OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 25, 2014, 12:01:21 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Papist's Criticism of Byzantine Rite Catholicism  (Read 46900 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
NihilNominis
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Catholic
Posts: 24


« on: April 04, 2008, 05:13:42 PM »

Quote
Man, you take a great deal of interest in me. At the very least I guess I should be flattered. Now in what way would you like me to take responsibility for my statements? I mean, its not like I am denying them. I think he was an absolutely horrible moderator. Probably because he was so biased against those who actually believe in the teachings of the Church. For some reason he could not keep his biases out of his moderation. Anyway, are you expecting me to tell this to him personally? I am not sure what you want.

I do have one question for you, Papist -

How in the world do you justify your name on CAF, i.e. East and West, with this Latinist attitude which, whether you intend it or not, pervades all that you write on this forum.
Logged
NihilNominis
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Catholic
Posts: 24


« Reply #1 on: April 05, 2008, 09:23:37 AM »

Quote
a poster stating that Eucharistic Adoration is not ordinarily observed in the Eastern Churches, Catholic or Orthodox, because our attitude toward the Eucharist is one of banality (I hope I have that correctly. I was dumbstruck when reading it, particularly as it was posted by a member who is reputedly an Eastern Catholic, not by one of the newcomers over there whose ecclesial affiliations seem to defy definition)

Was this a part of my thread (Eucharistic Adoration and the East) I wonder?  Whose post was it?
« Last Edit: April 05, 2008, 09:24:12 AM by NihilNominis » Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,026



« Reply #2 on: April 05, 2008, 10:39:24 AM »

Neil,

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

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

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

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

God bless,
Peter.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #3 on: April 05, 2008, 11:58:53 AM »

And I have been to Chicago (All Saints) and will probably be visiting again...(she said as she ducked to avoid the theological food fight)  Shocked.
We have our own building now; we moved in about a month ago.
My daughter is moving to Chicago this fall, (she's Lutheran and has a Church picked out, but when I visit she wants to go to church with me. She met Fr. Reardon at the Lutheran Colloquium and would like to visit) so maybe we'll run into each other sometime.

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


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

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

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #4 on: April 05, 2008, 11:58:58 AM »

I do have one question for you, Papist -

How in the world do you justify your name on CAF, i.e. East and West, with this Latinist attitude which, whether you intend it or not, pervades all that you write on this forum.
I used to attend a Ruthenian Parish and was very much enamored with many of the things that I learned and experienced there. The pastor of our little Parish was an amazing, saintly man. Fr. Chris Zuger. Anyway, I found through reseach that that parish was not the norm. That there was a growing movement among Eastern Catholics to reject certain articles of the Catholic faith, and  then do so as if that is perfectly inline with the Church which is a blatant lie. So, I moved further and further away from all things eastern. Now I am sorta stuck with the screen name I have at CA.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2008, 12:02:28 PM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
NihilNominis
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Catholic
Posts: 24


« Reply #5 on: April 05, 2008, 02:27:59 PM »

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

We do have something in common, after all!

Forgive me if I have offended you.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #6 on: April 05, 2008, 02:57:13 PM »

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

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
kaarina33
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Western Rite
Posts: 52



« Reply #7 on: April 06, 2008, 12:34:36 PM »

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

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

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

Having been to TLM (Latin NO an Tridentine EO) at my husband's very traditional RC parish, I have to agree with you, that there is a difference, something that I can't quite wrap words around...
Logged

We are always living God's future in a broken present,
the Gospel is always a word of reconciliation from God's future spoken ahead of its time"
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #8 on: April 07, 2008, 04:22:03 AM »

We would mind because our tradition and our rubrics for our Liturgy include the filioque. Yes, it does not need to be in the Creed for the Greeks, but it is required in our Liturgy. This would be like me going to a Ruthenian parish and explicitly reciting the filioque as part of the Creed just to make a point. That would be unacceptable.
When I have on rare occasions attended Mass at a Latin parish I never say the words "and the Son" when the creed is recited, but no one really notices because I simply go silent at those words. 
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #9 on: April 07, 2008, 04:33:02 AM »

I was sorry to hear that Irish Melkite has been banned, because his input in the thread entitled, "4 in UGCC claim consecration as bishops from underground bishops," would have been very helpful.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Irish Melkite
Information Mongeror
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite Greek-Catholic
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Newton
Posts: 965


WWW
« Reply #10 on: April 07, 2008, 06:16:55 AM »

I was sorry to hear that Irish Melkite has been banned, because his input in the thread entitled, "4 in UGCC claim consecration as bishops from underground bishops," would have been very helpful.

Apotheoun,

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

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

Many years,

Neil

PS - with all due respect to my Ukrainian brethren, Catholic and Orthodox, whom I hold dear, I have got to say that I know of no other body of Eastern Christians among whom there is such a need for everyone - and I mean everyone - to have their own Church. A tongue-in-cheek thread used to appear periodically at ByzCath in which folks would catalogue the latest collection of Ukrainian jurisdictions. Some would disappear, new ones would arise, but the number never decreased, it inevitably grew from year to year.
Logged

"Not only is it unnecessary to adopt the customs of the Latin Rite to manifest one's Catholicism, it is an offense against the unity of the Church."

- Melkite Archbishop Joseph (Tawil), of blessed memory
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #11 on: April 07, 2008, 06:26:37 AM »

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

Grin
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #12 on: April 07, 2008, 07:50:03 AM »

Has anybody seen the last incredible thread in Eastern Catholicism?

"Eastern and Western Catholicism Dogmas,Doctrines and Traditions"

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

Logged
username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,027



« Reply #13 on: April 07, 2008, 01:18:55 PM »

Papist, please do run a laundry list/a good post of how you think Eastern Catholics misrepresent Papal Catholicism? 
Speak from experience, cite examples, and I am sure you will have specific examples, speak of which doctorine/dogmas, and how they stray.. etc.. let it flow, you are now one with the keyboard.


Note:  In this post I have clearly asked for a list and then support to justify the list, ie, detail, examples, doctorine/dogmas.  It was meant clearly for a list then an explanation to be given for each issue. 
« Last Edit: April 17, 2008, 05:23:23 PM by username! » Logged

Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #14 on: April 07, 2008, 01:28:02 PM »

Papist, please do run a laundry list/a good post of how you think Eastern Catholics misrepresent Papal Catholicism? 
Speak from experience, cite examples, and I am sure you will have specific examples, speak of which doctorine/dogmas, and how they stray.. etc.. let it flow, you are now one with the keyboard.
Are you seriously asking or ar you baiting?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #15 on: April 07, 2008, 01:35:11 PM »

If anyone wants to discuss any of the issues raised above, let's start a new thread. I realize we are off topic now and alot of that has to do with me.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2008, 01:35:54 PM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,027



« Reply #16 on: April 07, 2008, 01:38:45 PM »

Are you seriously asking or ar you baiting?

Serious as the Pope on Pascha, I want to know what you're thinking.  I'm not baiting, I am being serious.
Logged

Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #17 on: April 07, 2008, 01:42:00 PM »

Serious as the Pope on Pascha, I want to know what you're thinking.  I'm not baiting, I am being serious.

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

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,027



« Reply #18 on: April 07, 2008, 01:43:41 PM »

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

Ok, still interested, expand and explain, and give personal experiences if need be.  We could make this another thread?
Logged

Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #19 on: April 07, 2008, 01:44:50 PM »

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

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,027



« Reply #20 on: April 07, 2008, 01:50:24 PM »

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


Sounds good! 
Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,026



« Reply #21 on: April 07, 2008, 03:22:58 PM »

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

Why Papist, I'm surprised at you!

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

I think we may be having a positive influence on you!

God bless,
Peter.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,027



« Reply #22 on: April 07, 2008, 04:10:35 PM »

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

alexp4uni
Site Supporter
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: kinda practicing theist
Jurisdiction: ecumenical kind
Posts: 329


« Reply #23 on: April 07, 2008, 04:25:54 PM »


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

He just has to slay vile a dogma one at a time before he realizes he didn't sharpen his pencil.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2008, 05:54:54 PM by alexp4uni » Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,026



« Reply #24 on: April 07, 2008, 05:37:25 PM »

For example, I notice you made no complaint about ECs considering Gregory Palamas to be a saint, whereas in the not-to-distant past you went so far as to call his philosophy "vile".

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

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

P.S. Of course, that was this morning, which begets the question of whether he's actually changed, or whether he just has pro-EC/anti-EC mood swings.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #25 on: April 07, 2008, 07:06:50 PM »

When Eastern Catholics do the say that is ok to reject:
1) Purgatory.....
When they reject these and then state that its ok with the Church to do so, they are misrepresenting Catholicism to the world.
Before you berate your Eastern Catholic brethren about "misrepresenting" Catholic beliefs, you should update yourself with what the Catholic Church currently believes.
Have you read your Pope's encyclical "Spe Salvi"? 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":

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

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #26 on: April 08, 2008, 03:43:23 PM »

George, you've read Spe Salvi? I'm impressed! Perhaps that wasn't an April Fool's joke after all... Wink

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.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2008, 03:44:09 PM by lubeltri » Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #27 on: April 08, 2008, 05:41:04 PM »

George, you've read Spe Salvi? I'm impressed!
Why?

Re: the "time durations" in Purgatory. You accurately convey the common popular misconception of this but inaccurately convey the official teaching. The time durations do not measure time spent in Purgatory but the number of days of penance a penitent would have had to perform in the early Church for a certain offense. To clear up this frequent misconception, Servant of God Pope Paul VI wisely issued a new Enchiridion of Indulgences in 1968 which simply distinguished indulgences as partial and plenary.
Fine and dandy, except that you still run into a problem with the "Sabbatine Privilege" 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.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #28 on: April 08, 2008, 06:12:00 PM »

Why?

You answered that question yourself:

Fine and dandy, except that you still run into a problem with the "Sabbatine Privilege" 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.
Logged
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,744



« Reply #29 on: April 08, 2008, 08:00:08 PM »

If anything, their Eastern Catholic brothers can help the Latins out of the Labyrinth of logical and theological errors they have placed themselves.


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

pax

Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.
Ung-Certez
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 51

Vind'ber Selo


« Reply #30 on: April 10, 2008, 03:48:35 PM »

Papist, please do run a laundry list/a good post of how you think Eastern Catholics misrepresent Papal Catholicism? 
Speak from experience, cite examples, and I am sure you will have specific examples, speak of which doctorine/dogmas, and how they stray.. etc.. let it flow, you are now one with the keyboard.

Love your photo of Archbishop John Ireland! laugh

Ung-Certez
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,026



« Reply #31 on: April 10, 2008, 04:02:05 PM »

Love your photo of Archbishop John Ireland! laugh

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

Peter
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,027



« Reply #32 on: April 12, 2008, 06:13:50 PM »

If you don't want a complete answer, then don't ask the question.

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

Here is the link~
« Last Edit: April 12, 2008, 06:14:54 PM by username! » Logged

Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #33 on: April 13, 2008, 02:42:57 PM »

Why Papist, I'm surprised at you!

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

I think we may be having a positive influence on you!

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.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #34 on: April 13, 2008, 02:45:05 PM »

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

Here is the link~
I am not sure what you want me to say. I have already explained how the ECs misrepresent the Catholic faith.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,026



« Reply #35 on: April 13, 2008, 03:06:09 PM »

I am so sorry.

No problem.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
prodromas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Under the Green Pope
Posts: 1,239

Greek Orthodox


« Reply #36 on: April 13, 2008, 08:34:08 PM »

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

Peter

Peter, Username is praising Archbishop Ireland's for returning the flock of believers back to their Church.  angel
« Last Edit: April 13, 2008, 08:37:51 PM by prodromas » Logged

The sins I don't commit are largely due to the weakness of my limbs.

1915-1923 Հայոց Ցեղասպանութիւն ,never again,
ܩܛܠܐ ܕܥܡܐ ܐܬܘܪܝܐ 1920-1914, never again,
השואה  1933-1945, never again,
(1914-1923) Ελληνική Γενοκτονία, never again
Ung-Certez
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 51

Vind'ber Selo


« Reply #37 on: April 13, 2008, 08:45:21 PM »

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

Ung-Certez
Logged
The Iambic Pen
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic - Church of Old Rome
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 123



« Reply #38 on: April 16, 2008, 07:12:34 AM »

So, do Western and Eastern Catholics disagree on matters of doctrine?  In my own search for the Church, people have often suggested that I become an Eastern Catholic.  This would be a way for me to have the best of both worlds (the worlds being Catholicism and Orthodoxy).  However, the impression I have been getting is that many Eastern Catholics do not accept doctrines which are required belief in the Catholic Church.  It seems that many Eastern Catholics say to themselves, "We will acknowledge the existence of papal authority, but we will not accept any commands from this authority that are not in accord with our own Eastern tradition."  Others seem to simply pretend that these theological differences do not exist.

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

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

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

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

I'm not making a judgment in this post about whether or not the Orthodox Church or the Catholic Church is the true Church.  I haven't made up my mind about that yet.  I am simply remarking that I observe a contradiction between the beliefs of Eastern and Western Catholics, and I am wondering how this can be.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #39 on: April 16, 2008, 09:54:10 AM »

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

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

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #40 on: April 16, 2008, 12:22:58 PM »

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

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

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

I was strernly rebuked for such remarks.

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

I was injured by the identity crisis in the Eastern Catholic Church and I was opposed to the innovations of Rome. So I made the only logical decision. I joined the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church---the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church!  Smiley
« Last Edit: April 16, 2008, 12:24:16 PM by Mickey » Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #41 on: April 16, 2008, 12:37:50 PM »

I was strernly rebuked for such remarks.
By both sides (i.e, Latin and Eastern Catholic) or just one?
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #42 on: April 16, 2008, 12:44:38 PM »

Exactly!

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

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

I was strernly rebuked for such remarks.

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

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

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #43 on: April 16, 2008, 12:57:44 PM »

By both sides (i.e, Latin and Eastern Catholic) or just one?
Eastern Catholic clergy and laity. (I had not much contact with the Latins at this point.)

Besides, most Latin Catholics that I know think that the Eastern Catholic Church is the Orthodox Church.  Undecided
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #44 on: April 16, 2008, 01:02:59 PM »

Eastern Catholic clergy and laity. (I had not much contact with the Latins at this point.)
Were you originally a Latin Catholic? If so, what made you change cannonical status?
Besides, most Latin Catholics that I know think that the Eastern Catholic Church is the Orthodox Church.  Undecided
I am always shocked by this. I learned about Eastern Catholics when I was in high school, around sixteen years old.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Heracleides
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Patriarch of Jerusalem
Posts: 390


Kona-Kai


« Reply #45 on: April 16, 2008, 01:06:35 PM »

Exactly!

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

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

I was strernly rebuked for such remarks.

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

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

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.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2008, 01:08:17 PM by Heracleides » Logged

"And having found Heracleides there again, we instructed him to proclaim the Gospel of God..."  ~Acts of Barnabas
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #46 on: April 16, 2008, 01:08:01 PM »

Mickey, I have followed your journey to Holy Orthodoxy on many fora and I simply want to chime in and say that we are all greatly blessed by your presence.
I would like to add that although I lament the loss of Mickey in the Roman Catholic Church, he is one of the most charitable and loving Orthodox Christians that I have ever come across on line. I could learn alot form him and I think he is an alround great guy.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2008, 05:53:24 PM by cleveland » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #47 on: April 16, 2008, 03:09:28 PM »

Mickey, I have followed your journey to Holy Orthodoxy on many fora and I simply want to chime in and say that we are all greatly blessed by your presence & witness.
Thank you my brother in Christ. It has been a bumpy road--filled with abundant tears and glorious triumphs. I have been blessed by many of your posts. (and others)
Logged
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #48 on: April 16, 2008, 03:10:42 PM »

Were you originally a Latin Catholic? If so, what made you change cannonical status?
One Divine Liturgy and I was hooked by the East! (my wife too)  Grin
« Last Edit: April 16, 2008, 03:11:08 PM by Mickey » Logged
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #49 on: April 16, 2008, 03:14:02 PM »

I would like to add that although I lament the loss of Mickey in the Catholic Church, he is one of the most charitable and loving Orhtodox Christians that I have ever come across on line. I could learn alot form him and I think he is an alround great guy.
Thank you my brother in Christ. You are damaging my quest for humility!  Embarrassed

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.

Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #50 on: April 16, 2008, 03:17:41 PM »

One Divine Liturgy and I was hooked by the East! (my wife too)  Grin
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.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2008, 03:19:04 PM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #51 on: April 16, 2008, 03:58:01 PM »

I have to admitt that the Divine Liturgy had me hooked on my old Ruthenian Parish for a good year. There were many things about the East that I loved, but when all was said and done, I am a Thomist, through and through. But I certainly understand your attraction to such a beautiful Liturgy.  I actually prefer the Byzanite over the the Tridentine Rite.
I have very fond memories of the old Latin Mass of my childhood. Even though I could not understand a lick of Latin, the Liturgy somehow spoke to my heart (like Church Slavonic does today). I was saddened when the Novus Ordo swept the country (but that is for another thread).

I am not a big fan of Aquinas. Thomism is not very appealing to me and the way he delivers his odd mixture of Aristotlean/Platonic philosophy hurts my head. Scholasticism is not my cup of tea. However, I must admit I am intrigued that he did not finish the Summa because he had a mystical experience. He claimed that all his writings were as straw. I wonder about this vision/experience. He died shortly thereafter. Could it have been the uncreated light? Perhaps he was moving toward Holy Orthodoxy!  Wink
« Last Edit: April 16, 2008, 03:58:48 PM by Mickey » Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #52 on: April 16, 2008, 04:10:58 PM »

I have very fond memories of the old Latin Mass of my childhood. Even though I could not understand a lick of Latin, the Liturgy somehow spoke to my heart (like Church Slavonic does today). I was saddened when the Novus Ordo swept the country (but that is for another thread).
You are gonna laught at me but I actually prefer the NO over the Tridentine rite, as long as the NO is celebrated properly. My pastor celebrated the NO ad orientem for Easter Vigil.
I am not a big fan of Aquinas. Thomism is not very appealing to me and the way he delivers his odd mixture of Aristotlean/Platonic philosophy hurts my head. Scholasticism is not my cup of tea.

That's interesting. My biggest problem with Palamite theology is his odd mixture of Neo-Platonic philosophy, especially with regard to his distinction between essence and engergies.
However, I must admit I am intrigued that he did not finish the Summa because he had a mystical experience. He claimed that all his writings were as straw. I wonder about this vision/experience. He died shortly thereafter. Could it have been the uncreated light? Perhaps he was moving toward Holy Orthodoxy!  Wink
Goodness, I hope not!!!  Wink 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.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,026



« Reply #53 on: April 16, 2008, 11:32:08 PM »

Wow, Papist. Reading what you've posted in this thread today ... the civility, the reasonableness, the lack of ... well never mind.

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

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

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
wynd
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 501


Transfiguration


« Reply #54 on: April 16, 2008, 11:34:36 PM »

Wow, Papist. Reading what you've posted in this thread today ... the civility, the reasonableness, the lack of ... well never mind.

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

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

Now that New Papist has been taken off the market, Papist Classic will be that much more appealing. A clever marketing ploy! Cheesy
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #55 on: April 17, 2008, 02:30:41 AM »



It's still full of rubbish- only sweeter.











« Last Edit: April 17, 2008, 02:46:23 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #56 on: April 17, 2008, 01:06:04 PM »

No theological work can even begin to touch on who and what God is.
Now you are sounding like a Palamist.  laugh
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #57 on: April 17, 2008, 02:02:58 PM »

Now you are sounding like a Palamist.  laugh
Hey. Not everything he said was that bad.  Wink
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,027



« Reply #58 on: April 17, 2008, 03:47:05 PM »

I am not sure what you want me to say. I have already explained how the ECs misrepresent the Catholic faith.

You didn't complete your entire thoughts, you just ran a laundry list and didn't give a reason for the list.  A child can point out what he thinks is wrong and a man can back up and explain what he thinks is wrong.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2008, 03:50:20 PM by username! » Logged

Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #59 on: April 17, 2008, 03:52:15 PM »

You didn't complete your entire thoughts, you just ran a laundry list and didn't give a reason for the list.  A child can point out what he thinks is wrong and a man can back up and explain what he thinks is wrong.

All you asked was how I believe that the EC's misrepresent the Catholic Church. If you wanted more you should have asked for more. A real man asks the question he wants answered.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,027



« Reply #60 on: April 17, 2008, 05:17:16 PM »

All you asked was how I believe that the EC's misrepresent the Catholic Church. If you wanted more you should have asked for more. A real man asks the question he wants answered.

Frankly I am sick and tired of your attitude towards the Orthodox and everyone here.  I asked you to explain your laundry list, my question was full to you.  You are the one who didn't answer it correctly.  If you have such issues with Orthodoxy and with not answering questions posed to you in full and resort to accusing others of malice, why stay here?  All you have done is place broad accusations against the moderators and staff here at oc.net and towards posters here.  A real man doesn't act like a 6 year old and blame everyone but himself when he is confronted with a question.  Please go to the Byzantine Catholic thread and find where I originally said use explanations and detail for the list you provided.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2008, 05:18:32 PM by username! » Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,026



« Reply #61 on: April 17, 2008, 08:09:44 PM »

In my own search for the Church, people have often suggested that I become an Eastern Catholic.  This would be a way for me to have the best of both worlds (the worlds being Catholicism and Orthodoxy).

I have a great deal of respect for Eastern Catholicism; nevertheless some of the "Eastern Catholicism is the best of both worlds" conversations that I've heard (and I've heard quite a few, BTW) seemed to me little simplistic. Would that mean that WRO is the worst of both worlds?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,027



« Reply #62 on: April 18, 2008, 04:13:01 AM »

True, although that cuts both ways.

-Peter.

You too can expand on your observations of Eastern Catholicism through the Latin perspective, any insight to actually make this thread adhere to its original meaning.
Logged

The Iambic Pen
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic - Church of Old Rome
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 123



« Reply #63 on: April 19, 2008, 04:21:25 PM »

I was an Eastern Catholic and was often told by clergy and laity alike that it is not mandatory to hold the same understandings on issues and doctrines as that of the Latin Church such as: Filoque, papal infallibility, IC, and purgatory, original sin, etc.
Which, to me, says that these clergy and laity need to do the intellectually honest thing and either accept the teachings of Rome or become Orthodox.

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

Quote
So I made the only logical decision. I joined the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church---the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church!  Smiley
*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  Wink *

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).
« Last Edit: April 19, 2008, 04:23:13 PM by The Iambic Pen » Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #64 on: April 19, 2008, 06:45:38 PM »

Which, to me, says that these clergy and laity need to do the intellectually honest thing and either accept the teachings of Rome or become Orthodox.
It might be a bit more than an intellectual imperative. Rome holds that they MUST ultimately adhere to Roman dogma.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #65 on: April 21, 2008, 01:23:33 PM »

So, you had two choices. 
Ultimately, yes. There was a time when I thought there was a third choice--Eastern Catholicism. I used to tell people that the pre-schism Church looked like the Eastern Catholic Church---Eastern in union with Rome. But that came crashing down on me over time. I learned that the Eastern Catholic Church used to be Orthodox. I learned that the post schism innovated doctrines of Rome were not known to the undivided Church. I learned that the fullness of truth existed in the Holy Orthodox Church.
Logged
The Iambic Pen
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic - Church of Old Rome
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 123



« Reply #66 on: April 21, 2008, 03:34:03 PM »

It might be a bit more than an intellectual imperative. Rome holds that they MUST ultimately adhere to Roman dogma.
Of course.  This is why it seems to me that they must either adhere to Roman dogma or become Orthodox.  Otherwise they are living with a rather significant contradiction.

Ultimately, yes. There was a time when I thought there was a third choice--Eastern Catholicism. I used to tell people that the pre-schism Church looked like the Eastern Catholic Church---Eastern in union with Rome. But that came crashing down on me over time. I learned that the Eastern Catholic Church used to be Orthodox. I learned that the post schism innovated doctrines of Rome were not known to the undivided Church. I learned that the fullness of truth existed in the Holy Orthodox Church.
Perhaps you are right about all of this...
Logged
username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,027



« Reply #67 on: April 21, 2008, 05:45:23 PM »

Ultimately, yes. There was a time when I thought there was a third choice--Eastern Catholicism. I used to tell people that the pre-schism Church looked like the Eastern Catholic Church---Eastern in union with Rome. But that came crashing down on me over time. I learned that the Eastern Catholic Church used to be Orthodox. I learned that the post schism innovated doctrines of Rome were not known to the undivided Church. I learned that the fullness of truth existed in the Holy Orthodox Church.

^post of the month nominee. 
Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,026



« Reply #68 on: April 27, 2008, 08:52:56 PM »

Ultimately, yes. There was a time when I thought there was a third choice--Eastern Catholicism.

Hi Mickey,

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

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

Happy Pasha!
-Peter.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #69 on: May 01, 2008, 10:30:22 AM »

Hi Mickey,

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

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

Is that more clear, Peter?
« Last Edit: May 01, 2008, 10:38:49 AM by Mickey » Logged
Ung-Certez
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 51

Vind'ber Selo


« Reply #70 on: May 01, 2008, 10:40:05 AM »

I am saying that the schism is painful and it is a tragedy. I am saying that the Latin Church and the Holy Orthodox Church have Apostolic roots. I am saying that I believe the Latin Church has veered from the Apostolic Traditions through innovations. I am saying that I believed (at one time) that the Eastern Catholic Church was a wonderful melding of the Latin and Holy Orthodox Church--perhaps mimicking the pre-schism ancient Church. I am saying that I now believe that the Eastern Catholic Church is simply subject, submissive and obedient to the Latin Church. I am saying that the the true patrimony of the Eastern Catholic Church is...well...the Holy Orthodox Church! I am saying that I believe the Holy Orthodox Church is the Church of antiquity---the Church that Jesus Christ established at Pentacost--the 2000 year old Church of our Fathers.

Is that more clear, Peter?

Mickey,

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

Christos Voskrese!  Voistinnu Voskrese!

Ung-Certez

Logged
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #71 on: May 01, 2008, 10:45:27 AM »

Mickey,

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

Christos Voskrese!  Voistinnu Voskrese!

Ung-Certez


Christos Voskrese!  Voistinnu Voskrese!

God bless you my friend!
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,026



« Reply #72 on: May 01, 2008, 10:46:10 AM »

Is that more clear, Peter?

Not entirely. Are you 'saying' that you consider Latin Catholicism an option, but you don't consider Eastern Catholicism an option? Or are you 'saying' that you used to consider Latin Catholicism and Eastern Catholicism as two different options, but now see them as the same option (so that by rejecting the one you automatically reject the other)?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,026



« Reply #73 on: May 01, 2008, 10:49:12 AM »

Mickey,

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

Christos Voskrese!  Voistinnu Voskrese!

Ung-Certez

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

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #74 on: May 01, 2008, 10:49:41 AM »

Not entirely. Are you 'saying' that you consider Latin Catholicism an option, but you don't consider Eastern Catholicism an option?
I am saying that the Eastern Catholic Church is a subset of the Latin Church and must adhere to all dogmas thereof.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,026



« Reply #75 on: May 01, 2008, 11:20:09 AM »

I am saying that the Eastern Catholic Church is a subset of the Latin Church and must adhere to all dogmas thereof.

No offense intended, but doesn't it seem slightly presumptuous of you to tell ECs what they must adhere to in order to be ECs?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Ung-Certez
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 51

Vind'ber Selo


« Reply #76 on: May 01, 2008, 11:29:39 AM »

No offense intended, but doesn't it seem slightly presumptuous of you to tell ECs what they must adhere to in order to be ECs?

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

Christos Anesti!  Alithos Anesti!

U-C
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,026



« Reply #77 on: May 01, 2008, 11:57:57 AM »

But Mickey said "must adhere to", not "the pope says they must adhere to".

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

-Peter.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,026



« Reply #78 on: May 01, 2008, 11:59:05 AM »

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

I mean ... again.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #79 on: May 01, 2008, 12:33:40 PM »

No offense intended, but doesn't it seem slightly presumptuous of you to tell ECs what they must adhere to in order to be ECs?
I am not here to play word games Peter. And I am not interested in being in communion with Rome as I'm sure you are not interested in being in communion with Holy Orthodoxy (unless of course the schism is suddenly healed).  Wink

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.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2008, 12:35:28 PM by Mickey » Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #80 on: May 01, 2008, 12:42:53 PM »

Your posts have got me thinking Mickey.
I wonder if some become Eastern Catholic believing that they will be fully accepted by both Roman Catholics and Orthodox, whereas the reality is that neither fully accepts them?
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Ung-Certez
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 51

Vind'ber Selo


« Reply #81 on: May 01, 2008, 12:54:26 PM »

Your posts have got me thinking Mickey.
I wonder if some become Eastern Catholic believing that they will be fully accepted by both Roman Catholics and Orthodox, whereas the reality is that neither fully accepts them?

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

Christos Voskres! Voistynu Voskres!

Ung
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #82 on: May 01, 2008, 12:56:42 PM »

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

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

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,026



« Reply #83 on: May 01, 2008, 01:04:49 PM »

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

Christos Voskres! Voistynu Voskres!

Ung

I like that analogy.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,026



« Reply #84 on: May 01, 2008, 01:05:22 PM »

I am not here to play word games Peter.

Well that's a relief.

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

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

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

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

Blessings,
Peter.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #85 on: May 01, 2008, 01:07:24 PM »

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

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

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!
« Last Edit: May 01, 2008, 01:10:07 PM by lubeltri » Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #86 on: May 01, 2008, 01:08:11 PM »

After all, weren't there Patriarchs of Constantinople in the first millennium who remained in full communion with the pope but didn't agree with everything he said?
But they never claimed infallibility.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #87 on: May 01, 2008, 01:10:03 PM »

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

Posts: 51

Vind'ber Selo


« Reply #88 on: May 01, 2008, 01:13:22 PM »

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

...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! Wink

Christos Anesti!  Alithos Anesti!

Ung
« Last Edit: May 01, 2008, 01:18:05 PM by Ung-Certez » Logged
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #89 on: May 01, 2008, 01:13:46 PM »

After all, weren't there Patriarchs of Constantinople in the first millennium who remained in full communion with the pope but didn't agree with everything he said?
Can you disagree with post schism Latin Catholic doctrine and remain in communion with Rome today?
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #90 on: May 01, 2008, 01:23:05 PM »

...we were orphaned during the time of the Great Spiritual and Theological Divorce 1054-till the present, and were taken by CYS and handed over to our foster parents until we can be reunited with our "Eccesiastical " parents when this settlement/reconcilliation is finished! Wink
What is "CYS"?
May I ask to which Eastern Catholic Church you belong? How was it left "orphaned" by the Great Schism?
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Entscheidungsproblem
Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Machine God
Posts: 4,495



WWW
« Reply #91 on: May 01, 2008, 01:25:35 PM »

What is "CYS"?

Child & Youth Services, I believe.
Logged

As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.
-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #92 on: May 01, 2008, 01:28:14 PM »

Child & Youth Services, I believe.
Ah! It's DOCS here in Australia- "Department of Community Services".
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Ung-Certez
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 51

Vind'ber Selo


« Reply #93 on: May 01, 2008, 01:32:15 PM »

What is "CYS"?
May I ask to which Eastern Catholic Church you belong? How was it left "orphaned" by the Great Schism?

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

Christ is Risen!  Indeed He is Risen!

Ung
« Last Edit: May 01, 2008, 02:47:08 PM by Ung-Certez » Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #94 on: May 01, 2008, 01:44:31 PM »

Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic.  The East Slavic Church in the lands of the Polish and Hungarian Kingdoms became a coveted pawn in the East-West Schism.  While the people and the churches always believed they were under the Ecumenical Patriarchal mantle, the Polish and Hungarian Catholic rulers wanted a way to solve their "Schisamatic" problems, and created the Unia.
Thank you for that.
I've done a bit of reading thanks to your keywords on this page: http://www.faswebdesign.com/ECPA/Byzantine/Ruthenian.html
Is this a fairly accurate history?
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,026



« Reply #95 on: May 01, 2008, 03:26:45 PM »

To be honest, I myself am trying to work out exactly how that works.

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

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

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #96 on: May 01, 2008, 03:57:14 PM »

To be honest, I myself am trying to work out exactly how that works.
Okay. Let's try another angle.

Were Popes in the undivided Church able to establish dogmas apart from a council?
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,026



« Reply #97 on: May 01, 2008, 04:45:46 PM »

This isn't "Twenty Questions".
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,026



« Reply #98 on: May 01, 2008, 04:52:11 PM »

Okay. Let's try another angle.

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

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

God bless,
Peter.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #99 on: May 02, 2008, 08:22:04 AM »

This isn't "Twenty Questions".
No. It is one question. You do not have to answer it--but there is no need to be testy.  Sad
Logged
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #100 on: May 02, 2008, 08:22:36 AM »

If that's a question you're interested in, perhaps you should start a new thread for it.
Perhaps I will.
Logged
antiderivative
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Northeastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: A jurisdiction
Posts: 349


« Reply #101 on: June 29, 2008, 04:59:53 PM »

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

signature
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #102 on: July 08, 2008, 06:14:01 AM »

Hello brother Mickey,

Okay. Let's try another angle.

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

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

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. Yes, after many invitations from former CAF members, I've finally found the time to come here.  But I can't post much for the next two weeks.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #103 on: July 08, 2008, 05:36:26 PM »

What exactly do Catholics have against St. Gregory Palamas' theology? Besides the fact that he's after the schism, do they disagree with hesychasm?
Palamas' Theology is contrary to Catholic Thomistic theology which teaches that God is not composed, (as in essence and energies) but rather that God is simple. Further, Palamite theology is in contrast to the Catholic principle of the Beatific vision. While I do no hate Palamas and agree that he was a brilliant man, I don't believe that his theology is compatible with Catholic theology.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
antiderivative
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Northeastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: A jurisdiction
Posts: 349


« Reply #104 on: September 26, 2008, 01:21:13 AM »

Quote
When Eastern Catholics say that is ok to reject:
1) Purgatory
2) The Immaculate Conception
3) The Ecumenical Councils between the seventh and Vatican II
4) Original Sin
5) Papal Infallibility
6) The Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope
7) The procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son
etc.

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

signature
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #105 on: September 26, 2008, 04:31:26 AM »

Quote
When Eastern Catholics say that is ok to reject:
1) Purgatory
2) The Immaculate Conception
3) The Ecumenical Councils between the seventh and Vatican II
4) Original Sin
5) Papal Infallibility
6) The Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope
7) The procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son
etc.

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


A good question. In point of fact, they cannot reject any of the list above according to Rome, despite some (such as the Melkites') assertion that they can.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2008, 08:00:11 AM by Αριστοκλής » Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,497



« Reply #106 on: September 26, 2008, 06:15:35 AM »

I find quite confusing that some Eastern Catholics feel they can ignore "latin" dogmas just because they are Eastern Catholis. How common is this kind of belief among Eastern Catholics?
Logged
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,520


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #107 on: September 26, 2008, 09:13:06 AM »

I find quite confusing that some Eastern Catholics feel they can ignore "latin" dogmas just because they are Eastern Catholics. How common is this kind of belief among Eastern Catholics?

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

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

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

I wrote about this recently on still another board.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2008, 09:16:16 AM by The young fogey » Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #108 on: September 26, 2008, 10:45:12 AM »

To be honest, I myself am trying to work out exactly how that works.

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

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

Yes, he could, but if it was for a dumb reason, he soon found himself out in the cold.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #109 on: September 26, 2008, 10:56:42 AM »

Exactly!

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

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

I was strernly rebuked for such remarks.

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

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

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!
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #110 on: September 26, 2008, 11:13:44 AM »

Child & Youth Services, I believe.
Ah! It's DOCS here in Australia- "Department of Community Services".

DCFS here: Department of Children and Family Services.  In the case at hand, I'm not sure it wasn't child abduction.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #111 on: September 26, 2008, 05:36:10 PM »

Child & Youth Services, I believe.
Ah! It's DOCS here in Australia- "Department of Community Services".
DCFS here: Department of Children and Family Services.  In the case at hand, I'm not sure it wasn't child abduction.
We call it DSS: Division of Social Services. Funny how the same thing can be called by many names.
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
Ivan Putovati
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Greco-Catholic
Posts: 10


« Reply #112 on: November 15, 2008, 06:35:25 PM »

By both sides (i.e, Latin and Eastern Catholic) or just one?
Eastern Catholic clergy and laity. (I had not much contact with the Latins at this point.)

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

----

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.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #113 on: November 15, 2008, 08:27:40 PM »

By both sides (i.e, Latin and Eastern Catholic) or just one?
Eastern Catholic clergy and laity. (I had not much contact with the Latins at this point.)

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

----

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.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
wynd
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 501


Transfiguration


« Reply #114 on: November 15, 2008, 11:15:50 PM »

That's never been my experience and I have been a Latin Catholic all of my life.

Must be the circles we move in. This is typical the vast majority of the Latin Catholics I know.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #115 on: November 16, 2008, 02:01:23 AM »

That's never been my experience and I have been a Latin Catholic all of my life.

Must be the circles we move in. This is typical the vast majority of the Latin Catholics I know.
Agreed. There is definitely varying degrees of understanding amongst Catholics. One thing that binds most of my friends together is our understanding of the Catholic faith.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,026



« Reply #116 on: June 30, 2011, 10:24:01 PM »

Hi all. Excuse me for popping back into this thread after a 3-year absence. (It seems that I stopped participating on OC-net in the middle of 2008, because I was spending a lot of time on CAF.)

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

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

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,026



« Reply #117 on: June 30, 2011, 10:25:12 PM »

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

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

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?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
FrChris
The Rodney Dangerfield of OC.net
Site Supporter
Taxiarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 7,252


Holy Father Patrick, thank you for your help!


« Reply #118 on: June 30, 2011, 10:36:07 PM »

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

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

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.
Logged

"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,026



« Reply #119 on: July 01, 2011, 07:53:02 AM »

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

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

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.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
FrChris
The Rodney Dangerfield of OC.net
Site Supporter
Taxiarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 7,252


Holy Father Patrick, thank you for your help!


« Reply #120 on: July 01, 2011, 07:59:55 AM »

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

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

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!
Logged

"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,026



« Reply #121 on: January 23, 2012, 09:58:07 AM »

Hi all. I know this thread is about Papist, but with all due respect to him I would like to share a little about where I'm coming from. (So don't say I didn't warn you that I'm going to be talking about myself. Wink)

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.  Embarrassed But at least I kept it short.  Smiley
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #122 on: January 23, 2012, 10:44:12 AM »

Hi all. I know this thread is about Papist, but with all due respect to him I would like to share a little about where I'm coming from. (So don't say I didn't warn you that I'm going to be talking about myself. Wink)

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.  Embarrassed But at least I kept it short.  Smiley

and vaguge-what's a "High Church"?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #123 on: January 23, 2012, 11:34:06 AM »

Hi all. I know this thread is about Papist, but with all due respect to him I would like to share a little about where I'm coming from. (So don't say I didn't warn you that I'm going to be talking about myself. Wink)

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.  Embarrassed But at least I kept it short.  Smiley

and vaguge-what's a "High Church"?
I believe he's gone Anglican.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,026



« Reply #124 on: January 23, 2012, 12:14:17 PM »

and vaguge-what's a "High Church"?

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

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

Thanks for asking. Smiley
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #125 on: January 23, 2012, 12:20:53 PM »

and vaguge-what's a "High Church"?

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

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

Thanks for asking. Smiley


So hipster.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2012, 12:21:41 PM by Michał Kalina » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,172


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #126 on: January 23, 2012, 02:26:54 PM »

and vaguge-what's a "High Church"?

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

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

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

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,026



« Reply #127 on: January 23, 2012, 03:29:42 PM »

So the tag line under your posts are a lie?

Not at all. Perhaps you misread or misunderstood the symbol
Quote
<>
« Last Edit: January 23, 2012, 03:30:12 PM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,026



« Reply #128 on: January 23, 2012, 03:32:54 PM »

P.S. Is that better?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,172


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #129 on: January 23, 2012, 03:34:32 PM »

P.S. Is that better?
Ah, better. I wasnt trying to nit-pick, just confused thats all.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,026



« Reply #130 on: January 23, 2012, 04:17:20 PM »

P.S. Is that better?
Ah, better. I wasnt trying to nit-pick, just confused thats all.

PP

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

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,172


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #131 on: January 23, 2012, 04:18:42 PM »

P.S. Is that better?
Ah, better. I wasnt trying to nit-pick, just confused thats all.

PP

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

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

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,533



« Reply #132 on: January 23, 2012, 05:44:22 PM »

and vaguge-what's a "High Church"?

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

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

Thanks for asking. Smiley

If I may ask, how do you define neoconservative Catholics? Is there a distinction between neoconservative and traditionalist Catholics?
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,026



« Reply #133 on: January 23, 2012, 06:17:06 PM »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- A Brief Defense of Traditionalism
Peter W. Miller
« Last Edit: January 23, 2012, 06:25:24 PM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,026



« Reply #134 on: January 23, 2012, 06:22:30 PM »

Is there a distinction between neoconservative and traditionalist Catholics?

Surely you're not serious?

Is there a distinction between denim and french fries?

Actually though, you're in good company. Just in the process of looking for that passage I just quoted, I happened across posts from 2 different posters (ialmisry and Jetavan) asking a similar question as you.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2012, 06:25:52 PM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,027


« Reply #135 on: January 23, 2012, 06:27:39 PM »

Hmm. Looking at all those words makes me so glad I no longer have to bother. In the Coptic church, the fight against "modernism" in the church means arguing over the pronunciation of a language that no one has spoken natively in about 600 years. Wink
Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,026



« Reply #136 on: March 04, 2012, 09:33:26 PM »

and vaguge-what's a "High Church"?

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

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

Thanks for asking. Smiley

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.  Smiley
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
erimos
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 28



« Reply #137 on: March 08, 2013, 07:42:31 PM »

Serious as the Pope on Pascha, I want to know what you're thinking.  I'm not baiting, I am being serious.

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

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #138 on: March 08, 2013, 07:46:42 PM »

Serious as the Pope on Pascha, I want to know what you're thinking.  I'm not baiting, I am being serious.

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

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

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 7,838


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #139 on: March 08, 2013, 07:57:11 PM »

Serious as the Pope on Pascha, I want to know what you're thinking.  I'm not baiting, I am being serious.

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

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

Good to hear from you.

To be fair, I think we all grow and increase in wisdom. If we are not struggling to be good, well, we are in decline, and that would be awful.
Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #140 on: March 08, 2013, 07:59:39 PM »

Serious as the Pope on Pascha, I want to know what you're thinking.  I'm not baiting, I am being serious.

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

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

Good to hear from you.

To be fair, I think we all grow and increase in wisdom. If we are not struggling to be good, well, we are in decline, and that would be awful.
Good to hear from you too. Smiley
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,026



« Reply #141 on: March 08, 2013, 08:44:56 PM »

Serious as the Pope on Pascha, I want to know what you're thinking.  I'm not baiting, I am being serious.

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

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

I'm not going to try to say what Papist meant almost 5 years ago, but here's a thought that might help: it isn't too easy being Eastern Catholic, because on the one hand we've got Rome saying "You should believe such-and-such", but we also get "You're not a real Eastern Christian unless you agree with such-and-such" from the Orthodox.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
erimos
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 28



« Reply #142 on: March 08, 2013, 08:49:36 PM »

Serious as the Pope on Pascha, I want to know what you're thinking.  I'm not baiting, I am being serious.

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

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

That is interesting; the implication is either Papist is becoming Orthodox-like or he is inconsistent with his views.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #143 on: March 08, 2013, 09:19:27 PM »

Serious as the Pope on Pascha, I want to know what you're thinking.  I'm not baiting, I am being serious.

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

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

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

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Eastern Mind
Hi! I'm Olaf and I like warm hugs!
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Hopeful
Jurisdiction: Greece
Posts: 713



« Reply #144 on: March 08, 2013, 09:32:35 PM »

Maronites believe in all that. Of course, they have become more Latinized as time has gone on (not saying that's a bad thing, even Maronites admit to that). When I was Catholic I looked into Maronite Catholicism for a bit.
Logged

"ALL THE GODS OF THE HINDUS ARE DEMONS HAHAHAHAHA!!"
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,026



« Reply #145 on: March 08, 2013, 09:36:10 PM »

Serious as the Pope on Pascha, I want to know what you're thinking.  I'm not baiting, I am being serious.

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

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

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

:thumbsup:

I've commented before that if I were Orthodox, I wouldn't switch to Catholicism. But that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm going to convert to Orthodoxy.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
erimos
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 28



« Reply #146 on: March 08, 2013, 11:03:19 PM »

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

That is benevolent of you. Do you concede the same for Orthodox Christians?
« Last Edit: March 08, 2013, 11:04:17 PM by erimos » Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #147 on: March 09, 2013, 01:33:27 PM »

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

That is benevolent of you. Do you concede the same for Orthodox Christians?
[/quote] Do you mean that I believe that all Orthodox Christians should profess what Catholics do, then the answer is also yes. Do mean that understand that the schism is a very complicated matter and I should not judge the spiritual lives of the very many very holy EOs and OOs? Again that is correct. Do I think that there are real differences between Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians? Yes! Do I Think that some people exaggerate those differences for the sake of picking fights? Yes to that as well.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #148 on: March 24, 2013, 11:17:51 AM »

Discussion between members of different Catholic jurisdictions was split. You can follow it there.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2013, 11:18:25 AM by Michał Kalina » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,173


« Reply #149 on: December 17, 2013, 03:41:34 PM »

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

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

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

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #150 on: December 17, 2013, 04:02:12 PM »

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

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

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

Fr. John W. Morris
I am
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,497



« Reply #151 on: December 17, 2013, 04:41:16 PM »

This topic is awesome now that Papist has gone Greek.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #152 on: December 17, 2013, 07:29:37 PM »

Ha! I was gonna say this topic is hilrious.  Cheesy
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,026



« Reply #153 on: December 17, 2013, 09:40:35 PM »

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

Fr. John W. Morris

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

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

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

I would answer that I don't believe Rome to be in heresy.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #154 on: December 17, 2013, 10:35:22 PM »

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

Fr. John W. Morris

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

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

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

I would answer that I don't believe Rome to be in heresy.
If we believed Rome to be heretical, we would most certainly not be in communion with her.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2013, 10:35:51 PM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,173


« Reply #155 on: December 17, 2013, 11:23:40 PM »

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

Fr. John W. Morris

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

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

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

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

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

Fr. John W. Morris
« Last Edit: December 17, 2013, 11:25:11 PM by frjohnmorris » Logged
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #156 on: December 18, 2013, 12:14:17 AM »

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

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

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

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

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,173


« Reply #157 on: December 18, 2013, 01:40:38 AM »

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

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

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

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

The difference is that we are Orthodox Catholics. The word "Catholic" was first used in the East by St. Ignatius of Antioch. If you are under Rome, you are not Orthodox. This issue is one of the greatest sources of tension between Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Church. It is dishonest for a group under Rome to call themselves "Orthodox in Communion with Rome," because you cannot be Orthodox and be in Communion with Rome until Rome abandons all teachings like Purgatory, the Augustinian conception of original sin, and most of all papal supremacy, claims to universal jurisdiction and infallibility. Even if you use the Byzantine Liturgy if your Bishop in in Communion with Rome according to Orthodox theology that means that you share a Common Faith with Rome including the Roman teachings that contradict the teaching of the ancient undivided Church.
How about this, you let the Orthodox Church decide who is really Orthodox?
Fr. John W. Morris
« Last Edit: December 18, 2013, 01:41:46 AM by frjohnmorris » Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,026



« Reply #158 on: December 18, 2013, 08:01:44 AM »

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

Fr. John W. Morris

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

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

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

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

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

I guess it's partially emotional. In the same way, if I were taking a survey with a question "Do you embrace a Low Petrine view, a High Petrine view, or an Absolutist Petrine view?" might be inclined to answer "a High Petrine view", even if I know that the phrase "Low Petrine" is intended to encompass my view.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2013, 08:03:06 AM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,173


« Reply #159 on: December 18, 2013, 10:34:51 AM »

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

Fr. John W. Morris

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
hecma925
Non-clairvoyant
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 5,953


Pray for me, a sinner.


WWW
« Reply #160 on: December 18, 2013, 10:39:29 AM »


ialmisry, you seem to have that picture of Bishop Siluan in your copy/paste clipboard, permanently. Cheesy
Logged

Altar Server
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian(as of 12/18/10)
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 834


Christos Anesti!


« Reply #161 on: December 18, 2013, 11:07:23 AM »


ialmisry, you seem to have that picture of Bishop Siluan in your copy/paste clipboard, permanently. Cheesy

I think that this is the first time I've seen this particular picture of +Siluan....but he does always seem to have one handy  Tongue
Logged

"Come ye take light from The Light that is never overtaken by night and glorify the Christ, who is risen from the dead"
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,026



« Reply #162 on: December 18, 2013, 01:12:22 PM »

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

Fr. John W. Morris

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

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

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

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,173


« Reply #163 on: December 18, 2013, 01:25:16 PM »

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

Fr. John W. Morris

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

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

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

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

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #164 on: December 18, 2013, 02:33:52 PM »

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

Fr. John W. Morris

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

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

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

Not that anyone accepted Balamand.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
podkarpatska
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,018


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #165 on: December 18, 2013, 03:03:49 PM »

^I think, from my friends both in Europe (Slovakia and some parts of Ukraine)  and the United States, that post Balamand, things began to settle down regarding disputes between the Green Catholics and the Orthodox. (I'm ONLY speaking of the portions of the communique dealing with the status of the Greek Catholics in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the advent of reasonably free election in Eastern Europe in the early 1990's. I realize that tension did not disappear but rather an uneasy acceptance of the status quo took hold. ) 
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #166 on: December 18, 2013, 03:05:49 PM »

My impression is that after Balamand things began to slow that so much they slightly reverse now. Not that I think it's bad.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,497



« Reply #167 on: December 18, 2013, 03:51:50 PM »

Ha! I was gonna say this topic is hilrious.  Cheesy

Anyway, what made you change your mind about Eastern Catholicism?
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #168 on: December 18, 2013, 04:32:01 PM »

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

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

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

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

The difference is that we are Orthodox Catholics. The word "Catholic" was first used in the East by St. Ignatius of Antioch. If you are under Rome, you are not Orthodox.
The difference is that we are Orthodox Catholics. The word "Catholic" was first used in the East by St. Ignatius of Antioch. If you are not in commounion with Rome, you are not orthodox. See what I did there? Honestly, I think these areguments are pointless. They go round and round and never accomplish anything.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,026



« Reply #169 on: December 18, 2013, 04:48:49 PM »

But, to be fair, the Orthodox don't claim the name "Roman" or "Rome".

Oh wait ...

 Wink
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #170 on: December 18, 2013, 04:57:48 PM »

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

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

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

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

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

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #171 on: December 18, 2013, 05:05:12 PM »

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

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

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

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

The difference is that we are Orthodox Catholics. The word "Catholic" was first used in the East by St. Ignatius of Antioch. If you are under Rome, you are not Orthodox.
The difference is that we are Orthodox Catholics. The word "Catholic" was first used in the East by St. Ignatius of Antioch. If you are not in commounion with Rome, you are not orthodox. See what I did there? Honestly, I think these areguments are pointless. They go round and round and never accomplish anything.
Problem is that Abp. St. Ignatius defined Catholic as being in communion with the local Orthodox bishop, and Orthodox was defined as holding to/teaching Orthodoxy.  Pastor Aeternus' redefinition of the terms as catholic=in submission to the supreme pontiff of the vatican (about whom Abp. St. Ignatius as successor of St. Peter at his first see of Antioch knew nothing) and orthodox=holding to what the supreme pontiff of the Vatican says came millenia too late.
I'm Catholic!
No, I'm Catholic!
No, I'm Catholic!
Whatever, I'm Catholic.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,173


« Reply #172 on: December 18, 2013, 05:25:20 PM »

But, to be fair, the Orthodox don't claim the name "Roman" or "Rome".

Oh wait ...

 Wink

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

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,173


« Reply #173 on: December 18, 2013, 05:37:39 PM »

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #174 on: December 18, 2013, 05:41:16 PM »

But, to be fair, the Orthodox don't claim the name "Roman" or "Rome".

Oh wait ...

 Wink

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

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

There is a Roman Orthodox bishop in Rome.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,173


« Reply #175 on: December 18, 2013, 05:47:38 PM »

But, to be fair, the Orthodox don't claim the name "Roman" or "Rome".

Oh wait ...

 Wink

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

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

There is a Roman Orthodox bishop in Rome.


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

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #176 on: December 18, 2013, 06:15:53 PM »

As far as I know there is no Orthodox Bishop in Rome.
His grace Bp. Siluan,

enthroned, Father, at his cathedral in Rome in 2008.

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

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,173


« Reply #177 on: December 18, 2013, 09:07:51 PM »

As far as I know there is no Orthodox Bishop in Rome.
His grace Bp. Siluan,

enthroned, Father, at his cathedral in Rome in 2008.

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

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

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #178 on: December 18, 2013, 09:50:16 PM »

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

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,026



« Reply #179 on: December 18, 2013, 09:53:05 PM »

But, to be fair, the Orthodox don't claim the name "Roman" or "Rome".

Oh wait ...

 Wink

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

Fr. John W. Morris

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

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,173


« Reply #180 on: December 18, 2013, 10:08:16 PM »

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

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

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #181 on: December 18, 2013, 10:09:24 PM »

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

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

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

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #182 on: December 18, 2013, 10:18:46 PM »

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

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

Fr. John W. Morris
I am being honest.  I believe if you are under Rome, you are Orthodox.  What you are asking is something that you yourself will not do, let someone else define your terms.   
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,173


« Reply #183 on: December 18, 2013, 10:44:32 PM »

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

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

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

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

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
podkarpatska
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,018


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #184 on: December 18, 2013, 11:33:11 PM »

Reality, and accepted, common English usage, is clear. The Catholic Church is understood to refer to those under Rome. The Orthodox Church refers to the Eastern Orthodox churches of apostolic Christianity under the remaining  four Eastern Patriarchs of the pre-schism Pentarchy, the Eastern Orthodox churches subsequently recognized as autochephalous or autonomous and the non-Chalcedonian "Oriental" Orthodox churches. ( I hope I got everyone...)

Yes, we each believe ourselves to be catholic, apostolic and orthodox, but arguing about the terminology is pointless. And I agree with Deacon Lance, the average Eastern Catholic does NOT self identify as "Orthodox in union with Rome." That is offensive even to those of us kindly disposed to Eastern Catholics for it is historically wrong and inaccurate in its very understanding of ecclesiology. And if my memory is correct, even the Slavonic and English Trebnik/Liturgikon of the Slavic Greek Catholics reflects this by removing the term "pravoslavnyj" as in not saying: "Remember in Your Kingdom all Orthodox Christians" but rather saying "Christians of the true Faith". (Although this is not uniform I've noticed it in European liturgies.)
« Last Edit: December 18, 2013, 11:34:25 PM by podkarpatska » Logged
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #185 on: December 18, 2013, 11:52:17 PM »

And if my memory is correct, even the Slavonic and English Trebnik/Liturgikon of the Slavic Greek Catholics reflects this by removing the term "pravoslavnyj" as in not saying: "Remember in Your Kingdom all Orthodox Christians" but rather saying "Christians of the true Faith". (Although this is not uniform I've noticed it in European liturgies.)
Actually, the Metropolia of Pittsburgh is the only one left with "true faith", the Ukrainians have returned to "Orthodox". 
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #186 on: December 19, 2013, 12:09:23 AM »

The difference is that we are Orthodox Catholics. The word "Catholic" was first used in the East by St. Ignatius of Antioch. If you are under Rome, you are not Orthodox. This issue is one of the greatest sources of tension between Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Church. It is dishonest for a group under Rome to call themselves "Orthodox in Communion with Rome," because you cannot be Orthodox and be in Communion with Rome until Rome abandons all teachings like Purgatory, the Augustinian conception of original sin, and most of all papal supremacy, claims to universal jurisdiction and infallibility. Even if you use the Byzantine Liturgy if your Bishop in in Communion with Rome according to Orthodox theology that means that you share a Common Faith with Rome including the Roman teachings that contradict the teaching of the ancient undivided Church.
How about this, you let the Orthodox Church decide who is really Orthodox?
Fr. John W. Morris
Father that is circular logic. Obviously Orthodox believe they are Catholic, and Catholics believe they are Orthodox.  I could say: "If you are not under Rome, you are not Catholic."  You would not accept that, nor should you.
 
Your Pastor Aeternus, Deacon, does say that, and says we should accept it.

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

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

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

Not your call, Deacon.
aymore than you will let the Catholic Church decide who is really Catholic.
 
Of course the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church decides who is Catholic.
And besides, the whole "Orthodox in Communion with Rome" title usage is largely limited to a very few on the internet and even fewer in real life.  I would be more concerned about vagantes parading as the "Orthodox Catholic Church of North America" and such. 
Don't know about that, but I will concede you have a point.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #187 on: December 19, 2013, 12:09:55 AM »

But, to be fair, the Orthodox don't claim the name "Roman" or "Rome".

Oh wait ...

 Wink

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

Fr. John W. Morris

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

Anytime. Wink
« Last Edit: December 19, 2013, 12:10:17 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #188 on: December 19, 2013, 03:12:19 AM »

3 pages of ping-pong. Can you get over it already?
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,026



« Reply #189 on: December 19, 2013, 06:17:00 AM »

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

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

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

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,173


« Reply #190 on: December 19, 2013, 11:42:34 AM »

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

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

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

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

Fr. John W. Morris
« Last Edit: December 19, 2013, 11:44:29 AM by frjohnmorris » Logged
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,461


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #191 on: December 19, 2013, 11:57:56 AM »

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

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

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

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

Fr. John W. Morris

And yet it demonstrably came to be used as an insult in the last century, especially in the United States as a result of the creation of what became the OCA and ACROD.  Many words that now find usage as pejoratives did not begin life as such but are now considered an insult by those they address (for instance, "squaw" for an Amerind woman).  Outside of some academic discussions, it is often best and most charitable to refrain from calling someone a name they've asked you not use.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2013, 11:58:39 AM by Schultz » Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,173


« Reply #192 on: December 19, 2013, 12:08:59 PM »

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

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

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

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

Fr. John W. Morris

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


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

Fr. John W. Morris

« Last Edit: December 19, 2013, 12:13:19 PM by frjohnmorris » Logged
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,461


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #193 on: December 19, 2013, 12:45:37 PM »

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

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

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

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

Fr. John W. Morris

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


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

Fr. John W. Morris

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

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

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #194 on: December 19, 2013, 01:39:53 PM »

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

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

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