OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 30, 2014, 11:58:54 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 48376 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,129


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #225 on: December 29, 2013, 05:55:00 PM »

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

Fr. John W. Morris

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

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

Fr. John W. Morris

Agreed !
Logged
KostaC
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Chicago & the Diocese of Washington (Orthodox Church in America)
Posts: 188



« Reply #226 on: December 29, 2013, 06:43:11 PM »

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

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

Even though I don't know you or anyone else here at all, I'm pretty curious, too. Is that a personal question or are you comfortable sharing?
Logged

«Μὴ μεριμνᾶτε λοιπὸν διὰ τὴν αὔριον, διὀτι ἡ αὐριανὴ ἡμέρα θὰ φροντίσῃ διὰ τὰ δικά της πράγματα. Φθάνει ἡ στεναχώρια τῆς ἡμέρας». Κατά Ματθαίον 6:34
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,128



« Reply #227 on: December 30, 2013, 04:08:07 PM »

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

Oh, we have our ways. Maniacal laugh. Maniacal laugh.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #228 on: December 30, 2013, 04:27:49 PM »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Faith: No idea
Jurisdiction: Athens
Posts: 381



« Reply #229 on: December 31, 2013, 08:01:19 AM »

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

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

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

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

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

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

Congratulations Papist  Grin
Logged

"If you judge people, you have no time to love them".

Mother Teresa
Altar Server
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian(as of 12/18/10)
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 887


Most Holy Theotokos Save Us!


« Reply #230 on: January 02, 2014, 02:22:00 PM »

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

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

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

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

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

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

Congratulations Papist  Grin
+1
Logged

All my hope I place in you, O Mother of God, keep me under your protection!
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #231 on: January 04, 2014, 11:49:33 PM »

I am not OCA or ACROD and know nothing on the personal level on their relations with Eastern Catholics. I have also had no exposure to the Eastern Catholics, so I know nothing about Eastern Catholics  except what I have read in history books all of which refer to Byzantine Rite Eastern Catholics as Uniates.

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

Fr. John W. Morris

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

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

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

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

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,129


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #232 on: February 22, 2014, 10:57:54 AM »

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

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

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #233 on: February 22, 2014, 11:21:10 AM »

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

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

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

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

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,129


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #234 on: February 22, 2014, 01:11:31 PM »

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

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

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

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

Fr. John W. Morris

So, it cost the Easterners their ancient Tradition and Dogma beliefs to enter into union with Rome?
Logged
Yurysprudentsiya
Section Moderator
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA, although in my heart I will always remain a loving son of the UOC-USA
Posts: 1,839


God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!


« Reply #235 on: February 22, 2014, 01:14:03 PM »

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

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

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

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

Fr. John W. Morris

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

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

Within 100 years a lot of that got thrown out the window in practice. 
Logged
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,129


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #236 on: February 22, 2014, 01:16:01 PM »

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

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

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

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

Fr. John W. Morris

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

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

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

Ah, parallel Theologies, how quaint.  Sounds confusing.....almost schizophrenic.
Logged
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #237 on: February 22, 2014, 01:42:22 PM »

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

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

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

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

Fr. John W. Morris

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

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

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

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

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,129


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #238 on: February 22, 2014, 06:06:30 PM »

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

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

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

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

Fr. John W. Morris

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

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

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

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

Fr. John W. Morris

If I am reading this correctly, I get the impression that the Roman church disguised itself as an Eastern church in garb and other deceptive methods to satisfy those who were already unionized?   If this is true, why would the clerics then, in spite of this, continue this masquerade ?
Logged
xOrthodox4Christx
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,304



« Reply #239 on: February 22, 2014, 06:08:41 PM »

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

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

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

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

Fr. John W. Morris

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

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

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

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

Fr. John W. Morris

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

That wasn't the initial action that Rome took in Unionization, but it has been since then. They made Eastern Rites to lure people into communion with Rome.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2014, 06:09:16 PM by xOrthodox4Christx » Logged

"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.... While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." (Eugene Debs)
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,129


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #240 on: February 22, 2014, 06:42:51 PM »

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

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

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

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

Fr. John W. Morris

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

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

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

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

Fr. John W. Morris

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

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


Hmm nice church, and who is the prince of deception?
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,128



« Reply #241 on: February 23, 2014, 07:58:02 AM »

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

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

Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #242 on: February 23, 2014, 06:13:25 PM »

They made Eastern Rites to lure people into communion with Rome.
I thought it was Orthodox bishops who decided that they wanted to join the western Church and it was the Orthodox bishops who took their Eastern liturgy and tradition with them. I did not know that it was Rome who made the Eastern rites. Can you please supply a source which shows that Rome made the Eastern rites in order to lure people into communion with Rome and that it was not the Orthodox bishops from present day Ukraine, Poland, Belarus and surrounding areas who decided to unite with the western Church?
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #243 on: February 23, 2014, 06:17:45 PM »

If I am reading this correctly, I get the impression that the Roman church disguised itself as an Eastern church in garb and other deceptive methods to satisfy those who were already unionized?   If this is true, why would the clerics then, in spite of this, continue this masquerade ?
I thought it was the Orthodox bishops who in 1596 came in their Eastern garments and asked to be joined to the Roman Church? I didn't know it was the Roman Church disguising itself in Eastern garb.
Logged
xOrthodox4Christx
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,304



« Reply #244 on: February 23, 2014, 06:19:33 PM »

They made Eastern Rites to lure people into communion with Rome.
I thought it was Orthodox bishops who decided that they wanted to join the western Church and it was the Orthodox bishops who took their Eastern liturgy and tradition with them. I did not know that it was Rome who made the Eastern rites. Can you please supply a source which shows that Rome made the Eastern rites in order to lure people into communion with Rome and that it was not the Orthodox bishops from present day Ukraine, Poland, Belarus and surrounding areas who decided to unite with the western Church?

Originally, yes. At the present time, no.

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

The Byzantine Rite Churches, you are 100% correct that they joined by their own will, without Roman pressure.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2014, 06:21:41 PM by xOrthodox4Christx » Logged

"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.... While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." (Eugene Debs)
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,928


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #245 on: February 23, 2014, 07:22:26 PM »

Study some more.  Every Eastern Catholic Church, save the Syro-Malabars and Ethiopians, began at the iniative of one or more bishops of the particular Orthodox Church involved.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,128



« Reply #246 on: February 24, 2014, 11:14:15 PM »

Originally, yes. At the present time, no.

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

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

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

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Christopher McAvoy
Never forget the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate & all persecuted christians!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodóxis, atque cathólice et apostólice fídei
Jurisdiction: Latin Catholic from the 12th c.
Posts: 443



WWW
« Reply #247 on: March 01, 2014, 01:01:10 AM »

From about 1200 to the present time (mostly after 1440 AD) whenever an eastern orthodox church suddenly found itself either conquered by an empire of latin catholics or with latin catholics bearing gifts, military protection and trade agreements to its borders (IE. Melkites) all of a sudden a new eastern catholic church would emerge.

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

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

« Last Edit: March 01, 2014, 01:08:18 AM by Christopher McAvoy » Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,426


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #248 on: March 12, 2014, 01:45:48 PM »

Quote
The Eastern Orthodox Churches had to be tempted by political motives to become in communion with Rome, that is the fact of the matter. No Eastern Catholic Church voluntarily came into being without ulterior motives from someone.
This is what a monk that frequents our parish said. He himself a former "Eastern Catholic".

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Yurysprudentsiya
Section Moderator
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA, although in my heart I will always remain a loving son of the UOC-USA
Posts: 1,839


God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!


« Reply #249 on: March 12, 2014, 02:08:28 PM »

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

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

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

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

Fr. John W. Morris

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

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

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

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

Fr. John W. Morris

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

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

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

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

During those early years many villages close to the borders would accept a Greek Catholic priest to replace an Orthodox one, and vice versa, ignorant of any differences.  
« Last Edit: March 12, 2014, 02:09:15 PM by Yurysprudentsiya » Logged
xOrthodox4Christx
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,304



« Reply #250 on: March 12, 2014, 02:17:55 PM »

Originally, yes. At the present time, no.

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

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

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

Given that until very recently that wasn't the case, I would give it as fact. Though, it's always a matter of interpretation.
Logged

"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.... While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." (Eugene Debs)
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #251 on: April 23, 2014, 11:46:23 PM »

They made Eastern Rites to lure people into communion with Rome.
I thought it was Orthodox bishops who decided that they wanted to join the western Church and it was the Orthodox bishops who took their Eastern liturgy and tradition with them. I did not know that it was Rome who made the Eastern rites. Can you please supply a source which shows that Rome made the Eastern rites in order to lure people into communion with Rome and that it was not the Orthodox bishops from present day Ukraine, Poland, Belarus and surrounding areas who decided to unite with the western Church?

Originally, yes. At the present time, no.

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

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

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

Fr. John W. Morris
« Last Edit: April 24, 2014, 12:16:16 AM by frjohnmorris » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,815



« Reply #252 on: April 24, 2014, 08:13:14 AM »

Study some more.  Every Eastern Catholic Church, save the Syro-Malabars and Ethiopians, began at the iniative of one or more bishops of the particular Orthodox Church involved.
usually with the prodding of the secular overlords.
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
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,128



« Reply #253 on: April 24, 2014, 11:13:18 AM »

Study some more.  Every Eastern Catholic Church, save the Syro-Malabars and Ethiopians, began at the iniative of one or more bishops of the particular Orthodox Church involved.
usually with the prodding of the secular overlords.

Possibly. I'm not sure it really matters ... Proselytizing is proselytizing, isn't it, regardless whether a secular or religious leader made the first move?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
WPM
Revolutionary Writer
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,421



« Reply #254 on: April 24, 2014, 12:32:53 PM »

What's wrong with the Byzantine Catholic Liturgy? Not anything, just your preferences and personal opinions.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2014, 12:33:55 PM by WPM » Logged
Tags: Catholic Answers Forum Superman Eastern Catholic Church Universal jurisdiction papal claims authority ecclesiology 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.151 seconds with 57 queries.