for Orthodox Christians?
[/quote] Do you mean that I believe that all Orthodox Christians should profess what Catholics do, then the answer is also yes. Do mean that understand that the schism is a very complicated matter and I should not judge the spiritual lives of the very many very holy EOs and OOs? Again that is correct. Do I think that there are real differences between Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians? Yes! Do I Think that some people exaggerate those differences for the sake of picking fights? Yes to that as well.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: mike on March 24, 2013, 11:17:51 AM
Discussion between members of different Catholic jurisdictions was split. You can follow it there (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,50684.0.html).
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: frjohnmorris on December 17, 2013, 03:41:34 PM
So, do Western and Eastern Catholics disagree on matters of doctrine?  In my own search for the Church, people have often suggested that I become an Eastern Catholic.  This would be a way for me to have the best of both worlds (the worlds being Catholicism and Orthodoxy).  However, the impression I have been getting is that many Eastern Catholics do not accept doctrines which are required belief in the Catholic Church.  It seems that many Eastern Catholics say to themselves, "We will acknowledge the existence of papal authority, but we will not accept any commands from this authority that are not in accord with our own Eastern tradition."  Others seem to simply pretend that these theological differences do not exist.
The problem is very complicated. If you ask people like Todd, they will outright deny essential Catholic dogmas what that are de fide statements. For example: Papal infallibility, Universial Jurisidiction, the Councils after number seven, etc. Others will accept the entirety of the Catholic faith but simply look at it from an Eastern perspective. Melikites tend to be for the former type. Most Ruthenians that I have met in person tend to be of the latter.
I have absolutely no problem with Eastern Catholics having different practices about clerical celibacy, offering the Eucharist to infants, using leavened bread, using a different liturgy, following different fasting guidelines, or having various other different disciplinary practices.  What troubles me is that there are teachings which are binding upon Catholics that many Eastern Catholics seem to either ignore or oppose.
Which is exactly the problem that I have with the current state of Eastern Catholicism. While there are many good, faithful, and saintly Eastern Catholics, there are those who took the Church's call to de-latinize as permission to abandon the Catholic faith while maintaining the name "Catholic".
Eastern Catholics should be able to be both Catholic and Eastern.  However, when an apparent conflict occurs, which is more important, to be Catholic or to be Eastern?  St. Alexis chose Eastern.  The various Eastern Catholic posters who come here and complain to the Orthodox that the Western Catholics do not appreciate or understand them seem very close to making the same choice.
This seems to echo my thoughts exactly. I cannot even begin to sympathize with a person who claims to be Catholic yet rejects the Catholic faith simply in order to be "Eastern". I don't think being an Eastern Catholic requires that one reject the faith of the Church. But some do.
I am trying to be very diplomatic and courteous about it, but perhaps I see some of the same difficulties with Eastern Catholicism that Papist does.
I probably come off as very harsh because of my zeal for the truth of the Catholic faith, but I just believe it to be gravely immoral to call oneself Catholic and then reject the truths of the Church. In this day of reletivism the Church must speak with one voice, the voice she has always spoken with. Eastern Catholics need to remember the words of St. Iraneaus who says, "With this Church [Rome] all churches must agree...becuase her superior origin."

If the Eastern Catholics are absolutely correct in every doctrine and teaching, including those which are in opposition to that taught by Rome, why not just be Orthodox?  Would it not be better to be in communion with those also holding to the true faith, rather than be in communion with those holding to western heresies?  If one can hold to the Orthodox faith and be in communion with Rome, what is everyone arguing about, and why has reunion not already occured?
Both excellent question that I have been asking for the last few years. To the first one, I have never been given a sufficient answer. To the second, the EOs believe that Catholics are heretics and schismatics. Which, of course, is what traditional Latin Catholics like myself believe about the EOs (which I do not mean as an insult. I am just illustrating what the traditional Latin Catholic view is).
I'm not making a judgment in this post about whether or not the Orthodox Church or the Catholic Church is the true Church.  I haven't made up my mind about that yet.  I am simply remarking that I observe a contradiction between the beliefs of Eastern and Western Catholics, and I am wondering how this can be.
Many of us wonder about the same thing. Apostolic Christianity is simply a mess right now.

As an Eastern Orthodox Priest, I object when Eastern Catholics call themselves "Orthodox in Communion with Rome." To Eastern Orthodox if you are in Communion with a Bishop, you share a common doctrine with that Bishop. Since there are important doctrinal differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, from an Eastern Orthodox point of view a Bishop in Communion  with Rome believes the same doctrine that Rome teaches, not what Eastern Orthodox believe. Therefore you cannot be Orthodox in Communion with Rome. If you are Orthodox, you must be in Communion with the Orthodox Church.

Fr. John W. Morris
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: ialmisry on December 17, 2013, 04:02:12 PM
So, do Western and Eastern Catholics disagree on matters of doctrine?  In my own search for the Church, people have often suggested that I become an Eastern Catholic.  This would be a way for me to have the best of both worlds (the worlds being Catholicism and Orthodoxy).  However, the impression I have been getting is that many Eastern Catholics do not accept doctrines which are required belief in the Catholic Church.  It seems that many Eastern Catholics say to themselves, "We will acknowledge the existence of papal authority, but we will not accept any commands from this authority that are not in accord with our own Eastern tradition."  Others seem to simply pretend that these theological differences do not exist.
The problem is very complicated. If you ask people like Todd, they will outright deny essential Catholic dogmas what that are de fide statements. For example: Papal infallibility, Universial Jurisidiction, the Councils after number seven, etc. Others will accept the entirety of the Catholic faith but simply look at it from an Eastern perspective. Melikites tend to be for the former type. Most Ruthenians that I have met in person tend to be of the latter.
I have absolutely no problem with Eastern Catholics having different practices about clerical celibacy, offering the Eucharist to infants, using leavened bread, using a different liturgy, following different fasting guidelines, or having various other different disciplinary practices.  What troubles me is that there are teachings which are binding upon Catholics that many Eastern Catholics seem to either ignore or oppose.
Which is exactly the problem that I have with the current state of Eastern Catholicism. While there are many good, faithful, and saintly Eastern Catholics, there are those who took the Church's call to de-latinize as permission to abandon the Catholic faith while maintaining the name "Catholic".
Eastern Catholics should be able to be both Catholic and Eastern.  However, when an apparent conflict occurs, which is more important, to be Catholic or to be Eastern?  St. Alexis chose Eastern.  The various Eastern Catholic posters who come here and complain to the Orthodox that the Western Catholics do not appreciate or understand them seem very close to making the same choice.
This seems to echo my thoughts exactly. I cannot even begin to sympathize with a person who claims to be Catholic yet rejects the Catholic faith simply in order to be "Eastern". I don't think being an Eastern Catholic requires that one reject the faith of the Church. But some do.
I am trying to be very diplomatic and courteous about it, but perhaps I see some of the same difficulties with Eastern Catholicism that Papist does.
I probably come off as very harsh because of my zeal for the truth of the Catholic faith, but I just believe it to be gravely immoral to call oneself Catholic and then reject the truths of the Church. In this day of reletivism the Church must speak with one voice, the voice she has always spoken with. Eastern Catholics need to remember the words of St. Iraneaus who says, "With this Church [Rome] all churches must agree...becuase her superior origin."

If the Eastern Catholics are absolutely correct in every doctrine and teaching, including those which are in opposition to that taught by Rome, why not just be Orthodox?  Would it not be better to be in communion with those also holding to the true faith, rather than be in communion with those holding to western heresies?  If one can hold to the Orthodox faith and be in communion with Rome, what is everyone arguing about, and why has reunion not already occured?
Both excellent question that I have been asking for the last few years. To the first one, I have never been given a sufficient answer. To the second, the EOs believe that Catholics are heretics and schismatics. Which, of course, is what traditional Latin Catholics like myself believe about the EOs (which I do not mean as an insult. I am just illustrating what the traditional Latin Catholic view is).
I'm not making a judgment in this post about whether or not the Orthodox Church or the Catholic Church is the true Church.  I haven't made up my mind about that yet.  I am simply remarking that I observe a contradiction between the beliefs of Eastern and Western Catholics, and I am wondering how this can be.
Many of us wonder about the same thing. Apostolic Christianity is simply a mess right now.

As an Eastern Orthodox Priest, I object when Eastern Catholics call themselves "Orthodox in Communion with Rome." To Eastern Orthodox if you are in Communion with a Bishop, you share a common doctrine with that Bishop. Since there are important doctrinal differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, from an Eastern Orthodox point of view a Bishop in Communion  with Rome believes the same doctrine that Rome teaches, not what Eastern Orthodox believe. Therefore you cannot be Orthodox in Communion with Rome. If you are Orthodox, you must be in Communion with the Orthodox Church.

Fr. John W. Morris
I am
(http://www.mitropolia.eu/uploads/image/episcopul-siluan/preasfintitul-siluan-02_300x525px.jpg)
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Alpo on December 17, 2013, 04:41:16 PM
This topic is awesome now that Papist has gone Greek.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Papist on December 17, 2013, 07:29:37 PM
Ha! I was gonna say this topic is hilrious.  :D
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Peter J on December 17, 2013, 09:40:35 PM
As an Eastern Orthodox Priest, I object when Eastern Catholics call themselves "Orthodox in Communion with Rome." To Eastern Orthodox if you are in Communion with a Bishop, you share a common doctrine with that Bishop. Since there are important doctrinal differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, from an Eastern Orthodox point of view a Bishop in Communion  with Rome believes the same doctrine that Rome teaches, not what Eastern Orthodox believe. Therefore you cannot be Orthodox in Communion with Rome. If you are Orthodox, you must be in Communion with the Orthodox Church.

Fr. John W. Morris

Quite frankly, I would have stopped using the phrase "Orthodox in communion with Rome" a long time ago, if it weren't for the fact that the Melkite patriarch uses it.

P.S. To the old, old question you quoted from Iambic Pen,

"If the Eastern Catholics are absolutely correct in every doctrine and teaching, including those which are in opposition to that taught by Rome, why not just be Orthodox?  Would it not be better to be in communion with those also holding to the true faith, rather than be in communion with those holding to western heresies?"

I would answer that I don't believe Rome to be in heresy.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Papist on December 17, 2013, 10:35:22 PM
As an Eastern Orthodox Priest, I object when Eastern Catholics call themselves "Orthodox in Communion with Rome." To Eastern Orthodox if you are in Communion with a Bishop, you share a common doctrine with that Bishop. Since there are important doctrinal differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, from an Eastern Orthodox point of view a Bishop in Communion  with Rome believes the same doctrine that Rome teaches, not what Eastern Orthodox believe. Therefore you cannot be Orthodox in Communion with Rome. If you are Orthodox, you must be in Communion with the Orthodox Church.

Fr. John W. Morris

Quite frankly, I would have stopped using the phrase "Orthodox in communion with Rome" a long time ago, if it weren't for the fact that the Melkite patriarch uses it.

P.S. To the old, old question you quoted from Iambic Pen,

"If the Eastern Catholics are absolutely correct in every doctrine and teaching, including those which are in opposition to that taught by Rome, why not just be Orthodox?  Would it not be better to be in communion with those also holding to the true faith, rather than be in communion with those holding to western heresies?"

I would answer that I don't believe Rome to be in heresy.
If we believed Rome to be heretical, we would most certainly not be in communion with her.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: frjohnmorris on December 17, 2013, 11:23:40 PM
As an Eastern Orthodox Priest, I object when Eastern Catholics call themselves "Orthodox in Communion with Rome." To Eastern Orthodox if you are in Communion with a Bishop, you share a common doctrine with that Bishop. Since there are important doctrinal differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, from an Eastern Orthodox point of view a Bishop in Communion  with Rome believes the same doctrine that Rome teaches, not what Eastern Orthodox believe. Therefore you cannot be Orthodox in Communion with Rome. If you are Orthodox, you must be in Communion with the Orthodox Church.

Fr. John W. Morris

Quite frankly, I would have stopped using the phrase "Orthodox in communion with Rome" a long time ago, if it weren't for the fact that the Melkite patriarch uses it.

P.S. To the old, old question you quoted from Iambic Pen,

"If the Eastern Catholics are absolutely correct in every doctrine and teaching, including those which are in opposition to that taught by Rome, why not just be Orthodox?  Would it not be better to be in communion with those also holding to the true faith, rather than be in communion with those holding to western heresies?"

I would answer that I don't believe Rome to be in heresy.
If we believed Rome to be heretical, we would most certainly not be in communion with her.

Then why do some Eastern Catholics keep up the charade of being Orthodox in Communion with Rome? There are real doctrinal differences between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. If your doctrine is Roman Catholic, you are not Orthodox. I am not writing this to be hostile. I am writing this in the name of intellectual honesty. If you accept the papal claims you are not Orthodox. If you reject the papal claims and believe as we do, you belong in the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Fr. John W. Morris
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Deacon Lance on December 18, 2013, 12:14:17 AM
So, do Western and Eastern Catholics disagree on matters of doctrine?  In my own search for the Church, people have often suggested that I become an Eastern Catholic.  This would be a way for me to have the best of both worlds (the worlds being Catholicism and Orthodoxy).  However, the impression I have been getting is that many Eastern Catholics do not accept doctrines which are required belief in the Catholic Church.  It seems that many Eastern Catholics say to themselves, "We will acknowledge the existence of papal authority, but we will not accept any commands from this authority that are not in accord with our own Eastern tradition."  Others seem to simply pretend that these theological differences do not exist.
The problem is very complicated. If you ask people like Todd, they will outright deny essential Catholic dogmas what that are de fide statements. For example: Papal infallibility, Universial Jurisidiction, the Councils after number seven, etc. Others will accept the entirety of the Catholic faith but simply look at it from an Eastern perspective. Melikites tend to be for the former type. Most Ruthenians that I have met in person tend to be of the latter.
I have absolutely no problem with Eastern Catholics having different practices about clerical celibacy, offering the Eucharist to infants, using leavened bread, using a different liturgy, following different fasting guidelines, or having various other different disciplinary practices.  What troubles me is that there are teachings which are binding upon Catholics that many Eastern Catholics seem to either ignore or oppose.
Which is exactly the problem that I have with the current state of Eastern Catholicism. While there are many good, faithful, and saintly Eastern Catholics, there are those who took the Church's call to de-latinize as permission to abandon the Catholic faith while maintaining the name "Catholic".
Eastern Catholics should be able to be both Catholic and Eastern.  However, when an apparent conflict occurs, which is more important, to be Catholic or to be Eastern?  St. Alexis chose Eastern.  The various Eastern Catholic posters who come here and complain to the Orthodox that the Western Catholics do not appreciate or understand them seem very close to making the same choice.
This seems to echo my thoughts exactly. I cannot even begin to sympathize with a person who claims to be Catholic yet rejects the Catholic faith simply in order to be "Eastern". I don't think being an Eastern Catholic requires that one reject the faith of the Church. But some do.
I am trying to be very diplomatic and courteous about it, but perhaps I see some of the same difficulties with Eastern Catholicism that Papist does.
I probably come off as very harsh because of my zeal for the truth of the Catholic faith, but I just believe it to be gravely immoral to call oneself Catholic and then reject the truths of the Church. In this day of reletivism the Church must speak with one voice, the voice she has always spoken with. Eastern Catholics need to remember the words of St. Iraneaus who says, "With this Church [Rome] all churches must agree...becuase her superior origin."

If the Eastern Catholics are absolutely correct in every doctrine and teaching, including those which are in opposition to that taught by Rome, why not just be Orthodox?  Would it not be better to be in communion with those also holding to the true faith, rather than be in communion with those holding to western heresies?  If one can hold to the Orthodox faith and be in communion with Rome, what is everyone arguing about, and why has reunion not already occured?
Both excellent question that I have been asking for the last few years. To the first one, I have never been given a sufficient answer. To the second, the EOs believe that Catholics are heretics and schismatics. Which, of course, is what traditional Latin Catholics like myself believe about the EOs (which I do not mean as an insult. I am just illustrating what the traditional Latin Catholic view is).
I'm not making a judgment in this post about whether or not the Orthodox Church or the Catholic Church is the true Church.  I haven't made up my mind about that yet.  I am simply remarking that I observe a contradiction between the beliefs of Eastern and Western Catholics, and I am wondering how this can be.
Many of us wonder about the same thing. Apostolic Christianity is simply a mess right now.

As an Eastern Orthodox Priest, I object when Eastern Catholics call themselves "Orthodox in Communion with Rome." To Eastern Orthodox if you are in Communion with a Bishop, you share a common doctrine with that Bishop. Since there are important doctrinal differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, from an Eastern Orthodox point of view a Bishop in Communion  with Rome believes the same doctrine that Rome teaches, not what Eastern Orthodox believe. Therefore you cannot be Orthodox in Communion with Rome. If you are Orthodox, you must be in Communion with the Orthodox Church.

Fr. John W. Morris
Father I'll make you a deal.  If you don't object to us using Orthodox, I won't object to you guys using Catholic.  Your argument goes both ways.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: frjohnmorris on December 18, 2013, 01:40:38 AM
So, do Western and Eastern Catholics disagree on matters of doctrine?  In my own search for the Church, people have often suggested that I become an Eastern Catholic.  This would be a way for me to have the best of both worlds (the worlds being Catholicism and Orthodoxy).  However, the impression I have been getting is that many Eastern Catholics do not accept doctrines which are required belief in the Catholic Church.  It seems that many Eastern Catholics say to themselves, "We will acknowledge the existence of papal authority, but we will not accept any commands from this authority that are not in accord with our own Eastern tradition."  Others seem to simply pretend that these theological differences do not exist.
The problem is very complicated. If you ask people like Todd, they will outright deny essential Catholic dogmas what that are de fide statements. For example: Papal infallibility, Universial Jurisidiction, the Councils after number seven, etc. Others will accept the entirety of the Catholic faith but simply look at it from an Eastern perspective. Melikites tend to be for the former type. Most Ruthenians that I have met in person tend to be of the latter.
I have absolutely no problem with Eastern Catholics having different practices about clerical celibacy, offering the Eucharist to infants, using leavened bread, using a different liturgy, following different fasting guidelines, or having various other different disciplinary practices.  What troubles me is that there are teachings which are binding upon Catholics that many Eastern Catholics seem to either ignore or oppose.
Which is exactly the problem that I have with the current state of Eastern Catholicism. While there are many good, faithful, and saintly Eastern Catholics, there are those who took the Church's call to de-latinize as permission to abandon the Catholic faith while maintaining the name "Catholic".
Eastern Catholics should be able to be both Catholic and Eastern.  However, when an apparent conflict occurs, which is more important, to be Catholic or to be Eastern?  St. Alexis chose Eastern.  The various Eastern Catholic posters who come here and complain to the Orthodox that the Western Catholics do not appreciate or understand them seem very close to making the same choice.
This seems to echo my thoughts exactly. I cannot even begin to sympathize with a person who claims to be Catholic yet rejects the Catholic faith simply in order to be "Eastern". I don't think being an Eastern Catholic requires that one reject the faith of the Church. But some do.
I am trying to be very diplomatic and courteous about it, but perhaps I see some of the same difficulties with Eastern Catholicism that Papist does.
I probably come off as very harsh because of my zeal for the truth of the Catholic faith, but I just believe it to be gravely immoral to call oneself Catholic and then reject the truths of the Church. In this day of reletivism the Church must speak with one voice, the voice she has always spoken with. Eastern Catholics need to remember the words of St. Iraneaus who says, "With this Church [Rome] all churches must agree...becuase her superior origin."

If the Eastern Catholics are absolutely correct in every doctrine and teaching, including those which are in opposition to that taught by Rome, why not just be Orthodox?  Would it not be better to be in communion with those also holding to the true faith, rather than be in communion with those holding to western heresies?  If one can hold to the Orthodox faith and be in communion with Rome, what is everyone arguing about, and why has reunion not already occured?
Both excellent question that I have been asking for the last few years. To the first one, I have never been given a sufficient answer. To the second, the EOs believe that Catholics are heretics and schismatics. Which, of course, is what traditional Latin Catholics like myself believe about the EOs (which I do not mean as an insult. I am just illustrating what the traditional Latin Catholic view is).
I'm not making a judgment in this post about whether or not the Orthodox Church or the Catholic Church is the true Church.  I haven't made up my mind about that yet.  I am simply remarking that I observe a contradiction between the beliefs of Eastern and Western Catholics, and I am wondering how this can be.
Many of us wonder about the same thing. Apostolic Christianity is simply a mess right now.

As an Eastern Orthodox Priest, I object when Eastern Catholics call themselves "Orthodox in Communion with Rome." To Eastern Orthodox if you are in Communion with a Bishop, you share a common doctrine with that Bishop. Since there are important doctrinal differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, from an Eastern Orthodox point of view a Bishop in Communion  with Rome believes the same doctrine that Rome teaches, not what Eastern Orthodox believe. Therefore you cannot be Orthodox in Communion with Rome. If you are Orthodox, you must be in Communion with the Orthodox Church.

Fr. John W. Morris
Father I'll make you a deal.  If you don't object to us using Orthodox, I won't object to you guys using Catholic.  Your argument goes both ways.

The difference is that we are Orthodox Catholics. The word "Catholic" was first used in the East by St. Ignatius of Antioch. If you are under Rome, you are not Orthodox. This issue is one of the greatest sources of tension between Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Church. It is dishonest for a group under Rome to call themselves "Orthodox in Communion with Rome," because you cannot be Orthodox and be in Communion with Rome until Rome abandons all teachings like Purgatory, the Augustinian conception of original sin, and most of all papal supremacy, claims to universal jurisdiction and infallibility. Even if you use the Byzantine Liturgy if your Bishop in in Communion with Rome according to Orthodox theology that means that you share a Common Faith with Rome including the Roman teachings that contradict the teaching of the ancient undivided Church.
How about this, you let the Orthodox Church decide who is really Orthodox?
Fr. John W. Morris
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Peter J on December 18, 2013, 08:01:44 AM
As an Eastern Orthodox Priest, I object when Eastern Catholics call themselves "Orthodox in Communion with Rome." To Eastern Orthodox if you are in Communion with a Bishop, you share a common doctrine with that Bishop. Since there are important doctrinal differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, from an Eastern Orthodox point of view a Bishop in Communion  with Rome believes the same doctrine that Rome teaches, not what Eastern Orthodox believe. Therefore you cannot be Orthodox in Communion with Rome. If you are Orthodox, you must be in Communion with the Orthodox Church.

Fr. John W. Morris

Quite frankly, I would have stopped using the phrase "Orthodox in communion with Rome" a long time ago, if it weren't for the fact that the Melkite patriarch uses it.

P.S. To the old, old question you quoted from Iambic Pen,

"If the Eastern Catholics are absolutely correct in every doctrine and teaching, including those which are in opposition to that taught by Rome, why not just be Orthodox?  Would it not be better to be in communion with those also holding to the true faith, rather than be in communion with those holding to western heresies?"

I would answer that I don't believe Rome to be in heresy.
If we believed Rome to be heretical, we would most certainly not be in communion with her.

Then why do some Eastern Catholics keep up the charade of being Orthodox in Communion with Rome?

I guess it's partially emotional. In the same way, if I were taking a survey with a question "Do you embrace a Low Petrine view, a High Petrine view, or an Absolutist Petrine view?" might be inclined to answer "a High Petrine view", even if I know that the phrase "Low Petrine" is intended to encompass my view.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: frjohnmorris on December 18, 2013, 10:34:51 AM
As an Eastern Orthodox Priest, I object when Eastern Catholics call themselves "Orthodox in Communion with Rome." To Eastern Orthodox if you are in Communion with a Bishop, you share a common doctrine with that Bishop. Since there are important doctrinal differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, from an Eastern Orthodox point of view a Bishop in Communion  with Rome believes the same doctrine that Rome teaches, not what Eastern Orthodox believe. Therefore you cannot be Orthodox in Communion with Rome. If you are Orthodox, you must be in Communion with the Orthodox Church.

Fr. John W. Morris

Quite frankly, I would have stopped using the phrase "Orthodox in communion with Rome" a long time ago, if it weren't for the fact that the Melkite patriarch uses it.

P.S. To the old, old question you quoted from Iambic Pen,

"If the Eastern Catholics are absolutely correct in every doctrine and teaching, including those which are in opposition to that taught by Rome, why not just be Orthodox?  Would it not be better to be in communion with those also holding to the true faith, rather than be in communion with those holding to western heresies?"

I would answer that I don't believe Rome to be in heresy.
If we believed Rome to be heretical, we would most certainly not be in communion with her.

Then why do some Eastern Catholics keep up the charade of being Orthodox in Communion with Rome?

I guess it's partially emotional. In the same way, if I were taking a survey with a question "Do you embrace a Low Petrine view, a High Petrine view, or an Absolutist Petrine view?" might be inclined to answer "a High Petrine view", even if I know that the phrase "Low Petrine" is intended to encompass my view.

No it is a matter of truth in advertising. If you belong to a group that left the Orthodox Church to unite with Rome, you are no longer Orthodox. It is a kind of deception for those who have left our Church to and submitted to the papacy to claim to be Orthodox. That is one reason why the Eastern Orthodox are so upset about the Byzantine Rite Catholics.  They look Eastern Orthodox, worship like we do, but are not Eastern Orthodox.

Fr. John W. Morris
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: hecma925 on December 18, 2013, 10:39:29 AM
(http://www.mitropolia.eu/uploads/image/episcopul-siluan/preasfintitul-siluan-02_300x525px.jpg)
ialmisry, you seem to have that picture of Bishop Siluan in your copy/paste clipboard, permanently. :D
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Altar Server on December 18, 2013, 11:07:23 AM
(http://www.mitropolia.eu/uploads/image/episcopul-siluan/preasfintitul-siluan-02_300x525px.jpg)
ialmisry, you seem to have that picture of Bishop Siluan in your copy/paste clipboard, permanently. :D

I think that this is the first time I've seen this particular picture of +Siluan....but he does always seem to have one handy  :P
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Peter J on December 18, 2013, 01:12:22 PM
No it is a matter of truth in advertising. If you belong to a group that left the Orthodox Church to unite with Rome, you are no longer Orthodox. It is a kind of deception for those who have left our Church to and submitted to the papacy to claim to be Orthodox. That is one reason why the Eastern Orthodox are so upset about the Byzantine Rite Catholics.  They look Eastern Orthodox, worship like we do, but are not Eastern Orthodox.

Fr. John W. Morris

Not that I want to white-wash, but it needs to be pointed out that Catholic-Orthodox relations are, in fact, making significant progress ...

"Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Eastern, no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other"
- the Balamand Statement

(As you've probably heard me say before: if I were Orthodox I wouldn't switch to Catholicism, but likewise I'm not going to switch from Catholicism to Orthodoxy.)
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: frjohnmorris on December 18, 2013, 01:25:16 PM
No it is a matter of truth in advertising. If you belong to a group that left the Orthodox Church to unite with Rome, you are no longer Orthodox. It is a kind of deception for those who have left our Church to and submitted to the papacy to claim to be Orthodox. That is one reason why the Eastern Orthodox are so upset about the Byzantine Rite Catholics.  They look Eastern Orthodox, worship like we do, but are not Eastern Orthodox.

Fr. John W. Morris

Not that I want to white-wash, but it needs to be pointed out that Catholic-Orthodox relations are, in fact, making significant progress ...

"Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Eastern, no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other"
- the Balamand Statement

(As you've probably heard me say before: if I were Orthodox I wouldn't switch to Catholicism, but likewise I'm not going to switch from Catholicism to Orthodoxy.)

To use an analogy if a couple has divorced and wants to get back together, it will not work, until they resolve the issues that led to the divorce. Orthodoxy and Catholicism are the same, Unity for the sake of unity will not work unless we resolve the problems that led to the division and which have prevented the healing of the division. That requires honesty even if it offends the other party.

Fr. John W. Morris
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: mike on December 18, 2013, 02:33:52 PM
No it is a matter of truth in advertising. If you belong to a group that left the Orthodox Church to unite with Rome, you are no longer Orthodox. It is a kind of deception for those who have left our Church to and submitted to the papacy to claim to be Orthodox. That is one reason why the Eastern Orthodox are so upset about the Byzantine Rite Catholics.  They look Eastern Orthodox, worship like we do, but are not Eastern Orthodox.

Fr. John W. Morris

Not that I want to white-wash, but it needs to be pointed out that Catholic-Orthodox relations are, in fact, making significant progress ...

"Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Eastern, no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other"
- the Balamand Statement

(As you've probably heard me say before: if I were Orthodox I wouldn't switch to Catholicism, but likewise I'm not going to switch from Catholicism to Orthodoxy.)

Not that anyone accepted Balamand.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: podkarpatska on December 18, 2013, 03:03:49 PM
^I think, from my friends both in Europe (Slovakia and some parts of Ukraine)  and the United States, that post Balamand, things began to settle down regarding disputes between the Green Catholics and the Orthodox. (I'm ONLY speaking of the portions of the communique dealing with the status of the Greek Catholics in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the advent of reasonably free election in Eastern Europe in the early 1990's. I realize that tension did not disappear but rather an uneasy acceptance of the status quo took hold. ) 
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: mike on December 18, 2013, 03:05:49 PM
My impression is that after Balamand things began to slow that so much they slightly reverse now. Not that I think it's bad.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Alpo on December 18, 2013, 03:51:50 PM
Ha! I was gonna say this topic is hilrious.  :D

Anyway, what made you change your mind about Eastern Catholicism?
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Papist on December 18, 2013, 04:32:01 PM
So, do Western and Eastern Catholics disagree on matters of doctrine?  In my own search for the Church, people have often suggested that I become an Eastern Catholic.  This would be a way for me to have the best of both worlds (the worlds being Catholicism and Orthodoxy).  However, the impression I have been getting is that many Eastern Catholics do not accept doctrines which are required belief in the Catholic Church.  It seems that many Eastern Catholics say to themselves, "We will acknowledge the existence of papal authority, but we will not accept any commands from this authority that are not in accord with our own Eastern tradition."  Others seem to simply pretend that these theological differences do not exist.
The problem is very complicated. If you ask people like Todd, they will outright deny essential Catholic dogmas what that are de fide statements. For example: Papal infallibility, Universial Jurisidiction, the Councils after number seven, etc. Others will accept the entirety of the Catholic faith but simply look at it from an Eastern perspective. Melikites tend to be for the former type. Most Ruthenians that I have met in person tend to be of the latter.
I have absolutely no problem with Eastern Catholics having different practices about clerical celibacy, offering the Eucharist to infants, using leavened bread, using a different liturgy, following different fasting guidelines, or having various other different disciplinary practices.  What troubles me is that there are teachings which are binding upon Catholics that many Eastern Catholics seem to either ignore or oppose.
Which is exactly the problem that I have with the current state of Eastern Catholicism. While there are many good, faithful, and saintly Eastern Catholics, there are those who took the Church's call to de-latinize as permission to abandon the Catholic faith while maintaining the name "Catholic".
Eastern Catholics should be able to be both Catholic and Eastern.  However, when an apparent conflict occurs, which is more important, to be Catholic or to be Eastern?  St. Alexis chose Eastern.  The various Eastern Catholic posters who come here and complain to the Orthodox that the Western Catholics do not appreciate or understand them seem very close to making the same choice.
This seems to echo my thoughts exactly. I cannot even begin to sympathize with a person who claims to be Catholic yet rejects the Catholic faith simply in order to be "Eastern". I don't think being an Eastern Catholic requires that one reject the faith of the Church. But some do.
I am trying to be very diplomatic and courteous about it, but perhaps I see some of the same difficulties with Eastern Catholicism that Papist does.
I probably come off as very harsh because of my zeal for the truth of the Catholic faith, but I just believe it to be gravely immoral to call oneself Catholic and then reject the truths of the Church. In this day of reletivism the Church must speak with one voice, the voice she has always spoken with. Eastern Catholics need to remember the words of St. Iraneaus who says, "With this Church [Rome] all churches must agree...becuase her superior origin."

If the Eastern Catholics are absolutely correct in every doctrine and teaching, including those which are in opposition to that taught by Rome, why not just be Orthodox?  Would it not be better to be in communion with those also holding to the true faith, rather than be in communion with those holding to western heresies?  If one can hold to the Orthodox faith and be in communion with Rome, what is everyone arguing about, and why has reunion not already occured?
Both excellent question that I have been asking for the last few years. To the first one, I have never been given a sufficient answer. To the second, the EOs believe that Catholics are heretics and schismatics. Which, of course, is what traditional Latin Catholics like myself believe about the EOs (which I do not mean as an insult. I am just illustrating what the traditional Latin Catholic view is).
I'm not making a judgment in this post about whether or not the Orthodox Church or the Catholic Church is the true Church.  I haven't made up my mind about that yet.  I am simply remarking that I observe a contradiction between the beliefs of Eastern and Western Catholics, and I am wondering how this can be.
Many of us wonder about the same thing. Apostolic Christianity is simply a mess right now.

As an Eastern Orthodox Priest, I object when Eastern Catholics call themselves "Orthodox in Communion with Rome." To Eastern Orthodox if you are in Communion with a Bishop, you share a common doctrine with that Bishop. Since there are important doctrinal differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, from an Eastern Orthodox point of view a Bishop in Communion  with Rome believes the same doctrine that Rome teaches, not what Eastern Orthodox believe. Therefore you cannot be Orthodox in Communion with Rome. If you are Orthodox, you must be in Communion with the Orthodox Church.

Fr. John W. Morris
Father I'll make you a deal.  If you don't object to us using Orthodox, I won't object to you guys using Catholic.  Your argument goes both ways.

The difference is that we are Orthodox Catholics. The word "Catholic" was first used in the East by St. Ignatius of Antioch. If you are under Rome, you are not Orthodox.
The difference is that we are Orthodox Catholics. The word "Catholic" was first used in the East by St. Ignatius of Antioch. If you are not in commounion with Rome, you are not orthodox. See what I did there? Honestly, I think these areguments are pointless. They go round and round and never accomplish anything.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Peter J on December 18, 2013, 04:48:49 PM
But, to be fair, the Orthodox don't claim the name "Roman" or "Rome".

Oh wait ...

 ;)
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: ialmisry on December 18, 2013, 04:57:48 PM
So, do Western and Eastern Catholics disagree on matters of doctrine?  In my own search for the Church, people have often suggested that I become an Eastern Catholic.  This would be a way for me to have the best of both worlds (the worlds being Catholicism and Orthodoxy).  However, the impression I have been getting is that many Eastern Catholics do not accept doctrines which are required belief in the Catholic Church.  It seems that many Eastern Catholics say to themselves, "We will acknowledge the existence of papal authority, but we will not accept any commands from this authority that are not in accord with our own Eastern tradition."  Others seem to simply pretend that these theological differences do not exist.
The problem is very complicated. If you ask people like Todd, they will outright deny essential Catholic dogmas what that are de fide statements. For example: Papal infallibility, Universial Jurisidiction, the Councils after number seven, etc. Others will accept the entirety of the Catholic faith but simply look at it from an Eastern perspective. Melikites tend to be for the former type. Most Ruthenians that I have met in person tend to be of the latter.
I have absolutely no problem with Eastern Catholics having different practices about clerical celibacy, offering the Eucharist to infants, using leavened bread, using a different liturgy, following different fasting guidelines, or having various other different disciplinary practices.  What troubles me is that there are teachings which are binding upon Catholics that many Eastern Catholics seem to either ignore or oppose.
Which is exactly the problem that I have with the current state of Eastern Catholicism. While there are many good, faithful, and saintly Eastern Catholics, there are those who took the Church's call to de-latinize as permission to abandon the Catholic faith while maintaining the name "Catholic".
Eastern Catholics should be able to be both Catholic and Eastern.  However, when an apparent conflict occurs, which is more important, to be Catholic or to be Eastern?  St. Alexis chose Eastern.  The various Eastern Catholic posters who come here and complain to the Orthodox that the Western Catholics do not appreciate or understand them seem very close to making the same choice.
This seems to echo my thoughts exactly. I cannot even begin to sympathize with a person who claims to be Catholic yet rejects the Catholic faith simply in order to be "Eastern". I don't think being an Eastern Catholic requires that one reject the faith of the Church. But some do.
I am trying to be very diplomatic and courteous about it, but perhaps I see some of the same difficulties with Eastern Catholicism that Papist does.
I probably come off as very harsh because of my zeal for the truth of the Catholic faith, but I just believe it to be gravely immoral to call oneself Catholic and then reject the truths of the Church. In this day of reletivism the Church must speak with one voice, the voice she has always spoken with. Eastern Catholics need to remember the words of St. Iraneaus who says, "With this Church [Rome] all churches must agree...becuase her superior origin."

If the Eastern Catholics are absolutely correct in every doctrine and teaching, including those which are in opposition to that taught by Rome, why not just be Orthodox?  Would it not be better to be in communion with those also holding to the true faith, rather than be in communion with those holding to western heresies?  If one can hold to the Orthodox faith and be in communion with Rome, what is everyone arguing about, and why has reunion not already occured?
Both excellent question that I have been asking for the last few years. To the first one, I have never been given a sufficient answer. To the second, the EOs believe that Catholics are heretics and schismatics. Which, of course, is what traditional Latin Catholics like myself believe about the EOs (which I do not mean as an insult. I am just illustrating what the traditional Latin Catholic view is).
I'm not making a judgment in this post about whether or not the Orthodox Church or the Catholic Church is the true Church.  I haven't made up my mind about that yet.  I am simply remarking that I observe a contradiction between the beliefs of Eastern and Western Catholics, and I am wondering how this can be.
Many of us wonder about the same thing. Apostolic Christianity is simply a mess right now.

As an Eastern Orthodox Priest, I object when Eastern Catholics call themselves "Orthodox in Communion with Rome." To Eastern Orthodox if you are in Communion with a Bishop, you share a common doctrine with that Bishop. Since there are important doctrinal differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, from an Eastern Orthodox point of view a Bishop in Communion  with Rome believes the same doctrine that Rome teaches, not what Eastern Orthodox believe. Therefore you cannot be Orthodox in Communion with Rome. If you are Orthodox, you must be in Communion with the Orthodox Church.

Fr. John W. Morris
Father I'll make you a deal.  If you don't object to us using Orthodox, I won't object to you guys using Catholic.  Your argument goes both ways.

The difference is that we are Orthodox Catholics. The word "Catholic" was first used in the East by St. Ignatius of Antioch. If you are under Rome, you are not Orthodox.
The difference is that we are Orthodox Catholics. The word "Catholic" was first used in the East by St. Ignatius of Antioch. If you are not in commounion with Rome, you are not orthodox. See what I did there? Honestly, I think these areguments are pointless. They go round and round and never accomplish anything.
Problem is that Abp. St. Ignatius defined Catholic as being in communion with the local Orthodox bishop, and Orthodox was defined as holding to/teaching Orthodoxy.  Pastor Aeternus' redefinition of the terms as catholic=in submission to the supreme pontiff of the vatican (about whom Abp. St. Ignatius as successor of St. Peter at his first see of Antioch knew nothing) and orthodox=holding to what the supreme pontiff of the Vatican says came millenia too late.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Papist on December 18, 2013, 05:05:12 PM
So, do Western and Eastern Catholics disagree on matters of doctrine?  In my own search for the Church, people have often suggested that I become an Eastern Catholic.  This would be a way for me to have the best of both worlds (the worlds being Catholicism and Orthodoxy).  However, the impression I have been getting is that many Eastern Catholics do not accept doctrines which are required belief in the Catholic Church.  It seems that many Eastern Catholics say to themselves, "We will acknowledge the existence of papal authority, but we will not accept any commands from this authority that are not in accord with our own Eastern tradition."  Others seem to simply pretend that these theological differences do not exist.
The problem is very complicated. If you ask people like Todd, they will outright deny essential Catholic dogmas what that are de fide statements. For example: Papal infallibility, Universial Jurisidiction, the Councils after number seven, etc. Others will accept the entirety of the Catholic faith but simply look at it from an Eastern perspective. Melikites tend to be for the former type. Most Ruthenians that I have met in person tend to be of the latter.
I have absolutely no problem with Eastern Catholics having different practices about clerical celibacy, offering the Eucharist to infants, using leavened bread, using a different liturgy, following different fasting guidelines, or having various other different disciplinary practices.  What troubles me is that there are teachings which are binding upon Catholics that many Eastern Catholics seem to either ignore or oppose.
Which is exactly the problem that I have with the current state of Eastern Catholicism. While there are many good, faithful, and saintly Eastern Catholics, there are those who took the Church's call to de-latinize as permission to abandon the Catholic faith while maintaining the name "Catholic".
Eastern Catholics should be able to be both Catholic and Eastern.  However, when an apparent conflict occurs, which is more important, to be Catholic or to be Eastern?  St. Alexis chose Eastern.  The various Eastern Catholic posters who come here and complain to the Orthodox that the Western Catholics do not appreciate or understand them seem very close to making the same choice.
This seems to echo my thoughts exactly. I cannot even begin to sympathize with a person who claims to be Catholic yet rejects the Catholic faith simply in order to be "Eastern". I don't think being an Eastern Catholic requires that one reject the faith of the Church. But some do.
I am trying to be very diplomatic and courteous about it, but perhaps I see some of the same difficulties with Eastern Catholicism that Papist does.
I probably come off as very harsh because of my zeal for the truth of the Catholic faith, but I just believe it to be gravely immoral to call oneself Catholic and then reject the truths of the Church. In this day of reletivism the Church must speak with one voice, the voice she has always spoken with. Eastern Catholics need to remember the words of St. Iraneaus who says, "With this Church [Rome] all churches must agree...becuase her superior origin."

If the Eastern Catholics are absolutely correct in every doctrine and teaching, including those which are in opposition to that taught by Rome, why not just be Orthodox?  Would it not be better to be in communion with those also holding to the true faith, rather than be in communion with those holding to western heresies?  If one can hold to the Orthodox faith and be in communion with Rome, what is everyone arguing about, and why has reunion not already occured?
Both excellent question that I have been asking for the last few years. To the first one, I have never been given a sufficient answer. To the second, the EOs believe that Catholics are heretics and schismatics. Which, of course, is what traditional Latin Catholics like myself believe about the EOs (which I do not mean as an insult. I am just illustrating what the traditional Latin Catholic view is).
I'm not making a judgment in this post about whether or not the Orthodox Church or the Catholic Church is the true Church.  I haven't made up my mind about that yet.  I am simply remarking that I observe a contradiction between the beliefs of Eastern and Western Catholics, and I am wondering how this can be.
Many of us wonder about the same thing. Apostolic Christianity is simply a mess right now.

As an Eastern Orthodox Priest, I object when Eastern Catholics call themselves "Orthodox in Communion with Rome." To Eastern Orthodox if you are in Communion with a Bishop, you share a common doctrine with that Bishop. Since there are important doctrinal differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, from an Eastern Orthodox point of view a Bishop in Communion  with Rome believes the same doctrine that Rome teaches, not what Eastern Orthodox believe. Therefore you cannot be Orthodox in Communion with Rome. If you are Orthodox, you must be in Communion with the Orthodox Church.

Fr. John W. Morris
Father I'll make you a deal.  If you don't object to us using Orthodox, I won't object to you guys using Catholic.  Your argument goes both ways.

The difference is that we are Orthodox Catholics. The word "Catholic" was first used in the East by St. Ignatius of Antioch. If you are under Rome, you are not Orthodox.
The difference is that we are Orthodox Catholics. The word "Catholic" was first used in the East by St. Ignatius of Antioch. If you are not in commounion with Rome, you are not orthodox. See what I did there? Honestly, I think these areguments are pointless. They go round and round and never accomplish anything.
Problem is that Abp. St. Ignatius defined Catholic as being in communion with the local Orthodox bishop, and Orthodox was defined as holding to/teaching Orthodoxy.  Pastor Aeternus' redefinition of the terms as catholic=in submission to the supreme pontiff of the vatican (about whom Abp. St. Ignatius as successor of St. Peter at his first see of Antioch knew nothing) and orthodox=holding to what the supreme pontiff of the Vatican says came millenia too late.
I'm Catholic!
No, I'm Catholic!
No, I'm Catholic!
Whatever, I'm Catholic.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: frjohnmorris on December 18, 2013, 05:25:20 PM
But, to be fair, the Orthodox don't claim the name "Roman" or "Rome".

Oh wait ...

 ;)

Actually we do. In Arabic what we call Greek Orthodox is literally Roman (Rhum) Orthodox because the we were the Church of the Roman Empire which lasted until 1453 when the Turks conquered Constntinople.  Following their Islamic religion, the Turks organized various people according to their religion. Eastern Orthodox were called the Rhum Millet or Roman Nation under the Turks and because of that we are called Rhum Orthodox in the Arabic speaking world.

Fr. John W. Morris
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: frjohnmorris on December 18, 2013, 05:37:39 PM
So, do Western and Eastern Catholics disagree on matters of doctrine?  In my own search for the Church, people have often suggested that I become an Eastern Catholic.  This would be a way for me to have the best of both worlds (the worlds being Catholicism and Orthodoxy).  However, the impression I have been getting is that many Eastern Catholics do not accept doctrines which are required belief in the Catholic Church.  It seems that many Eastern Catholics say to themselves, "We will acknowledge the existence of papal authority, but we will not accept any commands from this authority that are not in accord with our own Eastern tradition."  Others seem to simply pretend that these theological differences do not exist.
The problem is very complicated. If you ask people like Todd, they will outright deny essential Catholic dogmas what that are de fide statements. For example: Papal infallibility, Universial Jurisidiction, the Councils after number seven, etc. Others will accept the entirety of the Catholic faith but simply look at it from an Eastern perspective. Melikites tend to be for the former type. Most Ruthenians that I have met in person tend to be of the latter.
I have absolutely no problem with Eastern Catholics having different practices about clerical celibacy, offering the Eucharist to infants, using leavened bread, using a different liturgy, following different fasting guidelines, or having various other different disciplinary practices.  What troubles me is that there are teachings which are binding upon Catholics that many Eastern Catholics seem to either ignore or oppose.
Which is exactly the problem that I have with the current state of Eastern Catholicism. While there are many good, faithful, and saintly Eastern Catholics, there are those who took the Church's call to de-latinize as permission to abandon the Catholic faith while maintaining the name "Catholic".
Eastern Catholics should be able to be both Catholic and Eastern.  However, when an apparent conflict occurs, which is more important, to be Catholic or to be Eastern?  St. Alexis chose Eastern.  The various Eastern Catholic posters who come here and complain to the Orthodox that the Western Catholics do not appreciate or understand them seem very close to making the same choice.
This seems to echo my thoughts exactly. I cannot even begin to sympathize with a person who claims to be Catholic yet rejects the Catholic faith simply in order to be "Eastern". I don't think being an Eastern Catholic requires that one reject the faith of the Church. But some do.
I am trying to be very diplomatic and courteous about it, but perhaps I see some of the same difficulties with Eastern Catholicism that Papist does.
I probably come off as very harsh because of my zeal for the truth of the Catholic faith, but I just believe it to be gravely immoral to call oneself Catholic and then reject the truths of the Church. In this day of reletivism the Church must speak with one voice, the voice she has always spoken with. Eastern Catholics need to remember the words of St. Iraneaus who says, "With this Church [Rome] all churches must agree...becuase her superior origin."

If the Eastern Catholics are absolutely correct in every doctrine and teaching, including those which are in opposition to that taught by Rome, why not just be Orthodox?  Would it not be better to be in communion with those also holding to the true faith, rather than be in communion with those holding to western heresies?  If one can hold to the Orthodox faith and be in communion with Rome, what is everyone arguing about, and why has reunion not already occured?
Both excellent question that I have been asking for the last few years. To the first one, I have never been given a sufficient answer. To the second, the EOs believe that Catholics are heretics and schismatics. Which, of course, is what traditional Latin Catholics like myself believe about the EOs (which I do not mean as an insult. I am just illustrating what the traditional Latin Catholic view is).
I'm not making a judgment in this post about whether or not the Orthodox Church or the Catholic Church is the true Church.  I haven't made up my mind about that yet.  I am simply remarking that I observe a contradiction between the beliefs of Eastern and Western Catholics, and I am wondering how this can be.
Many of us wonder about the same thing. Apostolic Christianity is simply a mess right now.

As an Eastern Orthodox Priest, I object when Eastern Catholics call themselves "Orthodox in Communion with Rome." To Eastern Orthodox if you are in Communion with a Bishop, you share a common doctrine with that Bishop. Since there are important doctrinal differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, from an Eastern Orthodox point of view a Bishop in Communion  with Rome believes the same doctrine that Rome teaches, not what Eastern Orthodox believe. Therefore you cannot be Orthodox in Communion with Rome. If you are Orthodox, you must be in Communion with the Orthodox Church.

Fr. John W. Morris
Father I'll make you a deal.  If you don't object to us using Orthodox, I won't object to you guys using Catholic.  Your argument goes both ways.

The difference is that we are Orthodox Catholics. The word "Catholic" was first used in the East by St. Ignatius of Antioch. If you are under Rome, you are not Orthodox.
The difference is that we are Orthodox Catholics. The word "Catholic" was first used in the East by St. Ignatius of Antioch. If you are not in commounion with Rome, you are not orthodox. See what I did there? Honestly, I think these areguments are pointless. They go round and round and never accomplish anything.
Problem is that Abp. St. Ignatius defined Catholic as being in communion with the local Orthodox bishop, and Orthodox was defined as holding to/teaching Orthodoxy.  Pastor Aeternus' redefinition of the terms as catholic=in submission to the supreme pontiff of the vatican (about whom Abp. St. Ignatius as successor of St. Peter at his first see of Antioch knew nothing) and orthodox=holding to what the supreme pontiff of the Vatican says came millenia too late.

You are right at the time of St. Ignatius of Antioch no one believed in anything like the modern papacy. It took centuries for Rome to move from a primacy of honor as "first among equals" to the all powerful papacy of today. What Rome would like for most people to forget or ignore most of the claims of the papacy are not based on the New Testament, the Holy Fathers, the practices of the ancient undivided Church, or the decisions of the 7 Ecumenical Councils, but on document called the Donation of Constantine. According to this document after Pope St. Sylvester cured him of leprosy, St. Constantine gave him a document giving the Bishop of Rome supreme power in the Church. However, there are two major problems with the Donation of Constantine. The first is that St. Constantine had no authority to give anyone supreme authority in the Church. The second is that it was proven by Lorenzo Valla (1407-1457) that the document was a forgery. In his letter demanding obedience from Patriarch Michael I in 1054, Pope Leo IX based his argument on the Donation of Constantine. Therefore, most of the papal claims are illegitimate.

Fr. John W. Morris
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: ialmisry on December 18, 2013, 05:41:16 PM
But, to be fair, the Orthodox don't claim the name "Roman" or "Rome".

Oh wait ...

 ;)

Actually we do. In Arabic what we call Greek Orthodox is literally Roman (Rhum) Orthodox because the we were the Church of the Roman Empire which lasted until 1453 when the Turks conquered Constntinople.  Following their Islamic religion, the Turks organized various people according to their religion. Eastern Orthodox were called the Rhum Millet or Roman Nation under the Turks and because of that we are called Rhum Orthodox in the Arabic speaking world.

Fr. John W. Morris
You have to understand Peter J: that is what he was getting at, Father.  Because we defend our copyright to Orthodox and Catholic, the Romans of the East are supposed to relinquish their title to "Rome."

There is a Roman Orthodox bishop in Rome.
(http://parohiaromanobg.webs.com/episcopiait.jpg)
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: frjohnmorris on December 18, 2013, 05:47:38 PM
But, to be fair, the Orthodox don't claim the name "Roman" or "Rome".

Oh wait ...

 ;)

Actually we do. In Arabic what we call Greek Orthodox is literally Roman (Rhum) Orthodox because the we were the Church of the Roman Empire which lasted until 1453 when the Turks conquered Constntinople.  Following their Islamic religion, the Turks organized various people according to their religion. Eastern Orthodox were called the Rhum Millet or Roman Nation under the Turks and because of that we are called Rhum Orthodox in the Arabic speaking world.

Fr. John W. Morris
You have to understand Peter J: that is what he was getting at, Father.  Because we defend our copyright to Orthodox and Catholic, the Romans of the East are supposed to relinquish their title to "Rome."

There is a Roman Orthodox bishop in Rome.
(http://parohiaromanobg.webs.com/episcopiait.jpg)

As far as I know there is no Orthodox Bishop in Rome. It is not a matter of copyright. It is a matter of truth. We are the Orthodox Church. It is misleading for group that is not a part of the Orthodox Church, but is under Rome to use the name of our Church.

Fr. John W. Morris
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: ialmisry on December 18, 2013, 06:15:53 PM
As far as I know there is no Orthodox Bishop in Rome.
His grace Bp. Siluan,
(http://www.mitropolia.eu/uploads/image/episcopul-siluan/preasfintitul-siluan-02_300x525px.jpg)
enthroned, Father, at his cathedral in Rome in 2008.

In Romanian, Italian and some English (besides Google):
http://www.mitropolia.eu/ro/site/64/
http://episcopia-italiei.it/index.php/ro/
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: frjohnmorris on December 18, 2013, 09:07:51 PM
As far as I know there is no Orthodox Bishop in Rome.
His grace Bp. Siluan,
(http://www.mitropolia.eu/uploads/image/episcopul-siluan/preasfintitul-siluan-02_300x525px.jpg)
enthroned, Father, at his cathedral in Rome in 2008.

In Romanian, Italian and some English (besides Google):
http://www.mitropolia.eu/ro/site/64/
http://episcopia-italiei.it/index.php/ro/

So now I know. The Romanian Orthodox Church has a Bishop in Rome.

Fr. John W. Morris
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Deacon Lance on December 18, 2013, 09:50:16 PM
The difference is that we are Orthodox Catholics. The word "Catholic" was first used in the East by St. Ignatius of Antioch. If you are under Rome, you are not Orthodox. This issue is one of the greatest sources of tension between Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Church. It is dishonest for a group under Rome to call themselves "Orthodox in Communion with Rome," because you cannot be Orthodox and be in Communion with Rome until Rome abandons all teachings like Purgatory, the Augustinian conception of original sin, and most of all papal supremacy, claims to universal jurisdiction and infallibility. Even if you use the Byzantine Liturgy if your Bishop in in Communion with Rome according to Orthodox theology that means that you share a Common Faith with Rome including the Roman teachings that contradict the teaching of the ancient undivided Church.
How about this, you let the Orthodox Church decide who is really Orthodox?
Fr. John W. Morris
Father that is circular logic. Obviously Orthodox believe they are Catholic, and Catholics believe they are Orthodox.  I could say: "If you are not under Rome, you are not Catholic."  You would not accept that, nor should you.  So no, I will not let the Orthodox Church decide who is really Orthodox, aymore than you will let the Catholic Church decide who is really Catholic.  And besides, the whole "Orthodox in Communion with Rome" title usage is largely limited to a very few on the internet and even fewer in real life.  I would be more concerned about vagantes parading as the "Orthodox Catholic Church of North America" and such. 
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Peter J on December 18, 2013, 09:53:05 PM
But, to be fair, the Orthodox don't claim the name "Roman" or "Rome".

Oh wait ...

 ;)

Actually we do. In Arabic what we call Greek Orthodox is literally Roman (Rhum) Orthodox because the we were the Church of the Roman Empire which lasted until 1453 when the Turks conquered Constntinople.  Following their Islamic religion, the Turks organized various people according to their religion. Eastern Orthodox were called the Rhum Millet or Roman Nation under the Turks and because of that we are called Rhum Orthodox in the Arabic speaking world.

Fr. John W. Morris

Alright. (Anyhow, the "Oh wait ...  ;)" was a reference to ialmisry, as he just graciously illustrated. :))
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: frjohnmorris on December 18, 2013, 10:08:16 PM
The difference is that we are Orthodox Catholics. The word "Catholic" was first used in the East by St. Ignatius of Antioch. If you are under Rome, you are not Orthodox. This issue is one of the greatest sources of tension between Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Church. It is dishonest for a group under Rome to call themselves "Orthodox in Communion with Rome," because you cannot be Orthodox and be in Communion with Rome until Rome abandons all teachings like Purgatory, the Augustinian conception of original sin, and most of all papal supremacy, claims to universal jurisdiction and infallibility. Even if you use the Byzantine Liturgy if your Bishop in in Communion with Rome according to Orthodox theology that means that you share a Common Faith with Rome including the Roman teachings that contradict the teaching of the ancient undivided Church.
How about this, you let the Orthodox Church decide who is really Orthodox?
Fr. John W. Morris
Father that is circular logic. Obviously Orthodox believe they are Catholic, and Catholics believe they are Orthodox.  I could say: "If you are not under Rome, you are not Catholic."  You would not accept that, nor should you.  So no, I will not let the Orthodox Church decide who is really Orthodox, aymore than you will let the Catholic Church decide who is really Catholic.  And besides, the whole "Orthodox in Communion with Rome" title usage is largely limited to a very few on the internet and even fewer in real life.  I would be more concerned about vagantes parading as the "Orthodox Catholic Church of North America" and such. 

This issue is one of the most serious sources of tension between Eastern Orthodoxy and Rome. All that I am asking for is respect for our Church and our sensibilities on this subject. Eastern Catholics are not Orthodox because they or their spiritual ancestors left the Orthodox Church to submit to Rome. Just be honest about it. If you are under Rome, you are not Orthodox.

Fr. John W. Morris
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Papist on December 18, 2013, 10:09:24 PM
The difference is that we are Orthodox Catholics. The word "Catholic" was first used in the East by St. Ignatius of Antioch. If you are under Rome, you are not Orthodox. This issue is one of the greatest sources of tension between Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Church. It is dishonest for a group under Rome to call themselves "Orthodox in Communion with Rome," because you cannot be Orthodox and be in Communion with Rome until Rome abandons all teachings like Purgatory, the Augustinian conception of original sin, and most of all papal supremacy, claims to universal jurisdiction and infallibility. Even if you use the Byzantine Liturgy if your Bishop in in Communion with Rome according to Orthodox theology that means that you share a Common Faith with Rome including the Roman teachings that contradict the teaching of the ancient undivided Church.
How about this, you let the Orthodox Church decide who is really Orthodox?
Fr. John W. Morris
Father that is circular logic. Obviously Orthodox believe they are Catholic, and Catholics believe they are Orthodox.  I could say: "If you are not under Rome, you are not Catholic."  You would not accept that, nor should you.  So no, I will not let the Orthodox Church decide who is really Orthodox, aymore than you will let the Catholic Church decide who is really Catholic.  And besides, the whole "Orthodox in Communion with Rome" title usage is largely limited to a very few on the internet and even fewer in real life.  I would be more concerned about vagantes parading as the "Orthodox Catholic Church of North America" and such. 

This issue is one of the most serious sources of tension between Eastern Orthodoxy and Rome. All that I am asking for is respect for our Church and our sensibilities on this subject. Eastern Catholics are not Orthodox because they or their spiritual ancestors left the Orthodox Church to submit to Rome. Just be honest about it. If you are under Rome, you are not Orthodox.

Fr. John W. Morris
But we believe that in order to be orthodox in the true sense of the word, one would need to be in communion with Rome. We are being true to our faith (note: I'm not one to use the "Orthodox in Communion with Rome" title).
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Deacon Lance on December 18, 2013, 10:18:46 PM
The difference is that we are Orthodox Catholics. The word "Catholic" was first used in the East by St. Ignatius of Antioch. If you are under Rome, you are not Orthodox. This issue is one of the greatest sources of tension between Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Church. It is dishonest for a group under Rome to call themselves "Orthodox in Communion with Rome," because you cannot be Orthodox and be in Communion with Rome until Rome abandons all teachings like Purgatory, the Augustinian conception of original sin, and most of all papal supremacy, claims to universal jurisdiction and infallibility. Even if you use the Byzantine Liturgy if your Bishop in in Communion with Rome according to Orthodox theology that means that you share a Common Faith with Rome including the Roman teachings that contradict the teaching of the ancient undivided Church.
How about this, you let the Orthodox Church decide who is really Orthodox?
Fr. John W. Morris
Father that is circular logic. Obviously Orthodox believe they are Catholic, and Catholics believe they are Orthodox.  I could say: "If you are not under Rome, you are not Catholic."  You would not accept that, nor should you.  So no, I will not let the Orthodox Church decide who is really Orthodox, aymore than you will let the Catholic Church decide who is really Catholic.  And besides, the whole "Orthodox in Communion with Rome" title usage is largely limited to a very few on the internet and even fewer in real life.  I would be more concerned about vagantes parading as the "Orthodox Catholic Church of North America" and such. 

This issue is one of the most serious sources of tension between Eastern Orthodoxy and Rome. All that I am asking for is respect for our Church and our sensibilities on this subject. Eastern Catholics are not Orthodox because they or their spiritual ancestors left the Orthodox Church to submit to Rome. Just be honest about it. If you are under Rome, you are not Orthodox.

Fr. John W. Morris
I am being honest.  I believe if you are under Rome, you are Orthodox.  What you are asking is something that you yourself will not do, let someone else define your terms.   
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: frjohnmorris on December 18, 2013, 10:44:32 PM
The difference is that we are Orthodox Catholics. The word "Catholic" was first used in the East by St. Ignatius of Antioch. If you are under Rome, you are not Orthodox. This issue is one of the greatest sources of tension between Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Church. It is dishonest for a group under Rome to call themselves "Orthodox in Communion with Rome," because you cannot be Orthodox and be in Communion with Rome until Rome abandons all teachings like Purgatory, the Augustinian conception of original sin, and most of all papal supremacy, claims to universal jurisdiction and infallibility. Even if you use the Byzantine Liturgy if your Bishop in in Communion with Rome according to Orthodox theology that means that you share a Common Faith with Rome including the Roman teachings that contradict the teaching of the ancient undivided Church.
How about this, you let the Orthodox Church decide who is really Orthodox?
Fr. John W. Morris
Father that is circular logic. Obviously Orthodox believe they are Catholic, and Catholics believe they are Orthodox.  I could say: "If you are not under Rome, you are not Catholic."  You would not accept that, nor should you.  So no, I will not let the Orthodox Church decide who is really Orthodox, aymore than you will let the Catholic Church decide who is really Catholic.  And besides, the whole "Orthodox in Communion with Rome" title usage is largely limited to a very few on the internet and even fewer in real life.  I would be more concerned about vagantes parading as the "Orthodox Catholic Church of North America" and such. 

This issue is one of the most serious sources of tension between Eastern Orthodoxy and Rome. All that I am asking for is respect for our Church and our sensibilities on this subject. Eastern Catholics are not Orthodox because they or their spiritual ancestors left the Orthodox Church to submit to Rome. Just be honest about it. If you are under Rome, you are not Orthodox.

Fr. John W. Morris
But we believe that in order to be orthodox in the true sense of the word, one would need to be in communion with Rome. We are being true to our faith (note: I'm not one to use the "Orthodox in Communion with Rome" title).

And I am being true to my faith as an Orthodox Christian when I believe that one cannot be in Communion with Rome and call themselves Orthodox because I do not believe that Rome is Orthodox.

Fr. John W. Morris
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: podkarpatska on December 18, 2013, 11:33:11 PM
Reality, and accepted, common English usage, is clear. The Catholic Church is understood to refer to those under Rome. The Orthodox Church refers to the Eastern Orthodox churches of apostolic Christianity under the remaining  four Eastern Patriarchs of the pre-schism Pentarchy, the Eastern Orthodox churches subsequently recognized as autochephalous or autonomous and the non-Chalcedonian "Oriental" Orthodox churches. ( I hope I got everyone...)

Yes, we each believe ourselves to be catholic, apostolic and orthodox, but arguing about the terminology is pointless. And I agree with Deacon Lance, the average Eastern Catholic does NOT self identify as "Orthodox in union with Rome." That is offensive even to those of us kindly disposed to Eastern Catholics for it is historically wrong and inaccurate in its very understanding of ecclesiology. And if my memory is correct, even the Slavonic and English Trebnik/Liturgikon of the Slavic Greek Catholics reflects this by removing the term "pravoslavnyj" as in not saying: "Remember in Your Kingdom all Orthodox Christians" but rather saying "Christians of the true Faith". (Although this is not uniform I've noticed it in European liturgies.)
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Deacon Lance on December 18, 2013, 11:52:17 PM
And if my memory is correct, even the Slavonic and English Trebnik/Liturgikon of the Slavic Greek Catholics reflects this by removing the term "pravoslavnyj" as in not saying: "Remember in Your Kingdom all Orthodox Christians" but rather saying "Christians of the true Faith". (Although this is not uniform I've noticed it in European liturgies.)
Actually, the Metropolia of Pittsburgh is the only one left with "true faith", the Ukrainians have returned to "Orthodox". 
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: ialmisry on December 19, 2013, 12:09:23 AM
The difference is that we are Orthodox Catholics. The word "Catholic" was first used in the East by St. Ignatius of Antioch. If you are under Rome, you are not Orthodox. This issue is one of the greatest sources of tension between Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Church. It is dishonest for a group under Rome to call themselves "Orthodox in Communion with Rome," because you cannot be Orthodox and be in Communion with Rome until Rome abandons all teachings like Purgatory, the Augustinian conception of original sin, and most of all papal supremacy, claims to universal jurisdiction and infallibility. Even if you use the Byzantine Liturgy if your Bishop in in Communion with Rome according to Orthodox theology that means that you share a Common Faith with Rome including the Roman teachings that contradict the teaching of the ancient undivided Church.
How about this, you let the Orthodox Church decide who is really Orthodox?
Fr. John W. Morris
Father that is circular logic. Obviously Orthodox believe they are Catholic, and Catholics believe they are Orthodox.  I could say: "If you are not under Rome, you are not Catholic."  You would not accept that, nor should you.
 
Your Pastor Aeternus, Deacon, does say that, and says we should accept it.

Sticking with the original and Orthodox definition of Catholic, of course, we don't.

That, of course, doesn't stop the Vatican from calling the schisms in Orthodox Churches as a "return to Catholic communion/unity," when it fact the date in question specifies the date the schism left it.

So no, I will not let the Orthodox Church decide who is really Orthodox

Not your call, Deacon.
aymore than you will let the Catholic Church decide who is really Catholic.
 
Of course the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church decides who is Catholic.
And besides, the whole "Orthodox in Communion with Rome" title usage is largely limited to a very few on the internet and even fewer in real life.  I would be more concerned about vagantes parading as the "Orthodox Catholic Church of North America" and such. 
Don't know about that, but I will concede you have a point.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: ialmisry on December 19, 2013, 12:09:55 AM
But, to be fair, the Orthodox don't claim the name "Roman" or "Rome".

Oh wait ...

 ;)

Actually we do. In Arabic what we call Greek Orthodox is literally Roman (Rhum) Orthodox because the we were the Church of the Roman Empire which lasted until 1453 when the Turks conquered Constntinople.  Following their Islamic religion, the Turks organized various people according to their religion. Eastern Orthodox were called the Rhum Millet or Roman Nation under the Turks and because of that we are called Rhum Orthodox in the Arabic speaking world.

Fr. John W. Morris

Alright. (Anyhow, the "Oh wait ...  ;)" was a reference to ialmisry, as he just graciously illustrated. :))

Anytime. ;)
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: mike on December 19, 2013, 03:12:19 AM
3 pages of ping-pong. Can you get over it already?
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Peter J on December 19, 2013, 06:17:00 AM
That, of course, doesn't stop the Vatican from calling the schisms in Orthodox Churches as a "return to Catholic communion/unity," when it fact the date in question specifies the date the schism left it.

It presumably goes without saying that being Catholic is not some kind of magic pill that makes every Catholic think exactly the same as every other Catholic.

Just yesterday I was reading about the outrage among some so-called traditionalist Catholics at the rejection of "ecumenism of return". But does their outrage mean that we do not really reject "ecumenism of return"? Hardly!
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: frjohnmorris on December 19, 2013, 11:42:34 AM
That, of course, doesn't stop the Vatican from calling the schisms in Orthodox Churches as a "return to Catholic communion/unity," when it fact the date in question specifies the date the schism left it.

It presumably goes without saying that being Catholic is not some kind of magic pill that makes every Catholic think exactly the same as every other Catholic.

Just yesterday I was reading about the outrage among some so-called traditionalist Catholics at the rejection of "ecumenism of return". But does their outrage mean that we do not really reject "ecumenism of return"? Hardly!

I am reading a very interesting book about the origins and early development of the Eastern Catholic Churches in Eastern Europe. It is not a polemic, but is a serious scholarly study by a professional historian. Barbara Skinner, The Western Front of the Eastern Church: Uniate and Orthodox Conflict in Eighteenth-century Poland, Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia I think that an objective reading would confirm my point that Eastern Catholics are not Orthodox but were heavily Latinized and had to accept Roman Catholic doctrine including the "filioque" as a result of their union with Rome. . I should point out that I know that Eastern Catholics do not like being called Uniates, but that is what all scholarly histories of the movement call them to distinguish them from Orthodox. It comes from the origins of the Eastern Catholic Churches in the Union of Brest of 1596 and was never meant to be an insult.

Fr. John W. Morris
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Schultz on December 19, 2013, 11:57:56 AM
That, of course, doesn't stop the Vatican from calling the schisms in Orthodox Churches as a "return to Catholic communion/unity," when it fact the date in question specifies the date the schism left it.

It presumably goes without saying that being Catholic is not some kind of magic pill that makes every Catholic think exactly the same as every other Catholic.

Just yesterday I was reading about the outrage among some so-called traditionalist Catholics at the rejection of "ecumenism of return". But does their outrage mean that we do not really reject "ecumenism of return"? Hardly!

I am reading a very interesting book about the origins and early development of the Eastern Catholic Churches in Eastern Europe. It is not a polemic, but is a serious scholarly study by a professional historian. Barbara Skinner, The Western Front of the Eastern Church: Uniate and Orthodox Conflict in Eighteenth-century Poland, Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia I think that an objective reading would confirm my point that Eastern Catholics are not Orthodox but were heavily Latinized and had to accept Roman Catholic doctrine including the "filioque" as a result of their union with Rome. . I should point out that I know that Eastern Catholics do not like being called Uniates, but that is what all scholarly histories of the movement call them to distinguish them from Orthodox. It comes from the origins of the Eastern Catholic Churches in the Union of Brest of 1596 and was never meant to be an insult.

Fr. John W. Morris

And yet it demonstrably came to be used as an insult in the last century, especially in the United States as a result of the creation of what became the OCA and ACROD.  Many words that now find usage as pejoratives did not begin life as such but are now considered an insult by those they address (for instance, "squaw" for an Amerind woman).  Outside of some academic discussions, it is often best and most charitable to refrain from calling someone a name they've asked you not use.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: frjohnmorris on December 19, 2013, 12:08:59 PM
That, of course, doesn't stop the Vatican from calling the schisms in Orthodox Churches as a "return to Catholic communion/unity," when it fact the date in question specifies the date the schism left it.

It presumably goes without saying that being Catholic is not some kind of magic pill that makes every Catholic think exactly the same as every other Catholic.

Just yesterday I was reading about the outrage among some so-called traditionalist Catholics at the rejection of "ecumenism of return". But does their outrage mean that we do not really reject "ecumenism of return"? Hardly!

I am reading a very interesting book about the origins and early development of the Eastern Catholic Churches in Eastern Europe. It is not a polemic, but is a serious scholarly study by a professional historian. Barbara Skinner, The Western Front of the Eastern Church: Uniate and Orthodox Conflict in Eighteenth-century Poland, Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia I think that an objective reading would confirm my point that Eastern Catholics are not Orthodox but were heavily Latinized and had to accept Roman Catholic doctrine including the "filioque" as a result of their union with Rome. . I should point out that I know that Eastern Catholics do not like being called Uniates, but that is what all scholarly histories of the movement call them to distinguish them from Orthodox. It comes from the origins of the Eastern Catholic Churches in the Union of Brest of 1596 and was never meant to be an insult.

Fr. John W. Morris

And yet it demonstrably came to be used as an insult in the last century, especially in the United States as a result of the creation of what became the OCA and ACROD.  Many words that now find usage as pejoratives did not begin life as such but are now considered an insult by those they address (for instance, "squaw" for an Amerind woman).  Outside of some academic discussions, it is often best and most charitable to refrain from calling someone a name they've asked you not use.


I have honored that request and have never referred to Eastern Catholics as Uniates on this site, but that is the title of a scholarly work on this subject.I cannot change the name of the book. I am not OCA or ACROD and know nothing on the personal level on their relations with Eastern Catholics. I have also had no exposure to the Eastern Catholics, so I know nothing about Eastern Catholics  except what I have read in history books all of which refer to Byzantine Rite Eastern Catholics as Uniates.
It offends me and many Orthodox when an Eastern Catholic calls their Church, "Orthodox in Communion with Rome," but they do not seem to extend to me and other like me in the Orthodox Church the same courtesy that I extend to them by not calling them Uniates.

Fr. John W. Morris

Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Schultz on December 19, 2013, 12:45:37 PM
That, of course, doesn't stop the Vatican from calling the schisms in Orthodox Churches as a "return to Catholic communion/unity," when it fact the date in question specifies the date the schism left it.

It presumably goes without saying that being Catholic is not some kind of magic pill that makes every Catholic think exactly the same as every other Catholic.

Just yesterday I was reading about the outrage among some so-called traditionalist Catholics at the rejection of "ecumenism of return". But does their outrage mean that we do not really reject "ecumenism of return"? Hardly!

I am reading a very interesting book about the origins and early development of the Eastern Catholic Churches in Eastern Europe. It is not a polemic, but is a serious scholarly study by a professional historian. Barbara Skinner, The Western Front of the Eastern Church: Uniate and Orthodox Conflict in Eighteenth-century Poland, Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia I think that an objective reading would confirm my point that Eastern Catholics are not Orthodox but were heavily Latinized and had to accept Roman Catholic doctrine including the "filioque" as a result of their union with Rome. . I should point out that I know that Eastern Catholics do not like being called Uniates, but that is what all scholarly histories of the movement call them to distinguish them from Orthodox. It comes from the origins of the Eastern Catholic Churches in the Union of Brest of 1596 and was never meant to be an insult.

Fr. John W. Morris

And yet it demonstrably came to be used as an insult in the last century, especially in the United States as a result of the creation of what became the OCA and ACROD.  Many words that now find usage as pejoratives did not begin life as such but are now considered an insult by those they address (for instance, "squaw" for an Amerind woman).  Outside of some academic discussions, it is often best and most charitable to refrain from calling someone a name they've asked you not use.


I have honored that request and have never referred to Eastern Catholics as Uniates on this site, but that is the title of a scholarly work on this subject.I cannot change the name of the book. I am not OCA or ACROD and know nothing on the personal level on their relations with Eastern Catholics. I have also had no exposure to the Eastern Catholics, so I know nothing about Eastern Catholics  except what I have read in history books all of which refer to Byzantine Rite Eastern Catholics as Uniates.
It offends me and many Orthodox when an Eastern Catholic calls their Church, "Orthodox in Communion with Rome," but they do not seem to extend to me and other like me in the Orthodox Church the same courtesy that I extend to them by not calling them Uniates.

Fr. John W. Morris

You do more than many, Father, by extending the courtesy of calling others what they wish to be called, and I thank you for it even if I am no longer an Eastern Catholic.  I have a number of uncles who are Ruthenian Catholic and I learned early on that one shouldn't call another a "U-word" although it was perfectly fine to use it in more academically inclined discussions.

As for what some ECs call themselves, that is on them, not you, of course, and it does you credit that you extend them a courtesy they do not return. :)
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Papist on December 19, 2013, 01:39:53 PM
That, of course, doesn't stop the Vatican from calling the schisms in Orthodox Churches as a "return to Catholic communion/unity," when it fact the date in question specifies the date the schism left it.

It presumably goes without saying that being Catholic is not some kind of magic pill that makes every Catholic think exactly the same as every other Catholic.

Just yesterday I was reading about the outrage among some so-called traditionalist Catholics at the rejection of "ecumenism of return". But does their outrage mean that we do not really reject "ecumenism of return"? Hardly!

I am reading a very interesting book about the origins and early development of the Eastern Catholic Churches in Eastern Europe. It is not a polemic, but is a serious scholarly study by a professional historian. Barbara Skinner, The Western Front of the Eastern Church: Uniate and Orthodox Conflict in Eighteenth-century Poland, Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia I think that an objective reading would confirm my point that Eastern Catholics are not Orthodox but were heavily Latinized and had to accept Roman Catholic doctrine including the "filioque" as a result of their union with Rome. . I should point out that I know that Eastern Catholics do not like being called Uniates, but that is what all scholarly histories of the movement call them to distinguish them from Orthodox. It comes from the origins of the Eastern Catholic Churches in the Union of Brest of 1596 and was never meant to be an insult.

Fr. John W. Morris

And yet it demonstrably came to be used as an insult in the last century, especially in the United States as a result of the creation of what became the OCA and ACROD.  Many words that now find usage as pejoratives did not begin life as such but are now considered an insult by those they address (for instance, "squaw" for an Amerind woman).  Outside of some academic discussions, it is often best and most charitable to refrain from calling someone a name they've asked you not use.


I have honored that request and have never referred to Eastern Catholics as Uniates on this site, but that is the title of a scholarly work on this subject.I cannot change the name of the book. I am not OCA or ACROD and know nothing on the personal level on their relations with Eastern Catholics. I have also had no exposure to the Eastern Catholics, so I know nothing about Eastern Catholics  except what I have read in history books all of which refer to Byzantine Rite Eastern Catholics as Uniates.
It offends me and many Orthodox when an Eastern Catholic calls their Church, "Orthodox in Communion with Rome," but they do not seem to extend to me and other like me in the Orthodox Church the same courtesy that I extend to them by not calling them Uniates.

Fr. John W. Morris


Father, I would never call you anything other than what you call yourself and that is Orthodox.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: frjohnmorris on December 19, 2013, 04:26:19 PM
That, of course, doesn't stop the Vatican from calling the schisms in Orthodox Churches as a "return to Catholic communion/unity," when it fact the date in question specifies the date the schism left it.

It presumably goes without saying that being Catholic is not some kind of magic pill that makes every Catholic think exactly the same as every other Catholic.

Just yesterday I was reading about the outrage among some so-called traditionalist Catholics at the rejection of "ecumenism of return". But does their outrage mean that we do not really reject "ecumenism of return"? Hardly!

I am reading a very interesting book about the origins and early development of the Eastern Catholic Churches in Eastern Europe. It is not a polemic, but is a serious scholarly study by a professional historian. Barbara Skinner, The Western Front of the Eastern Church: Uniate and Orthodox Conflict in Eighteenth-century Poland, Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia I think that an objective reading would confirm my point that Eastern Catholics are not Orthodox but were heavily Latinized and had to accept Roman Catholic doctrine including the "filioque" as a result of their union with Rome. . I should point out that I know that Eastern Catholics do not like being called Uniates, but that is what all scholarly histories of the movement call them to distinguish them from Orthodox. It comes from the origins of the Eastern Catholic Churches in the Union of Brest of 1596 and was never meant to be an insult.

Fr. John W. Morris

And yet it demonstrably came to be used as an insult in the last century, especially in the United States as a result of the creation of what became the OCA and ACROD.  Many words that now find usage as pejoratives did not begin life as such but are now considered an insult by those they address (for instance, "squaw" for an Amerind woman).  Outside of some academic discussions, it is often best and most charitable to refrain from calling someone a name they've asked you not use.


I have honored that request and have never referred to Eastern Catholics as Uniates on this site, but that is the title of a scholarly work on this subject.I cannot change the name of the book. I am not OCA or ACROD and know nothing on the personal level on their relations with Eastern Catholics. I have also had no exposure to the Eastern Catholics, so I know nothing about Eastern Catholics  except what I have read in history books all of which refer to Byzantine Rite Eastern Catholics as Uniates.
It offends me and many Orthodox when an Eastern Catholic calls their Church, "Orthodox in Communion with Rome," but they do not seem to extend to me and other like me in the Orthodox Church the same courtesy that I extend to them by not calling them Uniates.

Fr. John W. Morris

You do more than many, Father, by extending the courtesy of calling others what they wish to be called, and I thank you for it even if I am no longer an Eastern Catholic.  I have a number of uncles who are Ruthenian Catholic and I learned early on that one shouldn't call another a "U-word" although it was perfectly fine to use it in more academically inclined discussions.

As for what some ECs call themselves, that is on them, not you, of course, and it does you credit that you extend them a courtesy they do not return. :)

It is on me when it confuses they confuse the Faithful by offering them Communion and telling them that they are Orthodox when they are not. They first began to gain a following in the Middle East by offering Byzantine worship with much easier fasting traditions than are observed by the Orthodox Church. At that time, 1724, the Turks governed their subject peoples through their religion. A person could escape a fine or worse, from an Orthodox Bishop by joining the Eastern Catholics.

Fr. John W. Morris
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Deacon Lance on December 19, 2013, 05:20:19 PM
It offends me and many Orthodox when an Eastern Catholic calls their Church, "Orthodox in Communion with Rome," but they do not seem to extend to me and other like me in the Orthodox Church the same courtesy that I extend to them by not calling them Uniates.

Fr. John W. Morris

We extend the same courtesy by not using terms for you that you would find perjorative like "Schismatic".  We do not take offense that you use the term Catholic, you should take no offense if we use the term Orthodox.  In truth, however, in real life you will not see signs outside our churches that read "St. Michael's Orthodox Church in Communion with Rome".  They read St. Michael's Byzantine Catholic Church, or Greek Catholic Church, or Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. If you walk into the church and ask people what they are the will respond: Byzantine Catholic, Melkite Catholic, Ukrainian Catholic.  The "Orthodox in Communion wit Rome" is an internet phenoma.  In my own Metropolia, due to the our split with ACROD, the tem Orthodox became a dirty word we excised from the English translation of our liturgy that we still have not replaced.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Αριστοκλής on December 19, 2013, 05:27:12 PM
But we, in large part, DO find "Orthodox in communion with Rome" to be as insulting as the U-term is to you - so much so that that I think it should be proscribed here as much as the "U-word" is. The saw cuts BOTH ways. That you care not to use this term is fine with me.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Deacon Lance on December 19, 2013, 05:33:49 PM
I am not OCA or ACROD and know nothing on the personal level on their relations with Eastern Catholics. I have also had no exposure to the Eastern Catholics, so I know nothing about Eastern Catholics  except what I have read in history books all of which refer to Byzantine Rite Eastern Catholics as Uniates.

It is on me when it confuses they confuse the Faithful by offering them Communion and telling them that they are Orthodox when they are not. They first began to gain a following in the Middle East by offering Byzantine worship with much easier fasting traditions than are observed by the Orthodox Church. At that time, 1724, the Turks governed their subject peoples through their religion. A person could escape a fine or worse, from an Orthodox Bishop by joining the Eastern Catholics.

Fr. John W. Morris

You claim to know nothing about us and then go on to accuse us.  Let me guess you are a convert from Protestantism?  The split in Antioch of 1724 had everything to do with Greek domination of the native Arabs and nothing to do with fasts or fines.  You need to get yourself better books.

And Melkites communing Antiochians and Antiochians communing Melkites is common in the Middle East.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Deacon Lance on December 19, 2013, 05:36:57 PM
But we, in large part, DO find "Orthodox in communion with Rome" to be as insulting as the U-term is to you - so much so that that I think it should be proscribed here as much as the "U-word" is. The saw cuts BOTH ways. That you care not to use this term is fine with me.

It is one thing to be insulted by what somebody calls you.  It is another to be insulted by what somebody else calls themselves. 
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Peter J on December 19, 2013, 07:41:47 PM
It offends me and many Orthodox when an Eastern Catholic calls their Church, "Orthodox in Communion with Rome," but they do not seem to extend to me and other like me in the Orthodox Church the same courtesy that I extend to them by not calling them Uniates.

Fr. John W. Morris

I don't think it's that simple. Many of us ECs (and some LCs of course) do have a very positive view of the Orthodox; but we nevertheless have to cope with the negative view held by many (most?) of our coreligionists.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: ialmisry on December 19, 2013, 08:34:28 PM
I am not OCA or ACROD and know nothing on the personal level on their relations with Eastern Catholics. I have also had no exposure to the Eastern Catholics, so I know nothing about Eastern Catholics  except what I have read in history books all of which refer to Byzantine Rite Eastern Catholics as Uniates.

It is on me when it confuses they confuse the Faithful by offering them Communion and telling them that they are Orthodox when they are not. They first began to gain a following in the Middle East by offering Byzantine worship with much easier fasting traditions than are observed by the Orthodox Church. At that time, 1724, the Turks governed their subject peoples through their religion. A person could escape a fine or worse, from an Orthodox Bishop by joining the Eastern Catholics.

Fr. John W. Morris

You claim to know nothing about us and then go on to accuse us.  Let me guess you are a convert from Protestantism?  The split in Antioch of 1724 had everything to do with Greek domination of the native Arabs and nothing to do with fasts or fines.  You need to get yourself better books.

And Melkites communing Antiochians and Antiochians communing Melkites is common in the Middle East.
But Melkites.  No Ukrainian, Ruthenians, Greeks or Latins in submission to the Vatican.

Greek domination of the native Arabs came in reaction after 1724.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: ialmisry on December 19, 2013, 08:37:08 PM
It offends me and many Orthodox when an Eastern Catholic calls their Church, "Orthodox in Communion with Rome," but they do not seem to extend to me and other like me in the Orthodox Church the same courtesy that I extend to them by not calling them Uniates.

Fr. John W. Morris

We extend the same courtesy by not using terms for you that you would find perjorative like "Schismatic".  We do not take offense that you use the term Catholic, you should take no offense if we use the term Orthodox.  In truth, however, in real life you will not see signs outside our churches that read "St. Michael's Orthodox Church in Communion with Rome".  They read St. Michael's Byzantine Catholic Church, or Greek Catholic Church, or Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. If you walk into the church and ask people what they are the will respond: Byzantine Catholic, Melkite Catholic, Ukrainian Catholic.  The "Orthodox in Communion wit Rome" is an internet phenoma.  In my own Metropolia, due to the our split with ACROD, the tem Orthodox became a dirty word we excised from the English translation of our liturgy that we still have not replaced.
If heretics call us schismatics, what's the harm.  The "curses of heretics are blessings and the blessings of heretics are curses" and all that.

You can have Byzantine.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: mike on December 19, 2013, 08:39:32 PM
This topic is awesome now that Papist has gone Greek.

You should be banned for reopening this.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Peter J on December 19, 2013, 08:48:24 PM
If heretics call us schismatics, what's the harm.  The "curses of heretics are blessings and the blessings of heretics are curses" and all that.

I think I need to explain to you how ecumenism works ...

But that aside, if you're okay with us calling you "schismatics", then shouldn't you also be okay with us calling ourselves "Orthodox"?
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: ialmisry on December 19, 2013, 10:50:16 PM
If heretics call us schismatics, what's the harm.  The "curses of heretics are blessings and the blessings of heretics are curses" and all that.

I think I need to explain to you how ecumenism works ...

But that aside, if you're okay with us calling you "schismatics", then shouldn't you also be okay with us calling ourselves "Orthodox"?
No, we have exclusive use of names proper to us.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Αριστοκλής on December 19, 2013, 11:38:55 PM
But we, in large part, DO find "Orthodox in communion with Rome" to be as insulting as the U-term is to you - so much so that that I think it should be proscribed here as much as the "U-word" is. The saw cuts BOTH ways. That you care not to use this term is fine with me.

It is one thing to be insulted by what somebody calls you.  It is another to be insulted by what somebody else calls themselves. 

Only in your world.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: frjohnmorris on December 20, 2013, 01:39:56 AM
If heretics call us schismatics, what's the harm.  The "curses of heretics are blessings and the blessings of heretics are curses" and all that.

I think I need to explain to you how ecumenism works ...

But that aside, if you're okay with us calling you "schismatics", then shouldn't you also be okay with us calling ourselves "Orthodox"?

Let me explain to you how ecumenism really works. The first principle of ecumenism is respect for the feelings of the group with which you are in dialogue. If you respect them, you strive not to offend them by the terms that you use. When in discussions with Eastern Catholics, I avoid the term "Uniate" because they have decided that it is offensive. You know that it offends us when someone calls himself Orthodox who is not in our Church. Melkites are not in the Orthodox Church. They are a Rite of the Catholic Church under the Pope. Therefore according to the real principles of ecumenism, you should respect our feelings and not call yourself Orthodox because that is the name of our Church and has a certain meaning to us. In Arabic, Melkites are called Catholic, not Orthodox.

Fr. John W. Morris
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: JR on December 20, 2013, 04:51:49 AM
If heretics call us schismatics, what's the harm.  The "curses of heretics are blessings and the blessings of heretics are curses" and all that.

I think I need to explain to you how ecumenism works ...

But that aside, if you're okay with us calling you "schismatics", then shouldn't you also be okay with us calling ourselves "Orthodox"?

Let me explain to you how ecumenism really works. The first principle of ecumenism is respect for the feelings of the group with which you are in dialogue. If you respect them, you strive not to offend them by the terms that you use. When in discussions with Eastern Catholics, I avoid the term "Uniate" because they have decided that it is offensive. You know that it offends us when someone calls himself Orthodox who is not in our Church. Melkites are not in the Orthodox Church. They are a Rite of the Catholic Church under the Pope. Therefore according to the real principles of ecumenism, you should respect our feelings and not call yourself Orthodox because that is the name of our Church and has a certain meaning to us. In Arabic, Melkites are called Catholic, not Orthodox.

Fr. John W. Morris

Actually the Melkites are a church of the Byzantine rite in Communion with the Pope, they are not a rite, but a church  ;)
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Peter J on December 20, 2013, 08:50:53 AM
Actually the Melkites are a church of the Byzantine rite in Communion with the Pope, they are not a rite, but a church  ;)

Well said. :)
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Peter J on December 20, 2013, 08:53:32 AM
But we, in large part, DO find "Orthodox in communion with Rome" to be as insulting as the U-term is to you - so much so that that I think it should be proscribed here as much as the "U-word" is. The saw cuts BOTH ways. That you care not to use this term is fine with me.

It is one thing to be insulted by what somebody calls you.  It is another to be insulted by what somebody else calls themselves. 

Only in your world.

Well, taking your "saw cuts both ways" (you have to be careful with that) a step further, shouldn't the following be against forum rules too, as infringing on our right to the words "Rome" and "Roman"?

I am
(http://www.mitropolia.eu/uploads/image/episcopul-siluan/preasfintitul-siluan-02_300x525px.jpg)
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Αριστοκλής on December 20, 2013, 08:57:56 AM
But we, in large part, DO find "Orthodox in communion with Rome" to be as insulting as the U-term is to you - so much so that that I think it should be proscribed here as much as the "U-word" is. The saw cuts BOTH ways. That you care not to use this term is fine with me.

It is one thing to be insulted by what somebody calls you.  It is another to be insulted by what somebody else calls themselves. 

Only in your world.

Well, taking your "saw cuts both ways" (you have to be careful with that) a step further, shouldn't the following be against forum rules too, as infringing on our right to the words "Rome" and "Roman"?

I am
(http://www.mitropolia.eu/uploads/image/episcopul-siluan/preasfintitul-siluan-02_300x525px.jpg)

Being a descendent of New Rome, capital of the empire longer than old Rome, myself, no.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Peter J on December 20, 2013, 10:20:58 AM
Being a descendent of New Rome, capital of the empire longer than old Rome, myself, no.

Alright, but you're severely weakening your claim that we shouldn't call ourselves "Orthodox".
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: podkarpatska on December 20, 2013, 10:50:40 AM
If heretics call us schismatics, what's the harm.  The "curses of heretics are blessings and the blessings of heretics are curses" and all that.

I think I need to explain to you how ecumenism works ...

But that aside, if you're okay with us calling you "schismatics", then shouldn't you also be okay with us calling ourselves "Orthodox"?

Let me explain to you how ecumenism really works. The first principle of ecumenism is respect for the feelings of the group with which you are in dialogue. If you respect them, you strive not to offend them by the terms that you use. When in discussions with Eastern Catholics, I avoid the term "Uniate" because they have decided that it is offensive. You know that it offends us when someone calls himself Orthodox who is not in our Church. Melkites are not in the Orthodox Church. They are a Rite of the Catholic Church under the Pope. Therefore according to the real principles of ecumenism, you should respect our feelings and not call yourself Orthodox because that is the name of our Church and has a certain meaning to us. In Arabic, Melkites are called Catholic, not Orthodox.

Fr. John W. Morris

In Slovakia and Ukraine, the ECC are called "Greek Catholic" NEVER "Pravoslavnjy." Why is it so hard to get the point in English? My grandfathers knew the difference eighty years ago. When the non Greek Catholic churches entered Orthodoxy  in America they were often named "Russian (or Uhro-Russian or Carpatho-Russian) Orthodox Greek Catholic to distinguish them from the "real" Greek Catholics under Rome and from the "real" Russian ethnic churches , but over the years most are now simply called "Orthodox." When the Pennsylvania courts ruled that the Ruthenian Eparchy did not have exclusive rights to the term "Greek Catholic" in the early1950' s, they became Byzantine Catholic.

As I see it, from my own background, it is bull-headed, arrogant and offensive for an Eastern Catholic to call himself "Orthodox in communion with Rome", just as it is bull-headed, arrogant and offensive to for an Orthodox to argue that we shouldn't call the Church of Rome the Catholic Church. Carrying on and on about these things is like playground behavior befitting elementary school boys, not grown men. Tough to take any arguments structured in such a manner with any seriousness.

Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: ialmisry on December 20, 2013, 10:50:51 AM
Actually the Melkites are a church of the Byzantine rite in Communion with the Pope, they are not a rite, but a church  ;)

Well said. :)
I'm not sure how old Fr. Morris is, but he might predate that change.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: ialmisry on December 20, 2013, 10:51:57 AM
Being a descendent of New Rome, capital of the empire longer than old Rome, myself, no.

Alright, but you're severely weakening your claim that we shouldn't call ourselves "Orthodox".
How's that?: he's actually a descendant of New Rome.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Alpo on December 20, 2013, 10:53:01 AM
(http://www.mitropolia.eu/uploads/image/episcopul-siluan/preasfintitul-siluan-02_300x525px.jpg)

I'm fascinated by the fact that a pope has similar glasses that I had in high school.

This topic is awesome now that Papist has gone Greek.

You should be banned for reopening this.

Always a pleasure. :-*

Except that I didn't. Too bad. How awesome would that have been.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Papist on December 20, 2013, 12:32:10 PM
Carrying on and on about these things is like playground behavior befitting elementary school boys, not grown men. Tough to take any arguments structured in such a manner with any seriousness.


You are probably correct. Call us Catholics, Roman Catholics, Greek Catholics, Byzantine Catholics, or even the "U-word." Who cares? We are Christians loving, worshiping, and serving Christ.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Peter J on December 20, 2013, 01:31:55 PM
Carrying on and on about these things is like playground behavior befitting elementary school boys, not grown men. Tough to take any arguments structured in such a manner with any seriousness.

You are probably correct. Call us Catholics, Roman Catholics, Greek Catholics, Byzantine Catholics, or even the "U-word." Who cares? We are Christians loving, worshiping, and serving Christ.

Well "Roman Catholics" is generally a shortened form of "Roman-Rite Catholics". So while it's not an offensive term, it's incorrect if applied to Greek Catholics.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Alpo on December 20, 2013, 01:54:05 PM
Carrying on and on about these things is like playground behavior befitting elementary school boys, not grown men. Tough to take any arguments structured in such a manner with any seriousness.

You are probably correct. Call us Catholics, Roman Catholics, Greek Catholics, Byzantine Catholics, or even the "U-word." Who cares? We are Christians loving, worshiping, and serving Christ.

Well "Roman Catholics" is generally a shortened form of "Roman-Rite Catholics".

Most of the people are not aware of Eastern Catholics. Thus "Roman Catholics" is generally something like "the folks with old rituals and that pope in Rome".
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Papist on December 20, 2013, 03:06:41 PM
Carrying on and on about these things is like playground behavior befitting elementary school boys, not grown men. Tough to take any arguments structured in such a manner with any seriousness.

You are probably correct. Call us Catholics, Roman Catholics, Greek Catholics, Byzantine Catholics, or even the "U-word." Who cares? We are Christians loving, worshiping, and serving Christ.

Well "Roman Catholics" is generally a shortened form of "Roman-Rite Catholics".

Most of the people are not aware of Eastern Catholics. Thus "Roman Catholics" is generally something like "the folks with old rituals and that pope in Rome".
That's what I was thinking.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: frjohnmorris on December 20, 2013, 03:26:51 PM
If heretics call us schismatics, what's the harm.  The "curses of heretics are blessings and the blessings of heretics are curses" and all that.

I think I need to explain to you how ecumenism works ...

But that aside, if you're okay with us calling you "schismatics", then shouldn't you also be okay with us calling ourselves "Orthodox"?

Let me explain to you how ecumenism really works. The first principle of ecumenism is respect for the feelings of the group with which you are in dialogue. If you respect them, you strive not to offend them by the terms that you use. When in discussions with Eastern Catholics, I avoid the term "Uniate" because they have decided that it is offensive. You know that it offends us when someone calls himself Orthodox who is not in our Church. Melkites are not in the Orthodox Church. They are a Rite of the Catholic Church under the Pope. Therefore according to the real principles of ecumenism, you should respect our feelings and not call yourself Orthodox because that is the name of our Church and has a certain meaning to us. In Arabic, Melkites are called Catholic, not Orthodox.

Fr. John W. Morris

Actually the Melkites are a church of the Byzantine rite in Communion with the Pope, they are not a rite, but a church  ;)

Whatever the Melkites  are they are not Orthodox. The Melkites certainly do not have the right to self-rule that an autocephalous Church has within Orthodoxy, because by being in Communion with the Pope they recognize as valid the decisions of the 1st Vatican Council which gives all authority within the Catholic Church to the Pope. Orthodox do not recognize the papal claims to universal jurisdiction and infallibility. If the Melkites  do not accept the teachings of the Catholic Church, then why are they in Communion with Rome? I am not trying to offend or insult the Melkites, or any other Eastern Catholic group. I am just calling for honesty. If the Melkites were really Orthodox, they could not accept the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church on the authority of the Pope. When a Melkite Patriarch who has voiced some objections to Vatican 1 visited Pope Pius IX, the Pope ordered his guards to force the Patriarch to kneel before him and pushed his head down to the floor with his foot. No Orthodox Patriarch would take that kind of humiliation.

Fr. John W. Morris
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Peter J on December 20, 2013, 04:15:01 PM
Whatever the Melkites  are they are not Orthodox. The Melkites certainly do not have the right to self-rule that an autocephalous Church has within Orthodoxy, because by being in Communion with the Pope they recognize as valid the decisions of the 1st Vatican Council which gives all authority within the Catholic Church to the Pope. Orthodox do not recognize the papal claims to universal jurisdiction and infallibility. If the Melkites  do not accept the teachings of the Catholic Church, then why are they in Communion with Rome? I am not trying to offend or insult the Melkites, or any other Eastern Catholic group. I am just calling for honesty. If the Melkites were really Orthodox, they could not accept the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church on the authority of the Pope. When a Melkite Patriarch who has voiced some objections to Vatican 1 visited Pope Pius IX, the Pope ordered his guards to force the Patriarch to kneel before him and pushed his head down to the floor with his foot. No Orthodox Patriarch would take that kind of humiliation.

Fr. John W. Morris

It seems clear to me, Father, that you are acting as your own worst enemy: when you say that Patriarch Gregory II wasn't "Orthodox in communion with Rome" because of atrocious behavior by Pope Pius IX, you're bound to lose even the people who appreciated the good arguments you put forward earlier.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: frjohnmorris on December 20, 2013, 04:30:05 PM
Whatever the Melkites  are they are not Orthodox. The Melkites certainly do not have the right to self-rule that an autocephalous Church has within Orthodoxy, because by being in Communion with the Pope they recognize as valid the decisions of the 1st Vatican Council which gives all authority within the Catholic Church to the Pope. Orthodox do not recognize the papal claims to universal jurisdiction and infallibility. If the Melkites  do not accept the teachings of the Catholic Church, then why are they in Communion with Rome? I am not trying to offend or insult the Melkites, or any other Eastern Catholic group. I am just calling for honesty. If the Melkites were really Orthodox, they could not accept the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church on the authority of the Pope. When a Melkite Patriarch who has voiced some objections to Vatican 1 visited Pope Pius IX, the Pope ordered his guards to force the Patriarch to kneel before him and pushed his head down to the floor with his foot. No Orthodox Patriarch would take that kind of humiliation.

Fr. John W. Morris

It seems clear to me, Father, that you are acting as your own worst enemy: when you say that Patriarch Gregory II wasn't "Orthodox in communion with Rome" because of atrocious behavior by Pope Pius IX, you're bound to lose even the people who appreciated the good arguments you put forward earlier.

That is a matter of opinion. This incident shows that the Melkites are not Orthodox.  The Melkites stayed in Communion with Rome despite the public humiliation of their Patriarch by one of the most power hungry Popes in modern history. My argument is that you cannot be Orthodox and accept the dogmatic decrees of the 1st Vatican Council.

Fr. John W. Morris
Title: Re: Matt13:35 I will utter things kept secret from the Foundation of the World
Post by: biro on December 29, 2013, 05:35:22 PM
I will utter things which have been kept secret, from the foundation of the world (Matt13:35)

Here are some of the images that John describes in his Book of Revelation.
Every image is 3 miles across, and oriented north/south.
Everything is in plain view, for those with eyes to see.

http://youtu.be/kFFLme4b0WE

All of the worlds religions will come to know the truth.



Uh... What?
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: JoeS2 on December 29, 2013, 05:55:00 PM
Whatever the Melkites  are they are not Orthodox. The Melkites certainly do not have the right to self-rule that an autocephalous Church has within Orthodoxy, because by being in Communion with the Pope they recognize as valid the decisions of the 1st Vatican Council which gives all authority within the Catholic Church to the Pope. Orthodox do not recognize the papal claims to universal jurisdiction and infallibility. If the Melkites  do not accept the teachings of the Catholic Church, then why are they in Communion with Rome? I am not trying to offend or insult the Melkites, or any other Eastern Catholic group. I am just calling for honesty. If the Melkites were really Orthodox, they could not accept the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church on the authority of the Pope. When a Melkite Patriarch who has voiced some objections to Vatican 1 visited Pope Pius IX, the Pope ordered his guards to force the Patriarch to kneel before him and pushed his head down to the floor with his foot. No Orthodox Patriarch would take that kind of humiliation.

Fr. John W. Morris

It seems clear to me, Father, that you are acting as your own worst enemy: when you say that Patriarch Gregory II wasn't "Orthodox in communion with Rome" because of atrocious behavior by Pope Pius IX, you're bound to lose even the people who appreciated the good arguments you put forward earlier.

That is a matter of opinion. This incident shows that the Melkites are not Orthodox.  The Melkites stayed in Communion with Rome despite the public humiliation of their Patriarch by one of the most power hungry Popes in modern history. My argument is that you cannot be Orthodox and accept the dogmatic decrees of the 1st Vatican Council.

Fr. John W. Morris

Agreed !
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: KostaC on December 29, 2013, 06:43:11 PM
Ha! I was gonna say this topic is hilrious.  :D

Anyway, what made you change your mind about Eastern Catholicism?

Even though I don't know you or anyone else here at all, I'm pretty curious, too. Is that a personal question or are you comfortable sharing?
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Peter J on December 30, 2013, 04:08:07 PM
Anyway, what made you change your mind about Eastern Catholicism?

Oh, we have our ways. Maniacal laugh. Maniacal laugh.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Papist on December 30, 2013, 04:27:49 PM
Ha! I was gonna say this topic is hilrious.  :D

Anyway, what made you change your mind about Eastern Catholicism?

Even though I don't know you or anyone else here at all, I'm pretty curious, too. Is that a personal question or are you comfortable sharing?
Well, I grew up for one thing.  :D

I think everyone around here knows that there was a time when I was kind of a jerk around these parts. I like think that I've changed a bit. Maybe I'm wrong.

But more specifically, I realized that Latin and Byzantine theology do not come into the kinds of conflicts that I thought they did. For me, the biggest point of contention was the essence/energies distinction and the Latin doctrine of Divine Simplicity. After having studied both positions in greater depth, I realized that they were describing the same mystery but from differing perspectives. My studies in philosophy helped a great deal in this regard.

Additionally, I came to find that when it comes to theology, spirituality, liturgy, praxis, the Byzantine approach is much more in line with the needs of my spiritual life.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: JR on December 31, 2013, 08:01:19 AM
Ha! I was gonna say this topic is hilrious.  :D

Anyway, what made you change your mind about Eastern Catholicism?

Even though I don't know you or anyone else here at all, I'm pretty curious, too. Is that a personal question or are you comfortable sharing?
Well, I grew up for one thing.  :D

I think everyone around here knows that there was a time when I was kind of a jerk around these parts. I like think that I've changed a bit. Maybe I'm wrong.

But more specifically, I realized that Latin and Byzantine theology do not come into the kinds of conflicts that I thought they did. For me, the biggest point of contention was the essence/energies distinction and the Latin doctrine of Divine Simplicity. After having studied both positions in greater depth, I realized that they were describing the same mystery but from differing perspectives. My studies in philosophy helped a great deal in this regard.

Additionally, I came to find that when it comes to theology, spirituality, liturgy, praxis, the Byzantine approach is much more in line with the needs of my spiritual life.

Congratulations Papist  ;D
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Altar Server on January 02, 2014, 02:22:00 PM
Ha! I was gonna say this topic is hilrious.  :D

Anyway, what made you change your mind about Eastern Catholicism?

Even though I don't know you or anyone else here at all, I'm pretty curious, too. Is that a personal question or are you comfortable sharing?
Well, I grew up for one thing.  :D

I think everyone around here knows that there was a time when I was kind of a jerk around these parts. I like think that I've changed a bit. Maybe I'm wrong.

But more specifically, I realized that Latin and Byzantine theology do not come into the kinds of conflicts that I thought they did. For me, the biggest point of contention was the essence/energies distinction and the Latin doctrine of Divine Simplicity. After having studied both positions in greater depth, I realized that they were describing the same mystery but from differing perspectives. My studies in philosophy helped a great deal in this regard.

Additionally, I came to find that when it comes to theology, spirituality, liturgy, praxis, the Byzantine approach is much more in line with the needs of my spiritual life.

Congratulations Papist  ;D
+1
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: frjohnmorris on January 04, 2014, 11:49:33 PM
I am not OCA or ACROD and know nothing on the personal level on their relations with Eastern Catholics. I have also had no exposure to the Eastern Catholics, so I know nothing about Eastern Catholics  except what I have read in history books all of which refer to Byzantine Rite Eastern Catholics as Uniates.

It is on me when it confuses they confuse the Faithful by offering them Communion and telling them that they are Orthodox when they are not. They first began to gain a following in the Middle East by offering Byzantine worship with much easier fasting traditions than are observed by the Orthodox Church. At that time, 1724, the Turks governed their subject peoples through their religion. A person could escape a fine or worse, from an Orthodox Bishop by joining the Eastern Catholics.

Fr. John W. Morris

You claim to know nothing about us and then go on to accuse us.  Let me guess you are a convert from Protestantism?  The split in Antioch of 1724 had everything to do with Greek domination of the native Arabs and nothing to do with fasts or fines.  You need to get yourself better books.

And Melkites communing Antiochians and Antiochians communing Melkites is common in the Middle East.
But Melkites.  No Ukrainian, Ruthenians, Greeks or Latins in submission to the Vatican.

Greek domination of the native Arabs came in reaction after 1724.

There are historical reasons why there has always been a strong Greek influence on the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch.
Antioch was a Greek speaking city founded by Seleucus I Nicator one of Alexander the Great's generals. So Greek is not foreign to the Patriarchate of Antioch. In 1098 the Patriarchs of Antioch had to seek refuge in Constantinople after they were thrown out of their see by the Crusaders who put a Latin Bishop in his place. When the Mamluks captured Antioch in 1269 the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch Theodosius IV returned the seat of the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch to Antioch. Their exile for almost 200 years in Constantinople would lead to a strong Greek influence on the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch. After an earthquake destroyed Antioch, Patriarch Ignatius III d. 2386 moved the Patriarchate to Damascus, where it remains today. The Turks placed the administration of all Eastern Orthodox under the Ecumenical Patriarchate. That also would also explain strong Greek influence on the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch. Finally, pro-Latin missionaries, chiefly Jesuits, came to the Middle East to win converts for Rome. With the support of France and other Catholic nations who used their influence with the Turks to support the efforts of the Catholic missionaries to persuade the Orthodox to accept the papacy the pro-papal party was able to elect one of their supporters, who called himself Cyril IV,  Patriarch of Antioch. After Cyril left the Eastern Orthodox Church and submitted to the papacy, those faithful to Orthodoxy naturally turned to Constantinople as is provided for by canon IX of the 4th Ecumenical Council, Chalcedon in 431, which gives a Bishop who has a conflict with his primate or Patriarch the right to appeal to Constantinople for a ruling on the merits of his case. Naturally, the Ecumenical Patriarch supported the Antiochian Bishops loyal to Eastern Orthodoxy against Cyril who lost his claim to the Orthodox Throne of Antioch by his submission to Rome. The result was the selection of a Greek who became Patriarch Sylvester and the election of a series of Greek Patriarchs to protect our Patriarchte from the efforts of supporters of Rome to take our people from us. However, in 1899, with the election of Patriarch Meletius II, the Patriarchate was once again held by a native Arab as it has been ever since. The current Patriarch of Antioch is John X. Therefore, had the agents of Rome not interfered in the internal affairs of Antioch, there would have been no Greek domination of our Patriarchate

Fr. John W. Morris
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: JoeS2 on February 22, 2014, 10:57:54 AM
Serious as the Pope on Pascha, I want to know what you're thinking.  I'm not baiting, I am being serious.

When Eastern Catholics do the say that is ok to reject:
1) Purgatory
2) The Immaculate Conception
3) The Ecumenical Councils between the seventh and Vatican II
4) Original Sin
5) Papal Infallibility
6) The Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope
7) The procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son
etc.
When they reject these and then state that its ok with the Church to do so, they are misrepresenting Catholicism to the world.

I may be mistaken but didn't Rome allow the Eastern Catholics to maintain their beliefs as a means to unity?  Or, are the Eastern Catholics merely a quaint rite of the Roman Catholic Church?
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: frjohnmorris on February 22, 2014, 11:21:10 AM
Serious as the Pope on Pascha, I want to know what you're thinking.  I'm not baiting, I am being serious.

When Eastern Catholics do the say that is ok to reject:
1) Purgatory
2) The Immaculate Conception
3) The Ecumenical Councils between the seventh and Vatican II
4) Original Sin
5) Papal Infallibility
6) The Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope
7) The procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son
etc.
When they reject these and then state that its ok with the Church to do so, they are misrepresenting Catholicism to the world.

I may be mistaken but didn't Rome allow the Eastern Catholics to maintain their beliefs as a means to unity?  Or, are the Eastern Catholics merely a quaint rite of the Roman Catholic Church?

In theory, Rome required them to accept papal supremacy and all other Roman Catholic doctrines, but allowed them to keep their liturgical traditions and married priests. However, some Eastern Catholics adopted more Roman Catholic doctrine than others. Some Byzantine Rite Eastern Catholics are closer to Orthodoxy than other Byzantine Rite Eastern  Catholics who are very Latinized. In America, Rome did not allow married priests among the Eastern Catholics because it upset the Latin Rite majority.

Fr. John W. Morris
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: JoeS2 on February 22, 2014, 01:11:31 PM
Serious as the Pope on Pascha, I want to know what you're thinking.  I'm not baiting, I am being serious.

When Eastern Catholics do the say that is ok to reject:
1) Purgatory
2) The Immaculate Conception
3) The Ecumenical Councils between the seventh and Vatican II
4) Original Sin
5) Papal Infallibility
6) The Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope
7) The procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son
etc.
When they reject these and then state that its ok with the Church to do so, they are misrepresenting Catholicism to the world.

I may be mistaken but didn't Rome allow the Eastern Catholics to maintain their beliefs as a means to unity?  Or, are the Eastern Catholics merely a quaint rite of the Roman Catholic Church?

In theory, Rome required them to accept papal supremacy and all other Roman Catholic doctrines, but allowed them to keep their liturgical traditions and married priests. However, some Eastern Catholics adopted more Roman Catholic doctrine than others. Some Byzantine Rite Eastern Catholics are closer to Orthodoxy than other Byzantine Rite Eastern  Catholics who are very Latinized. In America, Rome did not allow married priests among the Eastern Catholics because it upset the Latin Rite majority.

Fr. John W. Morris

So, it cost the Easterners their ancient Tradition and Dogma beliefs to enter into union with Rome?
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Yurysprudentsiya on February 22, 2014, 01:14:03 PM
Serious as the Pope on Pascha, I want to know what you're thinking.  I'm not baiting, I am being serious.

When Eastern Catholics do the say that is ok to reject:
1) Purgatory
2) The Immaculate Conception
3) The Ecumenical Councils between the seventh and Vatican II
4) Original Sin
5) Papal Infallibility
6) The Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope
7) The procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son
etc.
When they reject these and then state that its ok with the Church to do so, they are misrepresenting Catholicism to the world.

I may be mistaken but didn't Rome allow the Eastern Catholics to maintain their beliefs as a means to unity?  Or, are the Eastern Catholics merely a quaint rite of the Roman Catholic Church?

In theory, Rome required them to accept papal supremacy and all other Roman Catholic doctrines, but allowed them to keep their liturgical traditions and married priests. However, some Eastern Catholics adopted more Roman Catholic doctrine than others. Some Byzantine Rite Eastern Catholics are closer to Orthodoxy than other Byzantine Rite Eastern  Catholics who are very Latinized. In America, Rome did not allow married priests among the Eastern Catholics because it upset the Latin Rite majority.

Fr. John W. Morris

So, it cost the Easterners their ancient Tradition and Dogma beliefs to enter into union with Rome?

If you read the text of the Union of Brest, they basically agreed to disagree on points of contention, ie, the Greek Catholics didn't have to accept some of the theology but they couldn't challenge it either. 

Within 100 years a lot of that got thrown out the window in practice. 
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: JoeS2 on February 22, 2014, 01:16:01 PM
Serious as the Pope on Pascha, I want to know what you're thinking.  I'm not baiting, I am being serious.

When Eastern Catholics do the say that is ok to reject:
1) Purgatory
2) The Immaculate Conception
3) The Ecumenical Councils between the seventh and Vatican II
4) Original Sin
5) Papal Infallibility
6) The Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope
7) The procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son
etc.
When they reject these and then state that its ok with the Church to do so, they are misrepresenting Catholicism to the world.

I may be mistaken but didn't Rome allow the Eastern Catholics to maintain their beliefs as a means to unity?  Or, are the Eastern Catholics merely a quaint rite of the Roman Catholic Church?

In theory, Rome required them to accept papal supremacy and all other Roman Catholic doctrines, but allowed them to keep their liturgical traditions and married priests. However, some Eastern Catholics adopted more Roman Catholic doctrine than others. Some Byzantine Rite Eastern Catholics are closer to Orthodoxy than other Byzantine Rite Eastern  Catholics who are very Latinized. In America, Rome did not allow married priests among the Eastern Catholics because it upset the Latin Rite majority.

Fr. John W. Morris

So, it cost the Easterners their ancient Tradition and Dogma beliefs to enter into union with Rome?

If you read the text of the Union of Brest, they basically agreed to disagree on points of contention, ie, the Greek Catholics didn't have to accept some of the theology but they couldn't challenge it either. 

Within 100 years a lot of that got thrown out the window in practice. 

Ah, parallel Theologies, how quaint.  Sounds confusing.....almost schizophrenic.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: frjohnmorris on February 22, 2014, 01:42:22 PM
Serious as the Pope on Pascha, I want to know what you're thinking.  I'm not baiting, I am being serious.

When Eastern Catholics do the say that is ok to reject:
1) Purgatory
2) The Immaculate Conception
3) The Ecumenical Councils between the seventh and Vatican II
4) Original Sin
5) Papal Infallibility
6) The Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope
7) The procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son
etc.
When they reject these and then state that its ok with the Church to do so, they are misrepresenting Catholicism to the world.

I may be mistaken but didn't Rome allow the Eastern Catholics to maintain their beliefs as a means to unity?  Or, are the Eastern Catholics merely a quaint rite of the Roman Catholic Church?

In theory, Rome required them to accept papal supremacy and all other Roman Catholic doctrines, but allowed them to keep their liturgical traditions and married priests. However, some Eastern Catholics adopted more Roman Catholic doctrine than others. Some Byzantine Rite Eastern Catholics are closer to Orthodoxy than other Byzantine Rite Eastern  Catholics who are very Latinized. In America, Rome did not allow married priests among the Eastern Catholics because it upset the Latin Rite majority.

Fr. John W. Morris

So, it cost the Easterners their ancient Tradition and Dogma beliefs to enter into union with Rome?

If you read the text of the Union of Brest, they basically agreed to disagree on points of contention, ie, the Greek Catholics didn't have to accept some of the theology but they couldn't challenge it either. 

Within 100 years a lot of that got thrown out the window in practice. 

When the Byzantine Catholics sent a delegation to Rome after the Union of Brest, they were told that they had to accept all Roman Catholic doctrines. Rome sent Jesuits to teach Roman Catholic doctrine to the Byzantine Catholics in Poland. In 1895 the Ecumencal Patriarch sent an encyclical in response to a letter from Pope Leo XIII calling for reunion. It contains a passage that is relevant to this discussion:
"Since, however, from a certain period the Papal Church, having abandoned the method of persuasion and discussion, began, to our general astonishment and perplexity, to lay traps for the conscience of the more simple orthodox Christians by means of deceitful workers transformed into apostles of Christ, [3] sending into the East clerics with the dress and headcovering of orthodox priests, inventing also divers and other artful means to obtain her proselytizing objects; for this reason, as in sacred duty bound, we issue this patriarchal and synodical encyclical, for a safeguard of the orthodox faith and piety, knowing 'that the observance of the true canons is a duty for every good man, and much more for those who have been thought worthy by Providence to direct the affairs of others."

Fr. John W. Morris
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: JoeS2 on February 22, 2014, 06:06:30 PM
Serious as the Pope on Pascha, I want to know what you're thinking.  I'm not baiting, I am being serious.

When Eastern Catholics do the say that is ok to reject:
1) Purgatory
2) The Immaculate Conception
3) The Ecumenical Councils between the seventh and Vatican II
4) Original Sin
5) Papal Infallibility
6) The Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope
7) The procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son
etc.
When they reject these and then state that its ok with the Church to do so, they are misrepresenting Catholicism to the world.

I may be mistaken but didn't Rome allow the Eastern Catholics to maintain their beliefs as a means to unity?  Or, are the Eastern Catholics merely a quaint rite of the Roman Catholic Church?

In theory, Rome required them to accept papal supremacy and all other Roman Catholic doctrines, but allowed them to keep their liturgical traditions and married priests. However, some Eastern Catholics adopted more Roman Catholic doctrine than others. Some Byzantine Rite Eastern Catholics are closer to Orthodoxy than other Byzantine Rite Eastern  Catholics who are very Latinized. In America, Rome did not allow married priests among the Eastern Catholics because it upset the Latin Rite majority.

Fr. John W. Morris

So, it cost the Easterners their ancient Tradition and Dogma beliefs to enter into union with Rome?

If you read the text of the Union of Brest, they basically agreed to disagree on points of contention, ie, the Greek Catholics didn't have to accept some of the theology but they couldn't challenge it either. 

Within 100 years a lot of that got thrown out the window in practice. 

When the Byzantine Catholics sent a delegation to Rome after the Union of Brest, they were told that they had to accept all Roman Catholic doctrines. Rome sent Jesuits to teach Roman Catholic doctrine to the Byzantine Catholics in Poland. In 1895 the Ecumencal Patriarch sent an encyclical in response to a letter from Pope Leo XIII calling for reunion. It contains a passage that is relevant to this discussion:
"Since, however, from a certain period the Papal Church, having abandoned the method of persuasion and discussion, began, to our general astonishment and perplexity, to lay traps for the conscience of the more simple orthodox Christians by means of deceitful workers transformed into apostles of Christ, [3] sending into the East clerics with the dress and headcovering of orthodox priests, inventing also divers and other artful means to obtain her proselytizing objects; for this reason, as in sacred duty bound, we issue this patriarchal and synodical encyclical, for a safeguard of the orthodox faith and piety, knowing 'that the observance of the true canons is a duty for every good man, and much more for those who have been thought worthy by Providence to direct the affairs of others."

Fr. John W. Morris

If I am reading this correctly, I get the impression that the Roman church disguised itself as an Eastern church in garb and other deceptive methods to satisfy those who were already unionized?   If this is true, why would the clerics then, in spite of this, continue this masquerade ?
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: xOrthodox4Christx on February 22, 2014, 06:08:41 PM
Serious as the Pope on Pascha, I want to know what you're thinking.  I'm not baiting, I am being serious.

When Eastern Catholics do the say that is ok to reject:
1) Purgatory
2) The Immaculate Conception
3) The Ecumenical Councils between the seventh and Vatican II
4) Original Sin
5) Papal Infallibility
6) The Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope
7) The procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son
etc.
When they reject these and then state that its ok with the Church to do so, they are misrepresenting Catholicism to the world.

I may be mistaken but didn't Rome allow the Eastern Catholics to maintain their beliefs as a means to unity?  Or, are the Eastern Catholics merely a quaint rite of the Roman Catholic Church?

In theory, Rome required them to accept papal supremacy and all other Roman Catholic doctrines, but allowed them to keep their liturgical traditions and married priests. However, some Eastern Catholics adopted more Roman Catholic doctrine than others. Some Byzantine Rite Eastern Catholics are closer to Orthodoxy than other Byzantine Rite Eastern  Catholics who are very Latinized. In America, Rome did not allow married priests among the Eastern Catholics because it upset the Latin Rite majority.

Fr. John W. Morris

So, it cost the Easterners their ancient Tradition and Dogma beliefs to enter into union with Rome?

If you read the text of the Union of Brest, they basically agreed to disagree on points of contention, ie, the Greek Catholics didn't have to accept some of the theology but they couldn't challenge it either. 

Within 100 years a lot of that got thrown out the window in practice. 

When the Byzantine Catholics sent a delegation to Rome after the Union of Brest, they were told that they had to accept all Roman Catholic doctrines. Rome sent Jesuits to teach Roman Catholic doctrine to the Byzantine Catholics in Poland. In 1895 the Ecumencal Patriarch sent an encyclical in response to a letter from Pope Leo XIII calling for reunion. It contains a passage that is relevant to this discussion:
"Since, however, from a certain period the Papal Church, having abandoned the method of persuasion and discussion, began, to our general astonishment and perplexity, to lay traps for the conscience of the more simple orthodox Christians by means of deceitful workers transformed into apostles of Christ, [3] sending into the East clerics with the dress and headcovering of orthodox priests, inventing also divers and other artful means to obtain her proselytizing objects; for this reason, as in sacred duty bound, we issue this patriarchal and synodical encyclical, for a safeguard of the orthodox faith and piety, knowing 'that the observance of the true canons is a duty for every good man, and much more for those who have been thought worthy by Providence to direct the affairs of others."

Fr. John W. Morris

If I am reading this correctly, I get the impression that the Roman church disguised itself as an Eastern church in garb and other deceptive methods to satisfy those who were already unionized?   If this is true, why would the clerics then, in spite of this, continue this masquerade ?

That wasn't the initial action that Rome took in Unionization, but it has been since then. They made Eastern Rites to lure people into communion with Rome.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: JoeS2 on February 22, 2014, 06:42:51 PM
Serious as the Pope on Pascha, I want to know what you're thinking.  I'm not baiting, I am being serious.

When Eastern Catholics do the say that is ok to reject:
1) Purgatory
2) The Immaculate Conception
3) The Ecumenical Councils between the seventh and Vatican II
4) Original Sin
5) Papal Infallibility
6) The Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope
7) The procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son
etc.
When they reject these and then state that its ok with the Church to do so, they are misrepresenting Catholicism to the world.

I may be mistaken but didn't Rome allow the Eastern Catholics to maintain their beliefs as a means to unity?  Or, are the Eastern Catholics merely a quaint rite of the Roman Catholic Church?

In theory, Rome required them to accept papal supremacy and all other Roman Catholic doctrines, but allowed them to keep their liturgical traditions and married priests. However, some Eastern Catholics adopted more Roman Catholic doctrine than others. Some Byzantine Rite Eastern Catholics are closer to Orthodoxy than other Byzantine Rite Eastern  Catholics who are very Latinized. In America, Rome did not allow married priests among the Eastern Catholics because it upset the Latin Rite majority.

Fr. John W. Morris

So, it cost the Easterners their ancient Tradition and Dogma beliefs to enter into union with Rome?

If you read the text of the Union of Brest, they basically agreed to disagree on points of contention, ie, the Greek Catholics didn't have to accept some of the theology but they couldn't challenge it either. 

Within 100 years a lot of that got thrown out the window in practice. 

When the Byzantine Catholics sent a delegation to Rome after the Union of Brest, they were told that they had to accept all Roman Catholic doctrines. Rome sent Jesuits to teach Roman Catholic doctrine to the Byzantine Catholics in Poland. In 1895 the Ecumencal Patriarch sent an encyclical in response to a letter from Pope Leo XIII calling for reunion. It contains a passage that is relevant to this discussion:
"Since, however, from a certain period the Papal Church, having abandoned the method of persuasion and discussion, began, to our general astonishment and perplexity, to lay traps for the conscience of the more simple orthodox Christians by means of deceitful workers transformed into apostles of Christ, [3] sending into the East clerics with the dress and headcovering of orthodox priests, inventing also divers and other artful means to obtain her proselytizing objects; for this reason, as in sacred duty bound, we issue this patriarchal and synodical encyclical, for a safeguard of the orthodox faith and piety, knowing 'that the observance of the true canons is a duty for every good man, and much more for those who have been thought worthy by Providence to direct the affairs of others."

Fr. John W. Morris

If I am reading this correctly, I get the impression that the Roman church disguised itself as an Eastern church in garb and other deceptive methods to satisfy those who were already unionized?   If this is true, why would the clerics then, in spite of this, continue this masquerade ?

That wasn't the initial action that Rome took in Unionization, but it has been since then. They made Eastern Rites to lure people into communion with Rome.


Hmm nice church, and who is the prince of deception?
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Peter J on February 23, 2014, 07:58:02 AM
If I am reading this correctly, I get the impression that the Roman church disguised itself as an Eastern church in garb and other deceptive methods to satisfy those who were already unionized?   If this is true, why would the clerics then, in spite of this, continue this masquerade ?

In Christ there is no East or West. Certainly I prefer a priest "of our own tradition", as we say, but I don't accept any idea that Western priests are somehow less legitimate.

Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: stanley123 on February 23, 2014, 06:13:25 PM
They made Eastern Rites to lure people into communion with Rome.
I thought it was Orthodox bishops who decided that they wanted to join the western Church and it was the Orthodox bishops who took their Eastern liturgy and tradition with them. I did not know that it was Rome who made the Eastern rites. Can you please supply a source which shows that Rome made the Eastern rites in order to lure people into communion with Rome and that it was not the Orthodox bishops from present day Ukraine, Poland, Belarus and surrounding areas who decided to unite with the western Church?
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: stanley123 on February 23, 2014, 06:17:45 PM
If I am reading this correctly, I get the impression that the Roman church disguised itself as an Eastern church in garb and other deceptive methods to satisfy those who were already unionized?   If this is true, why would the clerics then, in spite of this, continue this masquerade ?
I thought it was the Orthodox bishops who in 1596 came in their Eastern garments and asked to be joined to the Roman Church? I didn't know it was the Roman Church disguising itself in Eastern garb.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: xOrthodox4Christx on February 23, 2014, 06:19:33 PM
They made Eastern Rites to lure people into communion with Rome.
I thought it was Orthodox bishops who decided that they wanted to join the western Church and it was the Orthodox bishops who took their Eastern liturgy and tradition with them. I did not know that it was Rome who made the Eastern rites. Can you please supply a source which shows that Rome made the Eastern rites in order to lure people into communion with Rome and that it was not the Orthodox bishops from present day Ukraine, Poland, Belarus and surrounding areas who decided to unite with the western Church?

Originally, yes. At the present time, no.

It wasn't the Orthodox bishops from Ukraine, Poland et al. to which I was referring. It was the Alexandrian, Antiochian, Armenian, and Chaldean rites, i.e., Oriental Rites in the Middle East; which accept for the Maronites have all been the target of Rome's imitation of Eastern Rites to coerce them into communion.

The Byzantine Rite Churches, you are 100% correct that they joined by their own will, without Roman pressure.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Deacon Lance on February 23, 2014, 07:22:26 PM
Study some more.  Every Eastern Catholic Church, save the Syro-Malabars and Ethiopians, began at the iniative of one or more bishops of the particular Orthodox Church involved.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Peter J on February 24, 2014, 11:14:15 PM
Originally, yes. At the present time, no.

It wasn't the Orthodox bishops from Ukraine, Poland et al. to which I was referring. It was the Alexandrian, Antiochian, Armenian, and Chaldean rites, i.e., Oriental Rites in the Middle East; which accept for the Maronites have all been the target of Rome's imitation of Eastern Rites to coerce them into communion.

The Byzantine Rite Churches, you are 100% correct that they joined by their own will, without Roman pressure.

xOrthodox4Christx, are you talking about a personal opinion or an accepted fact?
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Christopher McAvoy on March 01, 2014, 01:01:10 AM
From about 1200 to the present time (mostly after 1440 AD) whenever an eastern orthodox church suddenly found itself either conquered by an empire of latin catholics or with latin catholics bearing gifts, military protection and trade agreements to its borders (IE. Melkites) all of a sudden a new eastern catholic church would emerge.

The Eastern Orthodox Churches had to be tempted by political motives to become in communion with Rome, that is the fact of the matter. No Eastern Catholic Church voluntarily came into being without ulterior motives from someone.
There was always some kind of problem that instigated the creation of the Eastern Catholic Churches in communion with Rome.
The maronites like to think that they are the sole exception but even the maronites had been in irregular communion until the crusaders came. Outside of the "Exarchic Greek Abbey of St. Mary of Grottaferrata", there was truly no Eastern Catholic Church that remained continuously in visible communion with Rome after 1054.

Where the Eastern Orthodox Churches have been in a healthier state without undue pressure from the west, without being conquered, they have never been interested in voluntarily entering into communion with Rome, without Rome making the concession itself and in their own words "being orthodox".

Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: primuspilus on March 12, 2014, 01:45:48 PM
Quote
The Eastern Orthodox Churches had to be tempted by political motives to become in communion with Rome, that is the fact of the matter. No Eastern Catholic Church voluntarily came into being without ulterior motives from someone.
This is what a monk that frequents our parish said. He himself a former "Eastern Catholic".

PP
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Yurysprudentsiya on March 12, 2014, 02:08:28 PM
Serious as the Pope on Pascha, I want to know what you're thinking.  I'm not baiting, I am being serious.

When Eastern Catholics do the say that is ok to reject:
1) Purgatory
2) The Immaculate Conception
3) The Ecumenical Councils between the seventh and Vatican II
4) Original Sin
5) Papal Infallibility
6) The Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope
7) The procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son
etc.
When they reject these and then state that its ok with the Church to do so, they are misrepresenting Catholicism to the world.

I may be mistaken but didn't Rome allow the Eastern Catholics to maintain their beliefs as a means to unity?  Or, are the Eastern Catholics merely a quaint rite of the Roman Catholic Church?

In theory, Rome required them to accept papal supremacy and all other Roman Catholic doctrines, but allowed them to keep their liturgical traditions and married priests. However, some Eastern Catholics adopted more Roman Catholic doctrine than others. Some Byzantine Rite Eastern Catholics are closer to Orthodoxy than other Byzantine Rite Eastern  Catholics who are very Latinized. In America, Rome did not allow married priests among the Eastern Catholics because it upset the Latin Rite majority.

Fr. John W. Morris

So, it cost the Easterners their ancient Tradition and Dogma beliefs to enter into union with Rome?

If you read the text of the Union of Brest, they basically agreed to disagree on points of contention, ie, the Greek Catholics didn't have to accept some of the theology but they couldn't challenge it either.  

Within 100 years a lot of that got thrown out the window in practice.  

When the Byzantine Catholics sent a delegation to Rome after the Union of Brest, they were told that they had to accept all Roman Catholic doctrines. Rome sent Jesuits to teach Roman Catholic doctrine to the Byzantine Catholics in Poland. In 1895 the Ecumencal Patriarch sent an encyclical in response to a letter from Pope Leo XIII calling for reunion. It contains a passage that is relevant to this discussion:
"Since, however, from a certain period the Papal Church, having abandoned the method of persuasion and discussion, began, to our general astonishment and perplexity, to lay traps for the conscience of the more simple orthodox Christians by means of deceitful workers transformed into apostles of Christ, [3] sending into the East clerics with the dress and headcovering of orthodox priests, inventing also divers and other artful means to obtain her proselytizing objects; for this reason, as in sacred duty bound, we issue this patriarchal and synodical encyclical, for a safeguard of the orthodox faith and piety, knowing 'that the observance of the true canons is a duty for every good man, and much more for those who have been thought worthy by Providence to direct the affairs of others."

Fr. John W. Morris

If I am reading this correctly, I get the impression that the Roman church disguised itself as an Eastern church in garb and other deceptive methods to satisfy those who were already unionized?   If this is true, why would the clerics then, in spite of this, continue this masquerade ?

In the Ruthenian church the Union of Brest got off to a very rocky start.  The Orthodox Brotherhoods of educated Urban regions countered it from the start.   Within 40 years the easternmost dioceses that entered the union had flipped back to Orthodoxy, with some stragglers, a leading bishop in favor of the union had been assassinated and the Polish state was forced to recognize Orthodoxy in a limited capacity.  

Further west, where Polish influence was stronger, dioceses had competing Orthodox and Greek Catholic bishops who overlapped with Latin rite bishops.   Ruthenian Magnates who wanted to get somewhere converted to Greek or even Latin Catholicism.  If an Orthodox Church burned or fell into disrepair in these regions it was often replaced with a Latin church and the inhabitants Polonized.   By the early 1700s the westernmost Orthodox dioceses saw the writing on the wall and accepted the Union with Rome.  

In the uneducated villages, however, almost nothing changed until the mid 1700s.   The priests, uneducated, continued to use Orthodox service books and had to be reminded to commemorate the pope loudly.  Those villagers who asked about this were often told that the pope had become Orthodox.   And the Latinizations really didn't begin to accrete until after the Synod of Zamosc in 1720 which promulgated new service books.  

During those early years many villages close to the borders would accept a Greek Catholic priest to replace an Orthodox one, and vice versa, ignorant of any differences.  
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: xOrthodox4Christx on March 12, 2014, 02:17:55 PM
Originally, yes. At the present time, no.

It wasn't the Orthodox bishops from Ukraine, Poland et al. to which I was referring. It was the Alexandrian, Antiochian, Armenian, and Chaldean rites, i.e., Oriental Rites in the Middle East; which accept for the Maronites have all been the target of Rome's imitation of Eastern Rites to coerce them into communion.

The Byzantine Rite Churches, you are 100% correct that they joined by their own will, without Roman pressure.

xOrthodox4Christx, are you talking about a personal opinion or an accepted fact?

Given that until very recently that wasn't the case, I would give it as fact. Though, it's always a matter of interpretation.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: frjohnmorris on April 23, 2014, 11:46:23 PM
They made Eastern Rites to lure people into communion with Rome.
I thought it was Orthodox bishops who decided that they wanted to join the western Church and it was the Orthodox bishops who took their Eastern liturgy and tradition with them. I did not know that it was Rome who made the Eastern rites. Can you please supply a source which shows that Rome made the Eastern rites in order to lure people into communion with Rome and that it was not the Orthodox bishops from present day Ukraine, Poland, Belarus and surrounding areas who decided to unite with the western Church?

Originally, yes. At the present time, no.

It wasn't the Orthodox bishops from Ukraine, Poland et al. to which I was referring. It was the Alexandrian, Antiochian, Armenian, and Chaldean rites, i.e., Oriental Rites in the Middle East; which accept for the Maronites have all been the target of Rome's imitation of Eastern Rites to coerce them into communion.

The Byzantine Rite Churches, you are 100% correct that they joined by their own will, without Roman pressure.

If you mean the Greek Catholics of Eastern Europe, you are wrong. They were formed because of pressure from Catholic monarchs who forced their subjects to submit to Rome, by denying Orthodox civil rights. After the Union of Brest in  1596, King Sigismund III of Poland outlawed the Orthodox Church and forced the Orthodox to convert to Eastern Catholicism in territories under his rule which at that time included Ukraine forming the Ukranian Catholic Church. This also  happened to the Orthodox living under Habsburg rule in Hungary at the Union of Uzhhored in 1646 forming the Ruthenian Catholic Church. The same thing happened to the Romanian Orthodox living under Hungarian rule in Transulvania in 1700 forming the Romanian Catholic Church.
When they came to America many Eastern Catholics returned to Orthodoxy in what is now the OCA under St. Alexi Toth in 1892, and the Carpatho Russian Archdiocese under Orestes Chornock in 1938 under the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
In other places like the Patriarchate of Antioch, the Catholics educated youth from Orthodox places converted them to Catholicism and sent them back to pose as Orthodox until they gained enough influence to bring as many Orthodox as they could into Catholicism forming the Melkite Church in 1724. Rome even established the The Collegium Russicum in 1929 to do the same thing in Russia, infiltrate the Russian Orthodox Church with supporters of union with Rome and do mission work for Eastern Catholicism in Russia. Fortunately for Orthodoxy, this effort was less than successful for there are only about a dozen Russian Catholic Churches in Russia and a few abroad.
That is why the Eastern Orthodox are so offended by the formation of the Eastern Catholics. Overcoming this source of division is one of the major obstacles to developing closer relations between Eastern Orthodox and Rome.

Fr. John W. Morris
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: ialmisry on April 24, 2014, 08:13:14 AM
Study some more.  Every Eastern Catholic Church, save the Syro-Malabars and Ethiopians, began at the iniative of one or more bishops of the particular Orthodox Church involved.
usually with the prodding of the secular overlords.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Peter J on April 24, 2014, 11:13:18 AM
Study some more.  Every Eastern Catholic Church, save the Syro-Malabars and Ethiopians, began at the iniative of one or more bishops of the particular Orthodox Church involved.
usually with the prodding of the secular overlords.

Possibly. I'm not sure it really matters ... Proselytizing is proselytizing, isn't it, regardless whether a secular or religious leader made the first move?
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: WPM on April 24, 2014, 12:32:53 PM
What's wrong with the Byzantine Catholic Liturgy? Not anything, just your preferences and personal opinions.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Shamati on December 04, 2014, 07:06:10 PM
I've changed my mind on this.
The split is only political & is partly fueled by an inferiority complex on the part of easterners that sometimes team up with the romophobia of protestantism to attack the papacy. Had politics not developed as it did (fall of Byzantium, occupation by islam, cold war etc) i believe there would've been unity today built on councils after Florence.

Theres just too much evidence from the pre-schism fathers of the east to suggest the procession of the Holy Ghost from the father through the Son is a heretical viewpoint. Suggesting that unleavened bread & other cultural variations is heretical is likewise an expression cultural totalitarianism, which latin catholics themselves are guilty of. The immaculate conception was also a doctrine known among eastern fathers as was purgatory. The dispute about purgatory is about the nature of the purgation (is it a fire or something else?) rather than contradiction & the vatican standpoint is that these differences about the nature of purgatory etc must not be a cause of breaking of communion but a source of strength for the whole theological work of the church.

It's also clear that the bishop of Rome as the successor of St Peter had primacy & directly intervened in the constantinopolean church to replace patriarchs etc. Papal primacy is not an innovation but was the consensus among churchfathers & latin catholics cant help that western europe became more powerful than the east of that evil men managed to secure the throne of Peter. The Office was well anchored among the fathers & although it's in Italy, it's the 'church's' common institution to which any of the worlds catholics should have the principal ability to succeed, not just italians or westerners.

The diversity in theology is minor & I dont see how it can be communion breaking without simultaneously narrowing sown the scope of theology to extremely narrowmindedness boundaries for both sides. Likewise I cant reconcile the position that Rome broke away from Constantinople with the words of Christ that the Gates of Hell should not prevail against the church which was built upon the rock that is St Peter.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Deacon Lance on December 04, 2014, 07:11:22 PM
Study some more.  Every Eastern Catholic Church, save the Syro-Malabars and Ethiopians, began at the iniative of one or more bishops of the particular Orthodox Church involved.
usually with the prodding of the secular overlords.
Actually usually inspite of the secular overlords opposition.  This is especially true of those with Ottoman overlords.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Minnesotan on December 04, 2014, 07:39:33 PM
Suggesting that unleavened bread & other cultural variations is heretical is likewise an expression cultural totalitarianism, which latin catholics themselves are guilty of.

I'd agree with that. But keep in mind that not all EO view the use of unleavened bread as heretical. Certainly, any EO who view the OO as also being Orthodox can't hold such a viewpoint, since some OO (namely the Armenians) use unleavened bread.

The immaculate conception was also a doctrine known among eastern fathers as was purgatory.
But neither was a dogma. Yes, many Eastern fathers believed in these things, but a lot of them did not, and few if any would have supported raising them to the level of infallible dogma.

Regarding the issue of the papacy, keep in mind that while Rome did intervene in the affairs of other churches at times, the street went both ways. An ecumenical council, held in the East, excommunicated a monothelite pope. Also, popes and bishops western and eastern were often handpicked by the emperor in Constantinople. So it wasn't so much an example of the pope having jurisdiction over the east, as it was the Empire ruling over both.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Papist on December 05, 2014, 10:50:04 AM
Goodness gracious, can we not change the title of the this thread to "When Papist was just plain dumb?"  ;)
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Pravoslavbob on December 05, 2014, 11:02:50 AM
Goodness gracious, can we not change the title of the this thread to "When Papist was just plain dumb?"  ;)

Good heavens, no!  The delicious irony gives me a good chuckle from time to time.  One of those things that just never gets old.   8)  :D
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Peter J on December 05, 2014, 11:09:19 AM
Goodness gracious, can we not change the title of the this thread to "When Papist was just plain dumb?"  ;)

Too short. Maybe if you add a subtitle, say "When Papist was just plain dumb: Or How He Learned To Stop Worrying and Love the Balamand Agreement."
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: JoeS2 on December 05, 2014, 11:40:27 AM
They made Eastern Rites to lure people into communion with Rome.
I thought it was Orthodox bishops who decided that they wanted to join the western Church and it was the Orthodox bishops who took their Eastern liturgy and tradition with them. I did not know that it was Rome who made the Eastern rites. Can you please supply a source which shows that Rome made the Eastern rites in order to lure people into communion with Rome and that it was not the Orthodox bishops from present day Ukraine, Poland, Belarus and surrounding areas who decided to unite with the western Church?

Originally, yes. At the present time, no.

It wasn't the Orthodox bishops from Ukraine, Poland et al. to which I was referring. It was the Alexandrian, Antiochian, Armenian, and Chaldean rites, i.e., Oriental Rites in the Middle East; which accept for the Maronites have all been the target of Rome's imitation of Eastern Rites to coerce them into communion.

The Byzantine Rite Churches, you are 100% correct that they joined by their own will, without Roman pressure.

If you mean the Greek Catholics of Eastern Europe, you are wrong. They were formed because of pressure from Catholic monarchs who forced their subjects to submit to Rome, by denying Orthodox civil rights. After the Union of Brest in  1596, King Sigismund III of Poland outlawed the Orthodox Church and forced the Orthodox to convert to Eastern Catholicism in territories under his rule which at that time included Ukraine forming the Ukranian Catholic Church. This also  happened to the Orthodox living under Habsburg rule in Hungary at the Union of Uzhhored in 1646 forming the Ruthenian Catholic Church. The same thing happened to the Romanian Orthodox living under Hungarian rule in Transulvania in 1700 forming the Romanian Catholic Church.
When they came to America many Eastern Catholics returned to Orthodoxy in what is now the OCA under St. Alexi Toth in 1892, and the Carpatho Russian Archdiocese under Orestes Chornock in 1938 under the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
In other places like the Patriarchate of Antioch, the Catholics educated youth from Orthodox places converted them to Catholicism and sent them back to pose as Orthodox until they gained enough influence to bring as many Orthodox as they could into Catholicism forming the Melkite Church in 1724. Rome even established the The Collegium Russicum in 1929 to do the same thing in Russia, infiltrate the Russian Orthodox Church with supporters of union with Rome and do mission work for Eastern Catholicism in Russia. Fortunately for Orthodoxy, this effort was less than successful for there are only about a dozen Russian Catholic Churches in Russia and a few abroad.
That is why the Eastern Orthodox are so offended by the formation of the Eastern Catholics. Overcoming this source of division is one of the major obstacles to developing closer relations between Eastern Orthodox and Rome.

Fr. John W. Morris

Interesting, and the situation will continue to divide 'us' from 'them'.  Will it ever be resolved, doubtful.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: podkarpatska on December 05, 2014, 11:53:02 AM
Goodness gracious, can we not change the title of the this thread to "When Papist was just plain dumb?"  ;)

Good heavens, no!  The delicious irony gives me a good chuckle from time to time.  One of those things that just never gets old.   8)  :D

One more step....one more step.... ;)
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: ialmisry on December 05, 2014, 12:46:30 PM
Goodness gracious, can we not change the title of the this thread to "When Papist was just plain dumb?"  ;)

Too short. Maybe if you add a subtitle, say "When Papist was just plain dumb: Or How He Learned To Stop Worrying and Love the Balamand Agreement."
(http://copiousnotes.bloginky.com/files/2014/06/140617strangelove.jpg)
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: ialmisry on December 05, 2014, 12:51:48 PM
Study some more.  Every Eastern Catholic Church, save the Syro-Malabars and Ethiopians, began at the iniative of one or more bishops of the particular Orthodox Church involved.
usually with the prodding of the secular overlords.
Actually usually inspite of the secular overlords opposition.  This is especially true of those with Ottoman overlords.
The Ottomans were the exception, and they only involved your Melkites. That leaves a couple dozen "sui juris" to explain, including the largest, your UGCC, is the sole product of the Vatican's secular minions (read it's Met. Sheptytskyi's plans for Ukraine in a Austria-Hungary victory in WWI.  Nothing  has changed).
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Deacon Lance on December 05, 2014, 01:32:06 PM
Study some more.  Every Eastern Catholic Church, save the Syro-Malabars and Ethiopians, began at the iniative of one or more bishops of the particular Orthodox Church involved.
usually with the prodding of the secular overlords.
Actually usually inspite of the secular overlords opposition.  This is especially true of those with Ottoman overlords.
The Ottomans were the exception, and they only involved your Melkites. That leaves a couple dozen "sui juris" to explain, including the largest, your UGCC, is the sole product of the Vatican's secular minions (read it's Met. Sheptytskyi's plans for Ukraine in a Austria-Hungary victory in WWI.  Nothing  has changed).
You are forgetting the Chaldeans, Armenians, Syriacs, and Copts.  Though the first three were split between the Ottomans and Persians.  We will have to disagree about the UGCC.  The Poles plans were to Polonize the Ukrainins and convert them to Latin Catholics.  The union prevented that.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: ialmisry on December 05, 2014, 02:55:14 PM
Study some more.  Every Eastern Catholic Church, save the Syro-Malabars and Ethiopians, began at the iniative of one or more bishops of the particular Orthodox Church involved.
usually with the prodding of the secular overlords.
Actually usually inspite of the secular overlords opposition.  This is especially true of those with Ottoman overlords.
The Ottomans were the exception, and they only involved your Melkites. That leaves a couple dozen "sui juris" to explain, including the largest, your UGCC, is the sole product of the Vatican's secular minions (read it's Met. Sheptytskyi's plans for Ukraine in a Austria-Hungary victory in WWI.  Nothing  has changed).
You are forgetting the Chaldeans, Armenians, Syriacs, and Copts.  Though the first three were split between the Ottomans and Persians.  We will have to disagree about the UGCC.  The Poles plans were to Polonize the Ukrainins and convert them to Latin Catholics.  The union prevented that.
LOL. Hardly. Met. Sheptytskyi himself was baptized a Latin Pole.

I haven't forgotten anyone. The Armenians in Poland, for instance, led their kin astray in submitting to the Vatican, starting in Lwow-or do you say Lemberg?

We don't have to disagree about the UGCC. You can face the truth.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: podkarpatska on December 05, 2014, 03:08:46 PM
If there were no Unia, there would be no OCA, no ACROD, a smaller UOC. It's that simple. Deacon Lance is correct and I suspect that when he checks in, Yurysprudentsiya will concur.

I'm not justifying the Unia, but history is cruel. I agree with the historians who assert that the east Slavs (not today's Russians though) would have been assimilated into the Latin Rite. But, who really knows, it's just speculation as we are where we are today and we just have to play the hand we are dealt..as people, as a nation and as a church or churches.

Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: ialmisry on December 05, 2014, 04:31:31 PM
If there were no Unia, there would be no OCA, no ACROD, a smaller UOC. It's that simple. Deacon Lance is correct and I suspect that when he checks in, Yurysprudentsiya will concur.

I'm not justifying the Unia, but history is cruel. I agree with the historians who assert that the east Slavs (not today's Russians though) would have been assimilated into the Latin Rite. But, who really knows, it's just speculation as we are where we are today and we just have to play the hand we are dealt..as people, as a nation and as a church or churches.
History is cruel, and cruelest of all to such historians. The records of the debates of the long-lasting 4-year Great Sejm (1788-1792) survive, and they record the panic of the Poles that the "Ruthenians", having failed to ever win over the majority of Sigismund's Orthodox subjects, were continuing to lose ground to the bishopless (by then) Orthodox. Finally the Metropolitan who sold out to the Vatican got his seat in the Senate, promised two centuries before, but only after all the Vatican's Latin bishops in Poland-Lithuania, and none of his co-conspirators got theirs, but the government had to not only allow but sponsor  the formation of an autocephalous Orthodox Church for Poland.  A funding debate for the Vatican's Ruthenians in the Ukraine (to state the view of Warsaw) devolved into a spending bill funding, at the demand of the Polish Latin bishop of Kiev (yes, they never gave up on that dream, even though he was not in Kiev but in  Żytomierz. Ironically, after the partition of Poland, he ended his days as the Vatican's bishop of Mogilev, the seat of the last Orthodox bishop in PL before Russia liberated it, set up as the Metropolitan of the Vatican's flock in the empire by the Empress of All the Russias), the setting up of a network of Latin Polish parishes for the Vatican covering Ukraine.

As for the OCA, I don't know.  It wasn't founded among the Galicians, although they did become  its core a century later. I do not know, however, how many of them passed through Bukowina, where a Ukrainian Orthodox Church of hundreds of thousands arose right under the nose of the Vatican's secular arm. Transylvania next door to Galicia and Slovakia never succumbed to the Unia, as you call it.  Why would the East Slavs? A.C.R.O.D. I can't speculate.

As for the UOC, the majority of the Ukrainians in West Ukraine remain with the Orthodox (canonical or uncanonical), and have since before the Sobor of L'viv. The censuses of interwar Poland showed an increase of the Orthodox share of the population.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Paisius on December 05, 2014, 05:57:50 PM
Goodness gracious, can we not change the title of the this thread to "When Papist was just plain dumb?"  ;)



Look on the bright side. You've provided many people here with years of amusement.  :D
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: podkarpatska on December 05, 2014, 06:17:08 PM
opps, accidental post
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Deacon Lance on December 05, 2014, 07:16:38 PM
Study some more.  Every Eastern Catholic Church, save the Syro-Malabars and Ethiopians, began at the iniative of one or more bishops of the particular Orthodox Church involved.
usually with the prodding of the secular overlords.
Actually usually inspite of the secular overlords opposition.  This is especially true of those with Ottoman overlords.
The Ottomans were the exception, and they only involved your Melkites. That leaves a couple dozen "sui juris" to explain, including the largest, your UGCC, is the sole product of the Vatican's secular minions (read it's Met. Sheptytskyi's plans for Ukraine in a Austria-Hungary victory in WWI.  Nothing  has changed).
You are forgetting the Chaldeans, Armenians, Syriacs, and Copts.  Though the first three were split between the Ottomans and Persians.  We will have to disagree about the UGCC.  The Poles plans were to Polonize the Ukrainins and convert them to Latin Catholics.  The union prevented that.
LOL. Hardly. Met. Sheptytskyi himself was baptized a Latin Pole.

I haven't forgotten anyone. The Armenians in Poland, for instance, led their kin astray in submitting to the Vatican, starting in Lwow-or do you say Lemberg?

We don't have to disagree about the UGCC. You can face the truth.
You prove my point.  Metropolitan Andrej was from a polonized noble family.  Without the resistance of the UGCC bishops the peasants would have been polonized as well.

You seem to have forgotten: Patriarch Shimun VIII (1st Chaldean Catholic Patriarch) martyred by the Ottomans, Patriarch Ignatius Gregory Peter VI (2nd Syriac Catholic Patriarch) martyred by the Ottomans, Patriarch Michael (Syriac Catholic) imprisoned by Ottomans, Patriarch Abraham Petros (1st Armenian Catholic Patriarch) imprisoned by Ottomans.  
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: ialmisry on December 06, 2014, 10:35:11 AM
Study some more.  Every Eastern Catholic Church, save the Syro-Malabars and Ethiopians, began at the iniative of one or more bishops of the particular Orthodox Church involved.
usually with the prodding of the secular overlords.
Actually usually inspite of the secular overlords opposition.  This is especially true of those with Ottoman overlords.
The Ottomans were the exception, and they only involved your Melkites. That leaves a couple dozen "sui juris" to explain, including the largest, your UGCC, is the sole product of the Vatican's secular minions (read it's Met. Sheptytskyi's plans for Ukraine in a Austria-Hungary victory in WWI.  Nothing  has changed).
You are forgetting the Chaldeans, Armenians, Syriacs, and Copts.  Though the first three were split between the Ottomans and Persians.  We will have to disagree about the UGCC.  The Poles plans were to Polonize the Ukrainins and convert them to Latin Catholics.  The union prevented that.
LOL. Hardly. Met. Sheptytskyi himself was baptized a Latin Pole.

I haven't forgotten anyone. The Armenians in Poland, for instance, led their kin astray in submitting to the Vatican, starting in Lwow-or do you say Lemberg?

We don't have to disagree about the UGCC. You can face the truth.
You prove my point.  Metropolitan Andrej was from a polonized noble family.  Without the resistance of the UGCC bishops the peasants would have been polonized as well.
Fortunately, the Cossaks proved my point long ago.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a9/Polish_Lithuanian_Ruthenian_Commonwealth_1658_historical_map.jpg/640px-Polish_Lithuanian_Ruthenian_Commonwealth_1658_historical_map.jpg)
At the time the Diocese of L'viv still clung to Orthodoxy-a fact admitted by UGCC mythology in its claim (perhaps true) that Bishop Joseph Czumlanski apostacized in 1677, but did not announce his submission to the Vatican until 1700. So too Przemyśl further West (even today west of the Poland-Ukraine border) and Lutsk further North.  The bishops sold out, not the peasants. In fact, the Great Sejm talks of the  pervasive problem that chapels set up by the common folk without the permission of the "United" (i.e. in submission to the Vatican) bishops were being served by iterant priests sent by the Orthodox Russian bishops.
You seem to have forgotten: Patriarch Shimun VIII (1st Chaldean Catholic Patriarch) martyred by the Ottomans, Patriarch Ignatius Gregory Peter VI (2nd Syriac Catholic Patriarch) martyred by the Ottomans, Patriarch Michael (Syriac Catholic) imprisoned by Ottomans, Patriarch Abraham Petros (1st Armenian Catholic Patriarch) imprisoned by Ottomans.  
no, again, I haven't forgotten a thing. HINT: EP St. Cyril Lucaris, strangled by the Ottomans at the urging of the Jesuits, having been deposed at the instigation of the Bourbon and Habsburg ambassadors several times.

Btw, I do not claim to speak for the Nestorians.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Papist on December 06, 2014, 11:30:11 AM
Time to post maps
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Yurysprudentsiya on December 06, 2014, 07:35:13 PM
I agree with Podkarpatska.  Alas, I have nothing much to add, except to say that the relevant dates here are neither 1787-1792 (those years are a joke, for Galicia, the heart of Greek Catholicism, was already out of Poland for 15 years by then!) nor 1677, but 1375.  The year 1375, when the Polish conquerors, with the Pope's blessing, installed a Latin bishop in Przemysl, demonstrates clearly the Latin intention in connection with the Ruthenian Voivodeship.  One may also consider what happened in the 1400s and 1500s to realize that the number of parishes that entered the Union of Brest in 1596 was considerably smaller than the number of Ruthenian parishes which had existed ca. 1400.  This is because a good number of those Ruthenian parishes had already been Latinized and/or Polonized, and this continued into the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries.  See the work of Fr. Ioann Polianskyj.  I know of several places in Poland today where the inhabitants are actually Polonized Ukrainians, and have been for centuries.  The Union of Brest was motivated by a desire for the Orthodox bishops to secure political advantages, of course, but also by a desire to preserve the rite against these encroaching Latinizations, which had been relentless.  That the brotherhoods in the cities didn't go along with the program was of course problematic for all concerned.  But in the villages, most peasants were oblivious.  The stories of them securing Russian priests are true.  But villages often flip-flopped back and forth - they secured priests from any handy source.  They didn't much care whether they came from Russia or Poland, because the villagers couldn't much tell the difference anyway.

The last Orthodox monastery in Galicia, the Maniava skete, was closed in 1785.  There was one Orthodox parish that continued to function in L'viv throughout the Austrian period, but it served as a diplomatic outpost more than anything.  Most villagers did not even know that they had become Greek Catholic for centuries, nor did many know what that meant.  Certainly most in the villages, which was the bulk of society, did not know until after the revision of the service books following the Synod of Zamosc in 1720.  For all intents and purposes, following the political determinations of their bishops, the Orthodox Ruthenians had largely gone into exile under the aegis of the Greek Catholic Church.  All of the Ruthenian Voivodeship would have participated in this fate had not Russia encroached on Polish territory throughout the 17th and 18th centuries.  As late as 1768 there were still many Greek Catholics on the banks of the Dnipro River in Central Ukraine.  It was in that year, of course, that the Kolyvshchyna happened, when the Orthodox rose up against their Polish overlords and tragically murdered many of their Greek Catholic brethren.  This is a sad chapter in Ukrainian history.

As of the late 19th century, the Russophile parties in Austria began to agitate for a return to Orthodoxy and/or a reunion with Russia.  They were tolerated at first by Austria but then repressed when alliances changed and Russia became an adversary of Austria.  It was these priests, having gone over to the Russian Empire at Kholm, who formed the backbone of the effort which abolished Greek Catholicism in the Kholm Eparchy in 1875 and forcibly reunited it with Orthodoxy.  There were also members of the Russophile party which wished to join with Russia and remain Greek Catholic.  The Ukrainophile parties were split between those who wanted to remain Greek Catholic and others who were simply anti-clerical and wished to usher in a secular socialism.  The Ukrainophiles were actually opposed to Metropolitan Andrij Sheptytskyj at first, as they considered him a Polish sympathizer.  His middle way actually brought the Ukrainophiles and the Greek Catholic Church together.  The Greek Catholic Church was a dying element before Sheptytskyj got there.  It was a second-class entity and was steadily becoming more and more Latinized and Polonized.  Sheptytskyj was a believer in the Roman Catholic doctrines, but he, above all, managed to preserve the eastern ethos of the rite.

Of course, the rise of the II Polish Republic in 1918 gave the opportunity for the Orthodox -- mostly these starorusyny -- to reassert themselves in Galicia again.  But the Ukrainophiles also began to be drawn to Orthodoxy, in the form of an autocephalous Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

Досить!  (Enough!)
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: The young fogey on December 06, 2014, 07:59:45 PM
Thanks for the history; I've learned a few things from this revived thread.

I'd love it if the dominant Catholicism (the papal kind) in America were Byzantine, not Novus Ordo.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: The young fogey on December 06, 2014, 08:15:35 PM
And if my memory is correct, even the Slavonic and English Trebnik/Liturgikon of the Slavic Greek Catholics reflects this by removing the term "pravoslavnyj" as in not saying: "Remember in Your Kingdom all Orthodox Christians" but rather saying "Christians of the true Faith". (Although this is not uniform I've noticed it in European liturgies.)
Actually, the Metropolia of Pittsburgh is the only one left with "true faith", the Ukrainians have returned to "Orthodox". 

My first traditional Catholic liturgy (papal), not counting Anglo-Catholic Anglican Masses, was Ukrainian in 1985; audible parts in English. Fr. Panasiuk said "orthodox" in the Great Entrance. The Ruthenians in America said and say "of the true faith." I'm all for translating it as "orthodox," expressing, besides small-o orthodoxy, Byzantine Catholics' kinship with the Orthodox without of course calling them big-O Orthodox, which would offend both sides. Anyway, I am 99.9% sure that the Slavonic Byzantine Catholic text says православныхъ христiанъ, "orthodox Christians" (source: my Levkulic pew book).
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Papist on December 06, 2014, 08:23:09 PM


I'd love it if the dominant Catholicism (the papal kind) in America were Byzantine, not Novus Ordo.

Me too. :)
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: ialmisry on December 06, 2014, 11:53:55 PM
I agree with Podkarpatska.  Alas, I have nothing much to add, except to say that the relevant dates here are neither 1787-1792 (those years are a joke, for Galicia, the heart of Greek Catholicism, was already out of Poland for 15 years by then!) nor 1677, but 1375.  The year 1375, when the Polish conquerors, with the Pope's blessing, installed a Latin bishop in Przemysl, demonstrates clearly the Latin intention in connection with the Ruthenian Voivodeship.  One may also consider what happened in the 1400s and 1500s to realize that the number of parishes that entered the Union of Brest in 1596 was considerably smaller than the number of Ruthenian parishes which had existed ca. 1400.  This is because a good number of those Ruthenian parishes had already been Latinized and/or Polonized, and this continued into the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries.  See the work of Fr. Ioann Polianskyj.  I know of several places in Poland today where the inhabitants are actually Polonized Ukrainians, and have been for centuries.  The Union of Brest was motivated by a desire for the Orthodox bishops to secure political advantages, of course, but also by a desire to preserve the rite against these encroaching Latinizations, which had been relentless.  That the brotherhoods in the cities didn't go along with the program was of course problematic for all concerned.  But in the villages, most peasants were oblivious.  The stories of them securing Russian priests are true.  But villages often flip-flopped back and forth - they secured priests from any handy source.  They didn't much care whether they came from Russia or Poland, because the villagers couldn't much tell the difference anyway.

The last Orthodox monastery in Galicia, the Maniava skete, was closed in 1785.  There was one Orthodox parish that continued to function in L'viv throughout the Austrian period, but it served as a diplomatic outpost more than anything.  Most villagers did not even know that they had become Greek Catholic for centuries, nor did many know what that meant.  Certainly most in the villages, which was the bulk of society, did not know until after the revision of the service books following the Synod of Zamosc in 1720.  For all intents and purposes, following the political determinations of their bishops, the Orthodox Ruthenians had largely gone into exile under the aegis of the Greek Catholic Church.  All of the Ruthenian Voivodeship would have participated in this fate had not Russia encroached on Polish territory throughout the 17th and 18th centuries.  As late as 1768 there were still many Greek Catholics on the banks of the Dnipro River in Central Ukraine.  It was in that year, of course, that the Kolyvshchyna happened, when the Orthodox rose up against their Polish overlords and tragically murdered many of their Greek Catholic brethren.  This is a sad chapter in Ukrainian history.

As of the late 19th century, the Russophile parties in Austria began to agitate for a return to Orthodoxy and/or a reunion with Russia.  They were tolerated at first by Austria but then repressed when alliances changed and Russia became an adversary of Austria.  It was these priests, having gone over to the Russian Empire at Kholm, who formed the backbone of the effort which abolished Greek Catholicism in the Kholm Eparchy in 1875 and forcibly reunited it with Orthodoxy.  There were also members of the Russophile party which wished to join with Russia and remain Greek Catholic.  The Ukrainophile parties were split between those who wanted to remain Greek Catholic and others who were simply anti-clerical and wished to usher in a secular socialism.  The Ukrainophiles were actually opposed to Metropolitan Andrij Sheptytskyj at first, as they considered him a Polish sympathizer.  His middle way actually brought the Ukrainophiles and the Greek Catholic Church together.  The Greek Catholic Church was a dying element before Sheptytskyj got there.  It was a second-class entity and was steadily becoming more and more Latinized and Polonized.  Sheptytskyj was a believer in the Roman Catholic doctrines, but he, above all, managed to preserve the eastern ethos of the rite.

Of course, the rise of the II Polish Republic in 1918 gave the opportunity for the Orthodox -- mostly these starorusyny -- to reassert themselves in Galicia again.  But the Ukrainophiles also began to be drawn to Orthodoxy, in the form of an autocephalous Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

Досить!  (Enough!)
looking at the maps of the area from a century and a half before your date of 1375 to the height of the Commonwealth and the attempt to force the "Unia" on the Orthodox
(http://zistoriikhmelnuchchunu.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/zp_lib2fti.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/eb/001_Kievan_Rus%27_Kyivan_Rus%27_Ukraine_map_1220_1240.jpg/640px-001_Kievan_Rus%27_Kyivan_Rus%27_Ukraine_map_1220_1240.jpg)(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Kingdom_of_Galicia_Volhynia_Rus%27_Ukraine_1245_1349.jpg)(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Ruskie_be%C5%82skie.png)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3d/RuskieIRP.png/800px-RuskieIRP.png)
(http://zeszmulowiznyibrodna.blox.pl/resource/Ks._hw_123.png)(http://slavyanskaya-kultura.ru/images/1(1117).jpg)
and comparing the ethnic compositions from the time of Sigismund's imposition of the "Unia" through and up to Stalin's liberation of Ukrainian territory from Poland's grip
(http://s3.postimg.org/ci9cc6kcj/Languages_PLC_16th_c.jpg)(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/47/Austria_Hungary_ethnic.svg/2000px-Austria_Hungary_ethnic.svg.png)(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Poland1937linguistic.jpg)(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/Polish_language_frequency_in_Poland_in_1931_1.PNG/640px-Polish_language_frequency_in_Poland_in_1931_1.PNG)(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Ukrai%C5%84skiIIRP.PNG)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/39/Mother_tongue_poland_1931_census.png)
we are, by and large, only speaking of the present day voivodships of Lublin (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4f/Lubelskie_in_Poland.svg/260px-Lubelskie_in_Poland.svg.png) and Subcarpathia(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ca/Polska_podzia%C5%82_admin_podkarpackie.svg/220px-Polska_podzia%C5%82_admin_podkarpackie.svg.png)
To the West of these the Poles were always a majority.  The Subcarpathian voivoidship was carved out of the interwar Lwow (which was a Polish city until Stalin took it) voivodship which had the following ethnic breakdown.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/15/Lwowskie.png/640px-Lwowskie.png)
Lublin had remained the borderland
(http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/pic%5CK%5CH%5CKholm_region_Map.jpg)
ironically the UOC was established with the consecration of Met. St. Petro Movila on March 15, 1633 in the Orthodox Cathedral of Lublin.

To sum up, the Polish-Rus'/Ukrainian/Ruthenian/Rusyn/Carpatho-Russian border hasn't move much, at least until the eve of WWI.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/Ukrainians_en.svg/1000px-Ukrainians_en.svg.png)
IOW the "Union" of Brest had little to no effect on Polonization nor assimilation into the Vatican's Latin rite for the bulk of the population.

As for the "diplomatic" Church in Lemberg a/k/a L'viv, I'm familiar with such Churches serving as fronts for the locals in the Middle East. Given that the Galicians swelled the Orthodox ranks of Bukowina and Kholm, along with the rest of Ukraine, diplomats did not make up the Orthodox population of Galicia under the Habsburgs.

As for the allegations of a decrease of parishes in the area after 1400, war will do that. That Cracow/Warsaw resettled with Poles and Germans did not help matters.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Yurysprudentsiya on December 07, 2014, 12:01:58 AM
The territory of Ukrainians should have run well to the north of Sianik, not stop there.  This is precisely what I am talking about.  I disagree that West Galicia was always a majority Polish territory.  It was originally ethnically a Ruthenian land but two factors - the introduction of Polish settlers and the late Medieval Polonization of the Ruthenian Churches made it so.

The Galicians who went into Kholm were educated classes, Russophile priests.  There may have been some tag-along peasants but this type of migration was unusual.  It was certainly very unusual before the abolition of serfdom in 1848.

I can't say with certainty how many Galicians went into Bukovyna.  But the usual migratory path was not to Bukovyna, but rather to the Kingdom of Hungary (present day Slovakia) for seasonal work.

Neither of us were alive in Galicia before 1914.  But I knew some people who were - they were peasants.  None of them had any traceable connections with Bukovyna or with Kholm, as far as I know.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Yurysprudentsiya on December 07, 2014, 12:06:04 AM
I should also add that the village of Niebieszczany in Galicia is an example of what I am talking about.  Before the dawn of the 18th century, it was a Ruthenian village.  By the mid 19th century, its inhabitants had been Polonized and the parish church had changed confessions.

Given time, I could dig up several more instances of this kind of event happening in the late Medieval times and early period after the Union, from Polianskyj's book.  Since I don't have time, I refer you to it for more details.

One of the favorite tactics of the Latinizers at this time was to have a fire in an Orthodox Church.  Then, they authorized the rebuilding of the Church only as a Latin Church, and brought in a local lord or count to finance the construction.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: ialmisry on December 07, 2014, 12:44:40 AM
I should also add that the village of Niebieszczany in Galicia is an example of what I am talking about.  Before the dawn of the 18th century, it was a Ruthenian village.
or Lemko?
(http://www.rollintl.com/roll/_images/galiciamap.gif)
By the mid 19th century, its inhabitants had been Polonized and the parish church had changed confessions.
The area was still east of the Polish ethnicity line until WWII
(http://www.dpcamps.org/akcja_wisla.jpg)
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Minnesotan on December 07, 2014, 12:47:27 AM
One of the favorite tactics of the Latinizers at this time was to have a fire in an Orthodox Church.  Then, they authorized the rebuilding of the Church only as a Latin Church, and brought in a local lord or count to finance the construction.

You mean, they deliberately set these fires? Arson?
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: podkarpatska on December 07, 2014, 12:50:17 AM
In 1490 there were no Catholics in what is now New York. In 1492, there were no Orthodox living along the Great Lakes.

The indigenous peoples living there at that time were eventually displaced by trickery, invasion and poverty.

Your point is exactly what?

By the time my grandparents left what is now Slovakia and Yuri' s great-grandparents left what is now western Ukraine, they were Greek Catholics and their villages and counties had been Greek Catholic for the better part of two centuries.

Today we are in America and Orthodox. History and fate take strange and often unexpected turns.

Arguing about modern legitimacy and national aspirations based on centuries old wrongs is akin to the seeking of reparations for slavery or the return of North America to indigenous peoples ownership.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Porter ODoran on December 07, 2014, 01:03:58 AM
... is akin to the seeking of reparations for slavery or the return of North America to indigenous peoples ownership.

And? ;)
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: ialmisry on December 07, 2014, 01:23:31 AM
The territory of Ukrainians should have run well to the north of Sianik, not stop there.  This is precisely what I am talking about.  I disagree that West Galicia was always a majority Polish territory.  It was originally ethnically a Ruthenian land but two factors - the introduction of Polish settlers and the late Medieval Polonization of the Ruthenian Churches made it so.

The Galicians who went into Kholm were educated classes, Russophile priests.  There may have been some tag-along peasants but this type of migration was unusual.  It was certainly very unusual before the abolition of serfdom in 1848.

I can't say with certainty how many Galicians went into Bukovyna.  But the usual migratory path was not to Bukovyna, but rather to the Kingdom of Hungary (present day Slovakia) for seasonal work.

Neither of us were alive in Galicia before 1914.  But I knew some people who were - they were peasants.  None of them had any traceable connections with Bukovyna or with Kholm, as far as I know.
I don't know how much further West the Rus' could have stretched, given the extent of Little Poland, where the Vistulans built up the
Kingdom of Poland.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f5/Krakowskie_sandomierskie_lubelskie.png/800px-Krakowskie_sandomierskie_lubelskie.png)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/East_Slavic_tribes_peoples_8th_9th_century.jpg)
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Yurysprudentsiya on December 07, 2014, 04:22:17 PM
One of the favorite tactics of the Latinizers at this time was to have a fire in an Orthodox Church.  Then, they authorized the rebuilding of the Church only as a Latin Church, and brought in a local lord or count to finance the construction.

You mean, they deliberately set these fires? Arson?

Who can say after 500 years?  But this scenario played itself out in more than one village.

I have no idea why Isa says that the village of Niebieszczany was "east of the Polish ethnicity line" before WWII based on a map showing the Akcja Wisla deportations.  The people living in that particular village in 1946 considered themselves Poles and went to the Roman Catholic Church; hence, they were not deported.  The map, then, kind of proves my point.  However, their surnames and lineages gave them away as being mostly Ukrainians.  Yes, these people were all Lemko Ukrainians in this area, which means that in 1910 they would have been called Ruthenians, as all of my people were.  Lemko as an ethnographic descriptor is comparatively late.  None of my ancestors from the first-wave called themselves Lemkos except for a few who started doing so after they got to America, although that is what they were.  Actually, I am part Lemko and part Boyko.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: ialmisry on December 07, 2014, 04:32:43 PM
I have no idea why Isa says that the village of Niebieszczany was "east of the Polish ethnicity line" before WWII based on a map showing the Akcja Wisla deportations.  The people living in that particular village in 1946 considered themselves Poles and went to the Roman Catholic Church; hence, they were not deported.  The map, then, kind of proves my point. 
no, because they only became a majority in that area after Operation Vistula. That that one village (and others like it) went over to the other side-the "Unia" of Brest helped, not hindered, that.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Yurysprudentsiya on December 07, 2014, 04:34:05 PM
I have no idea why Isa says that the village of Niebieszczany was "east of the Polish ethnicity line" before WWII based on a map showing the Akcja Wisla deportations.  The people living in that particular village in 1946 considered themselves Poles and went to the Roman Catholic Church; hence, they were not deported.  The map, then, kind of proves my point. 
no, because they only became a majority in that area after Operation Vistula. That that one village (and others like it) went over to the other side-the "Unia" of Brest helped, not hindered, that.

That's wrong, Isa.  I know who those people from Niebieszczany were before the war.  I know who the families were.  They were Polonized Ukrainians, but in this particular village they were Polonized by at least the 1830s, and probably well before that.

This was before 1947.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Yurysprudentsiya on December 07, 2014, 04:37:47 PM
Niebieszczany is a comparatively late example, although it is one that I am most familiar with.  The Polonization process happened there around the time of the 18th century.

I agree with you that the Union of Brest did not stop the Latinization.  But I believe that it slowed it.  Most villages that entered the Union as Ruthenian came out on the other side as Ruthenian (Ukrainian, Rusyn, whatever you want to call it - East Slav) either in the American immigration or the 20th century.  But there were many villages which had been Ruthenian before 1375 and which ended up as Polish by 1596.

But the other villages which Polianskyj cites, and I encourage you to look up, happened well before the Union of Brest.  His work is particularly valuable as he refers to parish chronicles, some of which were lost after Akcja Wisla.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: ialmisry on December 07, 2014, 04:41:01 PM
I have no idea why Isa says that the village of Niebieszczany was "east of the Polish ethnicity line" before WWII based on a map showing the Akcja Wisla deportations.  The people living in that particular village in 1946 considered themselves Poles and went to the Roman Catholic Church; hence, they were not deported.  The map, then, kind of proves my point. 
no, because they only became a majority in that area after Operation Vistula. That that one village (and others like it) went over to the other side-the "Unia" of Brest helped, not hindered, that.

That's wrong, Isa.  I know who those people from Niebieszczany were before the war.  I know who the families were.  They were Polonized Ukrainians, but in this particular village they were Polonized by at least the 1830s, and probably well before that.

This was before 1947.
And in 1939 it was still a majority Ukrainian area.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Yurysprudentsiya on December 07, 2014, 04:41:31 PM
Niebieszczany was not Ukrainian in 1939.  Sanok County certainly was.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: ialmisry on December 07, 2014, 04:43:18 PM
But there were many villages which had been Ruthenian before 1375 and which ended up as Polish by 1596.
Like Lwów.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Yurysprudentsiya on December 07, 2014, 04:44:24 PM
But there were many villages which had been Ruthenian before 1375 and which ended up as Polish by 1596.
Like Lwów.

L'viv wasn't a village in either of those times. 

Przemsyl (Peremyshl) is another example.  It is still Polish today. 

The Ukrainians got L'viv back; I guess the Poles got to keep Przemysl.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: ialmisry on December 07, 2014, 04:46:10 PM
Niebieszczany was not Ukrainian in 1939.  Sanok County certainly was.
Exactly.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: ialmisry on December 07, 2014, 07:58:56 PM
But there were many villages which had been Ruthenian before 1375 and which ended up as Polish by 1596.
Like Lwów.
L'viv wasn't a village in either of those times.
Exactly. It was depopulated of its Ukrainians, populated by Poles, who let the Jews settle in. Between the latter,and the Latin Metropolitanate the Poles set up there in 1412, the Ukrainians/Ruthenians etc. were reduced to a minority in their former local capital and Galicia's largest city. Had it held out for over a century against the "Unia," there probably would be no Ruthenians left there. It's opposition to it was the only reason there were any Ruthenians there in 1596.

Przemsyl (Peremyshl) is another example.  It is still Polish today.
It was in a sea of "Little Russians" in 1880
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/Sprachenkarte_Deutschland1880.png/1024px-Sprachenkarte_Deutschland1880.png)

The Ukrainians got L'viv back
Thank Stalin and Khrushchev
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: podkarpatska on December 07, 2014, 09:21:50 PM
I'll say this...most of the members of my grandparents' generation of "south of the Carpathian Ruthenians" aka Rusyns that I knew (and it was a fair number given my family's line of work ;) )  generally disliked Galicians, but they really despised the Poles and Hungarians. It really had less to do with religion and far more to do with being at the bottom of the social and economic heap on lands being batted back and forth by foreign powers for centuries.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Apotheoun on December 08, 2014, 02:27:35 AM
Wow. Strange to see this thread back in the news.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: The young fogey on December 08, 2014, 02:37:51 AM
I'll say this...most of the members of my grandparents' generation of "south of the Carpathian Ruthenians" aka Rusyns that I knew (and it was a fair number given my family's line of work ;) )  generally disliked Galicians, but they really despised the Poles and Hungarians. It really had less to do with religion and far more to do with being at the bottom of the social and economic heap on lands being batted back and forth by foreign powers for centuries.

From what I remember, Galicians = "Ukrainianists." For example, the first Eastern-rite church of any kind in Philadelphia, Holy Ghost Ruthenian, had a 1906 split in which a Galician brotherhood, of St. Michael, broke away to start its own parish. In 1909 that faction itself split between those who wanted to go with the Russians and those who wanted to remain Catholic, the Catholic faction becoming the Ukrainian Catholic archdiocese's cathedral. St. Michael's ended up in the Moscow Patriarchate, fiercely loyal to it; from what I remember, they think they're Russian.

Holy Ghost itself jumped to the Russians in 1912; when it became Catholic again the next year, an Orthodox faction started Assumption, now OCA, nearby. Assumption's interesting: half the music has remained prostopinije (such as in the litanies) and the Rusyn language survived for many years, but now the community, such as it is (the old neighborhood's moribund), thinks it's Russian.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: podkarpatska on December 08, 2014, 11:34:18 AM
I'll say this...most of the members of my grandparents' generation of "south of the Carpathian Ruthenians" aka Rusyns that I knew (and it was a fair number given my family's line of work ;) )  generally disliked Galicians, but they really despised the Poles and Hungarians. It really had less to do with religion and far more to do with being at the bottom of the social and economic heap on lands being batted back and forth by foreign powers for centuries.

From what I remember, Galicians = "Ukrainianists." For example, the first Eastern-rite church of any kind in Philadelphia, Holy Ghost Ruthenian, had a 1906 split in which a Galician brotherhood, of St. Michael, broke away to start its own parish. In 1909 that faction itself split between those who wanted to go with the Russians and those who wanted to remain Catholic, the Catholic faction becoming the Ukrainian Catholic archdiocese's cathedral. St. Michael's ended up in the Moscow Patriarchate, fiercely loyal to it; from what I remember, they think they're Russian.

Holy Ghost itself jumped to the Russians in 1912; when it became Catholic again the next year, an Orthodox faction started Assumption, now OCA, nearby. Assumption's interesting: half the music has remained prostopinije (such as in the litanies) and the Rusyn language survived for many years, but now the community, such as it is (the old neighborhood's moribund), thinks it's Russian.

The residual 'dislike' of Galicians has faded away over time as the reason for the dislike as Young Fogey notes from his anecdotal knowledge in Philadelphia, is that was not that the two groups practiced a 'different' religion or that they did not share a vast majority of small 't' tradition, but that they spoke a similar dialect with quite different accents (imagine a community of transplanted South Philadelphian, Pittsburgh and New England American accents and idioms trying to work together in say, Brazil....) and used a somewhat different liturgical chant - so when a 'joint' parish was established the two groups squabbled for control of how services were to be chanted and what spices one put in holubki. The religious issues usually popped up after the cultural ones caused the first divisions.  Really, I am not kidding and after the first war, the Galicians began to embrace Ukrainian identity which the Rusyns chose not to do.

It is interesting to look around south east PA (and right in my hometown of Binghamton, NY where we have Assumption/now Dormition in name OCA, St. Michael's Orthodox and Holy Spirit BCC all in the same moribund neighborhood) and see that there a number of communities with Holy Ghost parishes and St. Michael's parishes some Ukrainian today, others still residually 'Rusyn' and some Orthodox and some eastern Catholic. The old jokes about small PA and midwest towns with five or six onion domed or triple bar cross topped churches all founded by people originally related to one another or from the same regions becomes more clear to the outside observer.

But the reality is that after a century the differences (culturally) still resonate, but not as sharply or profoundly as they did in the past...
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: The young fogey on December 08, 2014, 02:15:30 PM
After the first war, the Galicians began to embrace Ukrainian identity.

I knew the rest but not that Galicians' Ukrainianism is that recent. Thanks.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Alpo on December 08, 2014, 02:25:23 PM
so when a 'joint' parish was established the two groups squabbled for control of how services were to be chanted and what spices one put in holubki.

LOL. This is Orthodoxy. You really are a goldmine of these Old World Orthodox anecdotes. No wonder people sometimes think that converts are weird when the authentic Orthodoxy is like this.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: podkarpatska on December 08, 2014, 02:55:12 PM
so when a 'joint' parish was established the two groups squabbled for control of how services were to be chanted and what spices one put in holubki.

LOL. This is Orthodoxy. You really are a goldmine of these Old World Orthodox anecdotes. No wonder people sometimes think that converts are weird when the authentic Orthodoxy is like this.

You made my day with that observation. No wonder why converts run for the hills when they encounter the still existing parishes who think it is still 1915. Fortunately, mine has moved well beyond that point...We are in at least 1949. lol
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: The young fogey on December 08, 2014, 03:18:33 PM
so when a 'joint' parish was established the two groups squabbled for control of how services were to be chanted and what spices one put in holubki.

LOL. This is Orthodoxy. You really are a goldmine of these Old World Orthodox anecdotes. No wonder people sometimes think that converts are weird when the authentic Orthodoxy is like this.

You made my day with that observation. No wonder why converts run for the hills when they encounter the still existing parishes who think it is still 1915. Fortunately, mine has moved well beyond that point...We are in at least 1949. lol

Which is lot of the culture's appeal to me; a reason I'd love it if American Catholicism were primarily Byzantine, not Novus Ordo. It's still the '50s.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Papist on December 08, 2014, 04:31:49 PM
so when a 'joint' parish was established the two groups squabbled for control of how services were to be chanted and what spices one put in holubki.

LOL. This is Orthodoxy. You really are a goldmine of these Old World Orthodox anecdotes. No wonder people sometimes think that converts are weird when the authentic Orthodoxy is like this.

You made my day with that observation. No wonder why converts run for the hills when they encounter the still existing parishes who think it is still 1915. Fortunately, mine has moved well beyond that point...We are in at least 1949. lol

Which is lot of the culture's appeal to me; a reason I'd love it if American Catholicism were primarily Byzantine, not Novus Ordo. It's still the '50s.

Haha. I was thinking the reason you wanted the American Church to be primarily Byzantine was the dignity of the Liturgy and such.
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: The young fogey on December 08, 2014, 04:40:36 PM
so when a 'joint' parish was established the two groups squabbled for control of how services were to be chanted and what spices one put in holubki.

LOL. This is Orthodoxy. You really are a goldmine of these Old World Orthodox anecdotes. No wonder people sometimes think that converts are weird when the authentic Orthodoxy is like this.

You made my day with that observation. No wonder why converts run for the hills when they encounter the still existing parishes who think it is still 1915. Fortunately, mine has moved well beyond that point...We are in at least 1949. lol

Which is lot of the culture's appeal to me; a reason I'd love it if American Catholicism were primarily Byzantine, not Novus Ordo. It's still the '50s.

Haha. I was thinking the reason you wanted the American Church to be primarily Byzantine was the dignity of the Liturgy and such.

That's a big part of it. I have all that with the Tridentine Mass and offices but Byzantine, latinized and unlatinized, is just as good, plus you've got the musical traditions and Leonid Ouspensky's theology of icons (halfway between religious pictures and a sacramental presence).
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: TheTrisagion on January 19, 2016, 04:54:09 PM
Can we get this thread stickied?
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Papist on January 19, 2016, 07:13:41 PM
Can we get this thread stickied?

Thanks.... haha. I think it already is. And now I live in infamy.  ;D
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Asteriktos on January 19, 2016, 07:20:26 PM
Dusty Bottoms: What does that mean? Infamous?
Ned Nederlander: Ahh... infamous is when you're more than famous! This guy Papist is not just famous, he's in-famous!
Dusty Bottoms: Wow! In-famous? IN-FAMOUS!?
Title: Re: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism
Post by: Peter J on January 23, 2016, 04:15:23 PM
Goodnight Ned.