Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism

[NihilNominis]

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.

[NihilNominis]

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?

[Peter J]

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.

[ialmisry]

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)  .
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...
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.

[Papist]

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.

[NihilNominis]

Mine's a little bit the opposite, I suppose...

We do have something in common, after all!

Forgive me if I have offended you.

[Papist]

Not offended in the least bit. It was an honest question.

[kaarina33]

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...

[Apotheoun]

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. 

[Apotheoun]

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.

[Irish Melkite]

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.

[Apotheoun]

They just seem like a group of disgruntled Latinizers to me. 

[Irish Hermit]

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!

[username!]

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. 

[Papist]

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?

[Papist]

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.

[username!]

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.

[Papist]

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.

[username!]

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?

[Papist]

We can make this another thread. But I am off to lunch, so I'll have to back to this later

[username!]

We can make this another thread. But I am off to lunch, so I'll have to back to this later

Sounds good! 

[Peter J]

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!

God bless,
Peter.

[username!]

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

[alexp4uni]

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.

[Peter J]

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.

[ozgeorge]

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"? 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":

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).

[lubeltri]

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.

[ozgeorge]

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" 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.

[lubeltri]

Why?

You answered that question yourself:

Fine and dandy, except that you still run into a problem with the "Sabbatine Privilege" 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.

[Jakub]

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

[Ung-Certez]

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!

Ung-Certez

[Peter J]

Love your photo of Archbishop John Ireland!

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

[username!]

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~

[Papist]

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!

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.

[Papist]

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.

[Peter J]

I am so sorry.

No problem.

[prodromas]

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. 

[Ung-Certez]

...maybe Archbishop Ireland should have also been canonized along with St. Alexis?

Ung-Certez

[The Iambic Pen]

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.

[Papist]

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.

[Mickey]

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! 

[ozgeorge]

I was strernly rebuked for such remarks.

By both sides (i.e, Latin and Eastern Catholic) or just one?

[Papist]

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.

[Mickey]

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. 

[Papist]

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.

[Heracleides]

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.

[Papist]

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.

[Mickey]

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)

[Mickey]

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) 

[Mickey]

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.

[Papist]

One Divine Liturgy and I was hooked by the East! (my wife too) 

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.

[Mickey]

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! 

[Papist]

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.

[Peter J]

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?

[wynd]

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!

[ozgeorge]

It's still full of rubbish- only sweeter.

[Mickey]

No theological work can even begin to touch on who and what God is.

Now you are sounding like a Palamist. 

[Papist]

Now you are sounding like a Palamist. 

Hey. Not everything he said was that bad. 

[username!]

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.

[Papist]

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.

[username!]

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.

[Peter J]

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?

[username!]

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.

[The Iambic Pen]

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.

It caused a confusing dichotmy in my mind.

Indeed it would.  It certainly confuses me.

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).

[Αριστοκλής]

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.

[Mickey]

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.

[The Iambic Pen]

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...

[username!]

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. 

[Peter J]

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.

[Mickey]

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?

[Ung-Certez]

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

[Mickey]

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!

[Peter J]

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)?

[Peter J]

Mickey,

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

Christos Voskrese!  Voistinnu Voskrese!

Ung-Certez

Now now Ung-Certez, it's not nice to try to confuse me.

[Mickey]

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.

[Peter J]

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?

[Ung-Certez]

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

[Peter J]

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.

[Peter J]

(If so, I think he should consider becoming Catholic. )

I mean ... again.

[Mickey]

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.

[ozgeorge]

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?

[Ung-Certez]

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!

Christos Voskres! Voistynu Voskres!

Ung

[ozgeorge]

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

That must feel terrible. I'm ashamed to admit that I've never thought of this before now.

[Peter J]

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

Christos Voskres! Voistynu Voskres!

Ung

I like that analogy.

[Peter J]

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.

[lubeltri]

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

(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!

[ozgeorge]

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.

[Mickey]

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! 

[Ung-Certez]

(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

[Mickey]

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?

[ozgeorge]

...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?

[Entscheidungsproblem]

What is "CYS"?

Child & Youth Services, I believe.

[ozgeorge]

Child & Youth Services, I believe.

Ah! It's DOCS here in Australia- "Department of Community Services".

[Ung-Certez]

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

[ozgeorge]

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?

[Peter J]

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?

[Mickey]

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?

[Peter J]

This isn't "Twenty Questions".

[Peter J]

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.

[Mickey]

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. 

[Mickey]

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

Perhaps I will.

[antiderivative]

What exactly do Catholics have against St. Gregory Palamas' theology? Besides the fact that he's after the schism, do they disagree with hesychasm?

[Mardukm]

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.

[Papist]

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.

[antiderivative]

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?

[Αριστοκλής]

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.

[Alpo]

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?

[The young fogey]

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.

[ialmisry]

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.

[ialmisry]

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!

[ialmisry]

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.

[ytterbiumanalyst]

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.

[Ivan Putovati]

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.

[Papist]

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.

[wynd]

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.

[Papist]

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.

[Peter J]

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! 

I think a better way to put it would be "Eastern Catholicism helped to widen the gap".

[Peter J]

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

(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?

[FrChris]

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

(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.

[Peter J]

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

(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.

[FrChris]

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

(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!

[Peter J]

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.  

[ialmisry]

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"?

[Wyatt]

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.

[Peter J]

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.

[Michał Kalina]

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.

[primuspilus]

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

[Peter J]

So the tag line under your posts are a lie?

Not at all. Perhaps you misread or misunderstood the symbol

<>

[Peter J]

P.S. Is that better?

[primuspilus]

P.S. Is that better?

Ah, better. I wasnt trying to nit-pick, just confused thats all.

PP

[Peter J]

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. 

[primuspilus]

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. 

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

PP

[Cavaradossi]

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?

[Peter J]

If I may ask, how do you define neoconservative Catholics?

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

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

[Peter J]

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.

[dzheremi]

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.

[Peter J]

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. 

[erimos]

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?

[Papist]

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.

[Maria]

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.

[Papist]

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.

[Peter J]

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.

[erimos]

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.

[Papist]

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.

[Eastern Mind]

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.

[Peter J]

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.

[erimos]

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?

[Papist]

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.

[Michał Kalina]

Discussion between members of different Catholic jurisdictions was split. You can follow it there.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!) > Topic: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism