OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 22, 2014, 06:47:09 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 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Question for Byzantine Catholics?  (Read 9575 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #90 on: March 09, 2012, 08:54:39 PM »

Are here any cradle ECs? Anyone that is not LARP-ing?

Wow, really?

I suppose any Orthodox convert is just "LARPing".

Seriously, Michal, the way you asked that question isn't cool.

Most of the posters that answered the OP are either jumpers from the Latin Rite or converts from other religious groups. With all the repsect I wouldn't agree that they share sentiments and stereotypes with the cradle ECs. IMO if one would like to know the opinion of the ECs on the RCs they should not ask the RC to EC jumpers because it would be falsified.

I'm not questioning the dedication of the strength of faith of the aforementioned posters. I don't care about them. I only think that their opinion has nothing in common with the opinion of the majority of the Eastern Catholics. They are not representative.
Why do you think that only cradle Eastern Catholics should be allowed to weigh in? Are you saying that converts are either liars or stupid? I was a Protestant all of my life before becoming a Roman Rite Catholic in 2007. Are you saying that I have no understanding of Roman Catholicism?
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #91 on: March 09, 2012, 09:36:50 PM »

Then you have the tiny minority of self-styled 'Orthodox in communion with Rome' who repeat all the Orthodox anti-Roman views but stay for some reason.

In my experience, it's dangerous to draw conclusions about an Eastern Catholic based on the fact that he/she calls himself/herself 'Orthodox in communion with Rome'.
Most I have come across are like Mardukm, who call themselves "Orthodox in Communion with Rome" and claim that the Orthodox really believe the "Latin dogmas", e.g. IC, atonement, treasury of merit, the papal system, etc.
mmmmm. Latin dogmas. Papist said in the voice of Homer Simpson.

Mmmm. Forbidden dogmas.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #92 on: March 09, 2012, 09:37:53 PM »

Then you have the tiny minority of self-styled 'Orthodox in communion with Rome' who repeat all the Orthodox anti-Roman views but stay for some reason.

In my experience, it's dangerous to draw conclusions about an Eastern Catholic based on the fact that he/she calls himself/herself 'Orthodox in communion with Rome'.
Most I have come across are like Mardukm, who call themselves "Orthodox in Communion with Rome" and claim that the Orthodox really believe the "Latin dogmas", e.g. IC, atonement, treasury of merit, the papal system, etc.
mmmmm. Latin dogmas. Papist said in the voice of Homer Simpson.

Mmmm. Forbidden dogmas.

Naughty.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #93 on: March 09, 2012, 09:40:49 PM »

But seriously,

Most I have come across are like Mardukm, who call themselves "Orthodox in Communion with Rome" and claim that the Orthodox really believe the "Latin dogmas", e.g. IC, atonement, treasury of merit, the papal system, etc.

I don't think you've been reading carefully ...

Quote from: mardukm
Orthodox ideas are not wrong, but are valid and holy.

was elaborated on later in the same thread:

Quote from: mardukm
Quote
Indeed, those anti-Catholics ideas that the pope isn't head of the whole church, or that Mary wasn't immaculately conceived etc., aren't the real Orthodox teachings.
Those are not examples of polemics or anti-Catholic ideas. Those are simply their beliefs.

Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,359


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #94 on: March 09, 2012, 10:04:02 PM »

Then you have the tiny minority of self-styled 'Orthodox in communion with Rome' who repeat all the Orthodox anti-Roman views but stay for some reason.

In my experience, it's dangerous to draw conclusions about an Eastern Catholic based on the fact that he/she calls himself/herself 'Orthodox in communion with Rome'.
Most I have come across are like Mardukm, who call themselves "Orthodox in Communion with Rome" and claim that the Orthodox really believe the "Latin dogmas", e.g. IC, atonement, treasury of merit, the papal system, etc.
mmmmm. Latin dogmas. Papist said in the voice of Homer Simpson.

Mmmm. Forbidden dogmas.
Ha!!! I really did just LOL
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
ICXCNIKA
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 661



« Reply #95 on: March 09, 2012, 10:21:06 PM »

Are here any cradle ECs? Anyone that is not LARP-ing?

Wow, really?

I suppose any Orthodox convert is just "LARPing".

Seriously, Michal, the way you asked that question isn't cool.

Personally, i find the term offensive and disrespectful. We are talking about  a person's communion with God not an online fantasy game. I would hope that it stops being used. I don't think Michal meant it in that way but I will let him speak for himself.
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: 37,963



« Reply #96 on: March 09, 2012, 11:06:59 PM »

Is there such a thing as a "Latin dogma"? A dogma is a dogma. How can something be a dogma only for the Latin Rite and not for the whole Church?
agreed.
Ask your "magisterium":that's how they explain away the glaring differences between your Supreme Pontiff and those who have submitted to him in the East.
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
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: 37,963



« Reply #97 on: March 09, 2012, 11:06:59 PM »

Are here any cradle ECs? Anyone that is not LARP-ing?

Wow, really?

I suppose any Orthodox convert is just "LARPing".

Seriously, Michal, the way you asked that question isn't cool.

Most of the posters that answered the OP are either jumpers from the Latin Rite or converts from other religious groups. With all the repsect I wouldn't agree that they share sentiments and stereotypes with the cradle ECs. IMO if one would like to know the opinion of the ECs on the RCs they should not ask the RC to EC jumpers because it would be falsified.

I'm not questioning the dedication of the strength of faith of the aforementioned posters. I don't care about them. I only think that their opinion has nothing in common with the opinion of the majority of the Eastern Catholics. They are not representative.
The distinction is often made between cradles and converts in Orthodoxy, with reason and without questioning the Faith of either.  No reason why the same can't be asked of the 22 other "sui juris churches."  That is, however, seperate from LARPing, as converts are not necessarily LARPers (and cradles have their own LARPing).
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: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,935



« Reply #98 on: March 10, 2012, 12:24:35 AM »

praying before icons

Huh? You have ancient Latin churches filled with Byzantine-ish icons and 7. Ecumenical Council and you still consider that as an Eastern tradition?

If I understood your question correctly (and I'm not sure that I did)

No, you didn't. Smiley I was talking in a more theoretical sense. I am indeed aware that most Latins are not well versed with Byzantine iconography and praying before icons but I was asking why praying with icons should be considered exclusively an Eastern tradition since it has strong theological basis also in Latin tradition. For me it seems that praying before icons is an universal tradition and hence we have icons in WRO parishes and monasteries. I see no reason why the situation couldn't be the same also in RC tradition.
Logged

Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #99 on: March 10, 2012, 12:48:54 AM »

Is there such a thing as a "Latin dogma"? A dogma is a dogma. How can something be a dogma only for the Latin Rite and not for the whole Church?
agreed.
Ask your "magisterium":that's how they explain away the glaring differences between your Supreme Pontiff and those who have submitted to him in the East.
There's a difference between an Eastern approach to Catholicism or Eastern lingo when referencing the truths of our faith (e.g. dormition vs. assumption) and an entirely different faith. Eastern Catholics still have to believe all the dogmas of the Catholic Church.
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: 37,963



« Reply #100 on: March 10, 2012, 03:30:12 AM »

But seriously,

Most I have come across are like Mardukm, who call themselves "Orthodox in Communion with Rome" and claim that the Orthodox really believe the "Latin dogmas", e.g. IC, atonement, treasury of merit, the papal system, etc.

I don't think you've been reading carefully ...

Quote from: mardukm
Orthodox ideas are not wrong, but are valid and holy.

was elaborated on later in the same thread:

Quote from: mardukm
Quote
Indeed, those anti-Catholics ideas that the pope isn't head of the whole church, or that Mary wasn't immaculately conceived etc., aren't the real Orthodox teachings.
Those are not examples of polemics or anti-Catholic ideas. Those are simply their beliefs.

Oh, I've read plenty of posts of Mardukm here, on Byzcath and CAF.  But not the thread in question.  I'm going to bed now, but I'll try to take a look later, Lord willing, to see if the leopard has changed his spots.
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
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: 37,963



« Reply #101 on: March 10, 2012, 03:30:12 AM »

Is there such a thing as a "Latin dogma"? A dogma is a dogma. How can something be a dogma only for the Latin Rite and not for the whole Church?
agreed.
Ask your "magisterium":that's how they explain away the glaring differences between your Supreme Pontiff and those who have submitted to him in the East.
There's a difference between an Eastern approach to Catholicism or Eastern lingo when referencing the truths of our faith (e.g. dormition vs. assumption) and an entirely different faith.

e.g. "from the Father" vs. "from the Father and the Son."
Eastern Catholics still have to believe all the dogmas of the Catholic Church.
We do.

I might just answer anything further on another thread, lest Michael's OP go unanswered.
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: 21,470


« Reply #102 on: March 10, 2012, 04:58:01 AM »

Are you saying that I have no understanding of Roman Catholicism?

No but you propably have little understanding of the mentality, views, problems, legacy, traditions, superstitions and prejudices of most of the Roman Catholics. You don't share cultural background with them and that has nothing in common with faith.

I say that EC people with no roots in there have no full understanding of the EC situation and problems.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2012, 07:20:50 AM by Michał Kalina » Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #103 on: March 10, 2012, 07:41:20 AM »

But seriously,

Most I have come across are like Mardukm, who call themselves "Orthodox in Communion with Rome" and claim that the Orthodox really believe the "Latin dogmas", e.g. IC, atonement, treasury of merit, the papal system, etc.

I don't think you've been reading carefully ...

Quote from: mardukm
Orthodox ideas are not wrong, but are valid and holy.

was elaborated on later in the same thread:

Quote from: mardukm
Quote
Indeed, those anti-Catholics ideas that the pope isn't head of the whole church, or that Mary wasn't immaculately conceived etc., aren't the real Orthodox teachings.
Those are not examples of polemics or anti-Catholic ideas. Those are simply their beliefs.

Oh, I've read plenty of posts of Mardukm here, on Byzcath and CAF.  But not the thread in question.  I'm going to bed now, but I'll try to take a look later, Lord willing, to see if the leopard has changed his spots.

My point was just that, according to his statements, it is "not wrong" but rather "valid and holy" for Orthodox to deny the IC or the pope's headship over the whole church. That's quite different from saying that "the Orthodox really believe the 'Latin dogmas'."

Is there such a thing as a "Latin dogma"? A dogma is a dogma. How can something be a dogma only for the Latin Rite and not for the whole Church?
agreed.
Ask your "magisterium":that's how they explain away the glaring differences between your Supreme Pontiff and those who have submitted to him in the East.

Mardukm is part of the magisterium?
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #104 on: March 10, 2012, 08:35:50 AM »

use of Latin pascha date (which still occurs all over North America)

The priest at the first Melkite parish I belonged to (this is many years ago, before I moved to New England) explained it thus: Melkites follow the same Easter date as the majority in whatever place they are. In the case of the USA, the majority are Protestants.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2012, 08:42:48 AM by Peter J » Logged

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

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 661



« Reply #105 on: March 10, 2012, 11:37:10 AM »

use of Latin pascha date (which still occurs all over North America)

The priest at the first Melkite parish I belonged to (this is many years ago, before I moved to New England) explained it thus: Melkites follow the same Easter date as the majority in whatever place they are. In the case of the USA, the majority are Protestants.

Let us not forget that the Autonomous Orthodox Church of Finland (EP) uses the Latin Pascha date.
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,229


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #106 on: March 10, 2012, 12:08:44 PM »

praying before icons

Huh? You have ancient Latin churches filled with Byzantine-ish icons and 7. Ecumenical Council and you still consider that as an Eastern tradition?

If I understood your question correctly (and I'm not sure that I did)

No, you didn't. Smiley I was talking in a more theoretical sense. I am indeed aware that most Latins are not well versed with Byzantine iconography and praying before icons but I was asking why praying with icons should be considered exclusively an Eastern tradition since it has strong theological basis also in Latin tradition. For me it seems that praying before icons is an universal tradition and hence we have icons in WRO parishes and monasteries. I see no reason why the situation couldn't be the same also in RC tradition.

Got it!  Let me try again... Embarrassed  I don't know that praying with icons *is* considered *exclusively* Eastern, although much more associated with the Christian East than the Christian West.  I'd think that it is more of a cultural influence than a theological one, especially given the presence of icons in Western churches, monasteries, etc., etc.  Different practices develop differently in different cultures.  Without getting into an argument about what constitutes an icon, at its most basic level it is simply an image or likeness that stands for or represents something else.
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,359


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #107 on: March 10, 2012, 12:59:04 PM »

praying before icons

Huh? You have ancient Latin churches filled with Byzantine-ish icons and 7. Ecumenical Council and you still consider that as an Eastern tradition?

If I understood your question correctly (and I'm not sure that I did)

No, you didn't. Smiley I was talking in a more theoretical sense. I am indeed aware that most Latins are not well versed with Byzantine iconography and praying before icons but I was asking why praying with icons should be considered exclusively an Eastern tradition since it has strong theological basis also in Latin tradition. For me it seems that praying before icons is an universal tradition and hence we have icons in WRO parishes and monasteries. I see no reason why the situation couldn't be the same also in RC tradition.

Got it!  Let me try again... Embarrassed  I don't know that praying with icons *is* considered *exclusively* Eastern, although much more associated with the Christian East than the Christian West.  I'd think that it is more of a cultural influence than a theological one, especially given the presence of icons in Western churches, monasteries, etc., etc.  Different practices develop differently in different cultures.  Without getting into an argument about what constitutes an icon, at its most basic level it is simply an image or likeness that stands for or represents something else.
Yes. My point was just that Eastern Catholics tend to pray with traditional icons, whereas Western Catholics tend to pray with statues, and religious art that was developed during the Medieval period and on.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,069



« Reply #108 on: March 10, 2012, 01:47:49 PM »

I think the "imposition of Latin practices" was on a more formal, liturgical level rather than on the level of private praxis that Papist was, I believe, referring to.  Unless one is under obedience to a "spiritual father" how and where and in front of what one prays and which prayers are said, etc. is strictly between the person praying and God--provided, of course, that one is doing nothing heretical or outside of Church norms.

Actually very little was ever mandated by Rome other than celibacy outside Eastern Europe and the Middle East for Eastern Catholics.  Rome certainly encouraged others or turned their head the other way, but most of the Latinization was voluntary adoption with strong encouragement from Latin Religious Orders in the area.

Very interesting!  I never knew that.  So why, then, all the whining and criticizing of some about "imposed" Latinizations?  Does that come out of an overall anti-Catholic bias, or out of a bias against things "Latin" or Roman Catholic?

It's a generalization.  There are specific events and times perhaps that latin-trends came into usage and I'm sure each one has a different story.  The terribly translated recent Ruthenian divine liturgy is an example where Rome didn't tell the bishops in the USA to do it, they just did it but Rome did approve it. 

Who appointed those bishops?


Rome did.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #109 on: March 10, 2012, 06:27:09 PM »

I think the "imposition of Latin practices" was on a more formal, liturgical level rather than on the level of private praxis that Papist was, I believe, referring to.  Unless one is under obedience to a "spiritual father" how and where and in front of what one prays and which prayers are said, etc. is strictly between the person praying and God--provided, of course, that one is doing nothing heretical or outside of Church norms.

Actually very little was ever mandated by Rome other than celibacy outside Eastern Europe and the Middle East for Eastern Catholics.  Rome certainly encouraged others or turned their head the other way, but most of the Latinization was voluntary adoption with strong encouragement from Latin Religious Orders in the area.

Very interesting!  I never knew that.  So why, then, all the whining and criticizing of some about "imposed" Latinizations?  Does that come out of an overall anti-Catholic bias, or out of a bias against things "Latin" or Roman Catholic?

It's a generalization.  There are specific events and times perhaps that latin-trends came into usage and I'm sure each one has a different story.  The terribly translated recent Ruthenian divine liturgy is an example where Rome didn't tell the bishops in the USA to do it, they just did it but Rome did approve it. 

Who appointed those bishops?


Rome did.

I see. (scratch chin in dramatic fashion)
Logged

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

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,069



« Reply #110 on: March 10, 2012, 06:47:27 PM »

I think the "imposition of Latin practices" was on a more formal, liturgical level rather than on the level of private praxis that Papist was, I believe, referring to.  Unless one is under obedience to a "spiritual father" how and where and in front of what one prays and which prayers are said, etc. is strictly between the person praying and God--provided, of course, that one is doing nothing heretical or outside of Church norms.

Actually very little was ever mandated by Rome other than celibacy outside Eastern Europe and the Middle East for Eastern Catholics.  Rome certainly encouraged others or turned their head the other way, but most of the Latinization was voluntary adoption with strong encouragement from Latin Religious Orders in the area.

Very interesting!  I never knew that.  So why, then, all the whining and criticizing of some about "imposed" Latinizations?  Does that come out of an overall anti-Catholic bias, or out of a bias against things "Latin" or Roman Catholic?

It's a generalization.  There are specific events and times perhaps that latin-trends came into usage and I'm sure each one has a different story.  The terribly translated recent Ruthenian divine liturgy is an example where Rome didn't tell the bishops in the USA to do it, they just did it but Rome did approve it. 

Who appointed those bishops?


Rome did.

I see. (scratch chin in dramatic fashion)

Ok, so I gather the Ruthenian Byz.Cath church picks the candidate and sends it to Rome for approval.  In fact was it not an issue recently that Rome wanted to approve of the UGCC bishops in UA and the UGCC was doing so for quite some time before Rome started doing this again?
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,359


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #111 on: March 10, 2012, 06:58:58 PM »

^ Yes, the Churches pick their candidates and Rome approves them. That even happens in the Latin Church. The Bishops send the names of several candidates to Rome in order to fill a open see. Then Rome approves one of the candidates.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,470


« Reply #112 on: March 10, 2012, 07:02:03 PM »

^ Yes, the Churches pick their candidates and Rome approves them. That even happens in the Latin Church. The Bishops send the names of several candidates to Rome in order to fill a open see. Then Rome approves one of the candidates.

No, the Roman Pope can nominate whoever he wants for the Churches not headed by Patriarchs. These list are just suggestions.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,359


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #113 on: March 10, 2012, 07:05:13 PM »

^ Yes, the Churches pick their candidates and Rome approves them. That even happens in the Latin Church. The Bishops send the names of several candidates to Rome in order to fill a open see. Then Rome approves one of the candidates.

No, the Roman Pope can nominate whoever he wants for the Churches not headed by Patriarchs. These list are just suggestions.
Actually, yes. The Pope normally picks from the suggested list of names. Of course he can pick someone else, but the way he normally exercises his primacy is with in conjunction with the Bishops.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,470


« Reply #114 on: March 10, 2012, 07:10:37 PM »

^ Yes, the Churches pick their candidates and Rome approves them. That even happens in the Latin Church. The Bishops send the names of several candidates to Rome in order to fill a open see. Then Rome approves one of the candidates.

No, the Roman Pope can nominate whoever he wants for the Churches not headed by Patriarchs. These list are just suggestions.
Actually, yes. The Pope normally picks from the suggested list of names.

He doesn't have to.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #115 on: March 10, 2012, 07:25:02 PM »

^ Yes, the Churches pick their candidates and Rome approves them.

You're just talking about eparchies in the West, right?
Logged

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

Posts: 21,470


« Reply #116 on: March 10, 2012, 07:26:16 PM »

^ Yes, the Churches pick their candidates and Rome approves them.

You're just talking about eparchies in the West, right?

Pope chooses every Bishop that is not not from the Church headed by Patriarch. Not only form the candidated but whoever he wishes.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2012, 07:27:19 PM by Michał Kalina » Logged
username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,069



« Reply #117 on: March 10, 2012, 07:28:08 PM »

^ Yes, the Churches pick their candidates and Rome approves them.

You're just talking about eparchies in the West, right?

Pope chooses every Bishop that is not not from the Church headed by Patriarch. Not only form the candidated but whoever he wishes.


Which would not include the UGCC (Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church) or the Ruthenian Byzantine Church or the Greek Catholic Church in Mukachevo and Slovakia  as none have a patriarch.
Logged

mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,470


« Reply #118 on: March 10, 2012, 07:30:37 PM »

Which would not include the UGCC (Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church) or the Ruthenian Byzantine Church or the Greek Catholic Church in Mukachevo and Slovakia  as none have a patriarch.

Exactly. Each and every UGCC Bishop is chosen by Benedict XVI.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #119 on: March 10, 2012, 09:17:43 PM »

Which would not include the UGCC (Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church) or the Ruthenian Byzantine Church or the Greek Catholic Church in Mukachevo and Slovakia  as none have a patriarch.

Exactly. Each and every UGCC Bishop is chosen by Benedict XVI.

That's news to me.  I was under the impression that only happened outside of their Canonical Territory.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,229


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #120 on: March 10, 2012, 09:20:25 PM »

Which would not include the UGCC (Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church) or the Ruthenian Byzantine Church or the Greek Catholic Church in Mukachevo and Slovakia  as none have a patriarch.

Exactly. Each and every UGCC Bishop is chosen by Benedict XVI.

The following appears here: http://www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/Sep2002/Wiseman.asp#F2 



"How Are Bishops Selected?

Q: How are bishops appointed in the  United States? Does this vary from other parts of the world? Are Roman Catholic bishops appointed the same way as Eastern Catholic bishops?

A: The 178 Latin-rite dioceses and archdioceses in the United States are grouped into 31 ecclesiastical provinces. In most cases these include a single state; a few include several states. Only California has two archdioceses (Los Angeles and San Francisco).

Periodically, the bishops in an ecclesiastical province meet to suggest names of priests who could be appointed bishop. They discuss the men proposed and pass their assessment on to the nuncio, the pope’s representative in Washington, D.C. The nuncio sends a questionnaire to people who know these priests well, asking for assessments in several categories.

When the head of a diocese requests an auxiliary bishop, he draws up a list of three names (not limited to priests already suggested), rates them and sends them to the nuncio.

When a bishop is needed to head a diocese, the nuncio consults with the bishops of the ecclesiastical province to which that diocese belongs, with the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (who has a three-year term) and with others as the nuncio wishes.

In time, he will send three names (and his evaluation of each) to the Congregation of Bishops in Rome. That congregation has bishop-members, appointed by the pope, who meet almost weekly—except during the summer. The members study the recommendations already made and submit their preferred candidate and two alternate candidates to the pope, who is free to ask the congregation to consider other candidates and propose other names. In the end, the pope makes the choice.

In countries under the jurisdiction of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, that congregation enters into the process. The same is true for areas under the jurisdiction of the Congregation for Eastern Churches. In a few cases, the Holy See’s Secretariat of State is involved.

The procedure followed in the United States is basically the same one followed in other parts of the world now. In a few European dioceses, the cathedral chapter (a group of priests from the diocese) has the right to propose three names as head of the diocese, but the final choice is still made by the pope.

In the 19th and 20th centuries, certain governments had concordats (treaties) with the Holy See, giving those governments a role in appointing bishops. In most cases, more recent concordats have cancelled that role. In some countries, the pope’s representative is called an apostolic delegate because the Holy See and that country do not have formal diplomatic relations. In that case, the apostolic delegate does the nuncio’s work described above.

In some Eastern Catholic Churches, a bishop is elected by its synod of bishops; the pope then expresses his approval by expressing “ecclesial communion” with the new bishop.
"   (my emphases)

So, Michal, you are right.  But not entirely.  You make it sound much more simple and monarchical than it actually is.
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #121 on: March 10, 2012, 09:42:27 PM »

In some Eastern Catholic Churches, a bishop is elected by its synod of bishops; the pope then expresses his approval by expressing “ecclesial communion” with the new bishop. [/i]"   (my emphases)

I believe that doesn't apply outside of their Canonical Territories.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,990


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #122 on: March 11, 2012, 08:00:36 AM »

Which would not include the UGCC (Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church) or the Ruthenian Byzantine Church or the Greek Catholic Church in Mukachevo and Slovakia  as none have a patriarch.

Exactly. Each and every UGCC Bishop is chosen by Benedict XVI.

Wrong.  Churches headed by a Major Archbishop also elect their own bishops in their home territory.  It is only in the diaspora the Pope appoints and he almost always follows the recommendation of the Synod, becasue when he hasn't there has been trouble. 
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #123 on: March 11, 2012, 08:45:17 AM »

Which would not include the UGCC (Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church) or the Ruthenian Byzantine Church or the Greek Catholic Church in Mukachevo and Slovakia  as none have a patriarch.

Exactly. Each and every UGCC Bishop is chosen by Benedict XVI.

Wrong.  Churches headed by a Major Archbishop also elect their own bishops in their home territory.  It is only in the diaspora the Pope appoints and he almost always follows the recommendation of the Synod, becasue when he hasn't there has been trouble. 

Ah thank you. I was pretty sure that was the case.
Logged

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

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,069



« Reply #124 on: March 11, 2012, 10:49:08 AM »

Which would not include the UGCC (Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church) or the Ruthenian Byzantine Church or the Greek Catholic Church in Mukachevo and Slovakia  as none have a patriarch.

Exactly. Each and every UGCC Bishop is chosen by Benedict XVI.

Wrong.  Churches headed by a Major Archbishop also elect their own bishops in their home territory.  It is only in the diaspora the Pope appoints and he almost always follows the recommendation of the Synod, becasue when he hasn't there has been trouble. 

Ah yes, "there has been trouble" in our communities isn't for the faint of heart.  I don't think the pope would have the wherewithal to personally appoint say a bishop in the passaic diocese of the Ruthenian Catholic Church.  Imagine if he picked a trappist monk from oregon of french background to be that bishop who never attended a parish in the coalfields of Pennsylvania nor a Greek Catholic church.  It wouldn't turn out too good and I think the guy would probably run away fast.  Hence, they let them pick their own and get the pope's stamp on the issue.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #125 on: March 11, 2012, 12:19:51 PM »

Which would not include the UGCC (Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church) or the Ruthenian Byzantine Church or the Greek Catholic Church in Mukachevo and Slovakia  as none have a patriarch.

Exactly. Each and every UGCC Bishop is chosen by Benedict XVI.

Wrong.  Churches headed by a Major Archbishop also elect their own bishops in their home territory.  It is only in the diaspora the Pope appoints and he almost always follows the recommendation of the Synod, becasue when he hasn't there has been trouble. 

Ah yes, "there has been trouble" in our communities isn't for the faint of heart.  I don't think the pope would have the wherewithal to personally appoint say a bishop in the passaic diocese of the Ruthenian Catholic Church.  Imagine if he picked a trappist monk from oregon of french background to be that bishop who never attended a parish in the coalfields of Pennsylvania nor a Greek Catholic church.  It wouldn't turn out too good and I think the guy would probably run away fast.  Hence, they let them pick their own and get the pope's stamp on the issue.

It seems like you're setting up a false dichotomy: that either the Pope just rubber stamps the ECs' choice (and hence doesn't "personally appoint" someone) or he picks someone completely inappropriate.
Logged

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

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,069



« Reply #126 on: March 11, 2012, 12:23:53 PM »

Well, does the pope personally talk to all what, several thousand bishops world wide on a regular basis?
And a recorded Christmas message with the bishop's name dubbed over for each individual doesn't count.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #127 on: March 11, 2012, 12:54:36 PM »

Well, does the pope personally talk to all what, several thousand bishops world wide on a regular basis?

I don't think so. Why? (Assuming you were asking me.)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,990


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #128 on: March 11, 2012, 01:19:16 PM »

Very interesting!  I never knew that.  So why, then, all the whining and criticizing of some about "imposed" Latinizations?  Does that come out of an overall anti-Catholic bias, or out of a bias against things "Latin" or Roman Catholic?

It is easier to blame others I suppose.  The other big Latinization is the appointment of bishops by Rome rather than election by Synod.  And Rome had the tendency to appoint bishops who were willing to let the status quo remain rather than reform.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,990


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #129 on: March 11, 2012, 01:53:19 PM »

Most of the posters that answered the OP are either jumpers from the Latin Rite or converts from other religious groups. With all the repsect I wouldn't agree that they share sentiments and stereotypes with the cradle ECs. IMO if one would like to know the opinion of the ECs on the RCs they should not ask the RC to EC jumpers because it would be falsified.

I'm not questioning the dedication of the strength of faith of the aforementioned posters. I don't care about them. I only think that their opinion has nothing in common with the opinion of the majority of the Eastern Catholics. They are not representative.

In America at least, there are very few if any "pure" Greek Catholic families.  Almost all Greek Catholics here have a mixed background, so much so that when they grow up and move away they attend Roman Catholic parish because it is just not a big deal.  One of our priests estimates that possibly 80% of those who are canonically Greek Catholic attend Roman parishes.  So whether one is a mixed background "cradle" or a mixed bbackground "jumper" the opinions and attitudes are very much shared.  In fact the "jumpers" are often more authentically Eastern becasue they made the choice to be Greek Catholic whereas many "cradles" simple go to the closest parish which is usually Roman.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,759


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #130 on: March 11, 2012, 02:00:02 PM »

Which would not include the UGCC (Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church) or the Ruthenian Byzantine Church or the Greek Catholic Church in Mukachevo and Slovakia  as none have a patriarch.

Exactly. Each and every UGCC Bishop is chosen by Benedict XVI.

Wrong.  Churches headed by a Major Archbishop also elect their own bishops in their home territory.  It is only in the diaspora the Pope appoints and he almost always follows the recommendation of the Synod, becasue when he hasn't there has been trouble. 

Ah yes, "there has been trouble" in our communities isn't for the faint of heart.  I don't think the pope would have the wherewithal to personally appoint say a bishop in the passaic diocese of the Ruthenian Catholic Church.  Imagine if he picked a trappist monk from oregon of french background to be that bishop who never attended a parish in the coalfields of Pennsylvania nor a Greek Catholic church.  It wouldn't turn out too good and I think the guy would probably run away fast.  Hence, they let them pick their own and get the pope's stamp on the issue.

Going back to the first bishop sent by Rome to America for both the Ruthenians(Carpatho-Rusyns) and Galicians (Ukrainians)  in 1907 - Bishop Soter Ortynsky things didn't work out that well - at least for the Ruthenians - now the BCC. In Europe, the faithful were used to the selection of their Bishops by the traditional means of Synodal election (for the most part) and the appointment of a non-Rusyn Bishop for the Rusyn parishes was one in a number of errors made by Rome with respect to the Greek Catholics in the first half of the 20th century. That was followed by the appointment of the pro-Magyar Bishop Basil Takach which led to the second(or third) schism within the Greek Catholic Church and the establishment of ACROD.
Logged
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,797


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #131 on: March 11, 2012, 02:37:09 PM »

In America at least, there are very few if any "pure" Greek Catholic families.  Almost all Greek Catholics here have a mixed background, so much so that when they grow up and move away they attend Roman Catholic parish because it is just not a big deal.  One of our priests estimates that possibly 80% of those who are canonically Greek Catholic attend Roman parishes.  So whether one is a mixed background "cradle" or a mixed-background "jumper" the opinions and attitudes are very much shared.  In fact the "jumpers" are often more authentically Eastern because they made the choice to be Greek Catholic whereas many "cradles" simple go to the closest parish which is usually Roman.

Regarding the first part, another reason why cradle Greek Catholics are essentially 'superior Novus Ordo'. Another reason they lose so many: they move away and go Roman Rite, on top of the attrition to the larger culture that the Orthodox have (when the third, etc. generation doesn't identify with the ethnic group anymore – I don't think manufacturing a whitebread American Orthodoxy/Greek Catholicism is the answer; I don't know the answer).

Regarding the second, I hear you, but...

The way many such jumpers want to be authentically traditional and Byzantine, exactly what Rome wants in that department, is admirable. But I agree with the poster above that they don't represent most Greek Catholics. Most Greek Catholics = 'authentic' Greek Catholicism, like it or not. And you don't want to make cradles resent the well-meaning newcomers.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #132 on: March 11, 2012, 02:39:48 PM »

Most of the posters that answered the OP are either jumpers from the Latin Rite or converts from other religious groups. With all the repsect I wouldn't agree that they share sentiments and stereotypes with the cradle ECs. IMO if one would like to know the opinion of the ECs on the RCs they should not ask the RC to EC jumpers because it would be falsified.

I'm not questioning the dedication of the strength of faith of the aforementioned posters. I don't care about them. I only think that their opinion has nothing in common with the opinion of the majority of the Eastern Catholics. They are not representative.

In America at least, there are very few if any "pure" Greek Catholic families.  Almost all Greek Catholics here have a mixed background, so much so that when they grow up and move away they attend Roman Catholic parish because it is just not a big deal.  One of our priests estimates that possibly 80% of those who are canonically Greek Catholic attend Roman parishes.  So whether one is a mixed background "cradle" or a mixed bbackground "jumper" the opinions and attitudes are very much shared.  In fact the "jumpers" are often more authentically Eastern becasue they made the choice to be Greek Catholic whereas many "cradles" simple go to the closest parish which is usually Roman.

Here's something else I was reading recently:

Quote from: Anthony T. Dragani
Archbishop Joseph Tawil, a revered leader of the Byzantine Melkite Catholic Church, cautioned against an emphasis on ethnicity. Much like the late Metropolitan Judson Procyk, Archbishop Tawil envisioned an Eastern Catholic Church open to all Americans. He eloquently spoke of this in a famous Christmas pastoral letter:

One day all of our ethnic traits " language, folklore, customs " will have disappeared. Time itself is seeing to this. And so we cannot think of our communities as ethnic parishes, primarily for the service of the immigrant or ethnically oriented, unless we wish to assure the death of our community. Our Churches are not only for our own people but are also for any of our fellow Americans who are attracted to our traditions which show forth the beauty of the universal Church and the variety of its riches.[8]

Archbishop Joseph warns of the danger of our Church vanishing in North America. Research indicates that this is a very real possibility. The best evidence clearly suggests that parishes that neglect evangelization tend to stagnate or decline in America.[9] Studies show that the typical congregation will lose 6% to 10% of its membership annually.[10] This loss is attributed to parishioners dying, relocating, and dropping out. For a parish to thrive, it must annually replace these lost members " or face eventual extinction.

There is a prevalent false assumption in how these lost members are to be replaced. Most Byzantine Catholic parishes wrongly assume that the children will take their place. The sad truth is that most of the children raised in our parishes will not be there as adults. In our transient society, most of these children will either move away or join other Churches. Very often less than 10% of the children found in a parish will remain there in adulthood.[11]

http://www.east2west.org/evangelization.htm
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #133 on: March 11, 2012, 02:44:32 PM »

In America at least, there are very few if any "pure" Greek Catholic families.  Almost all Greek Catholics here have a mixed background, so much so that when they grow up and move away they attend Roman Catholic parish because it is just not a big deal.  One of our priests estimates that possibly 80% of those who are canonically Greek Catholic attend Roman parishes.  So whether one is a mixed background "cradle" or a mixed-background "jumper" the opinions and attitudes are very much shared.  In fact the "jumpers" are often more authentically Eastern because they made the choice to be Greek Catholic whereas many "cradles" simple go to the closest parish which is usually Roman.

Regarding the first part, another reason why cradle Greek Catholics are essentially 'superior Novus Ordo'. Another reason they lose so many: they move away and go Roman Rite, on top of the attrition to the larger culture that the Orthodox have (when the third, etc. generation doesn't identify with the ethnic group anymore – I don't think manufacturing a whitebread American Orthodoxy/Greek Catholicism is the answer; I don't know the answer).

Regarding the second, I hear you, but...

The way many such jumpers want to be authentically traditional and Byzantine, exactly what Rome wants in that department, is admirable. But I agree with the poster above that they don't represent most Greek Catholics. Most Greek Catholics = 'authentic' Greek Catholicism, like it or not. And you don't want to make cradles resent the well-meaning newcomers.

It's also questionable whether what Rome wants should be paramount.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,797


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #134 on: March 11, 2012, 02:48:18 PM »

It's also questionable whether what Rome wants should be paramount.

It seems to me it ought to matter a lot to those running and attending the Greek Catholic churches, since after all they're under Rome! It falls under discipline, the rules for running those churches.
Logged

Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 »  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 0.187 seconds with 74 queries.