I REALLY hate to do this, but...

[Matrona]

I don't want this to turn into a battleground, so I don't want any snarky comments from the peanut gallery... just the facts and thoughtful remarks. This issue is important enough to me that I have taken 30 minutes of my precious studying time, to write this OP! Please don't make me regret it!

But today in class, I had the opportunity, so I snatched it up and asked the good doctor about what ByzCaths believe re: the pope, purgatory, etc. He says they believe the pope is a valid bishop, etc., but that as far as universal jurisdiction and other doctrinal discrepancies go, they agree to disagree. According to him, Roman Catholics hold to their own Christology and ByzCaths hold to Orthodox Christology, and they simply agree to disagree about the whole thing. Same with other rites under the RCC, etc.

If that is true, that explains a lot of the dissonance between Orthodox and RC's, because what he says suggests that RC's don't place a priority on doctrinal accuracy in order to merit being part of their communion, which explains on why they are so confused about us not rushing towards reunion with them. But I don't think that can be true, because from what I know about Roman Catholicism, they are very exacting on defining things (Aquinas and medieval scholasticism, transubstantiation, etc) and we Orthodox are the other way around!

Then we got into an argument about that, and I told him that I think the filioque is the foundation of an entirely different Christology from the Orthodox one. So the professor declared that he would bet me that within ten years, Orthodox and RC's would come to an agreement on the filioque, sort of putting the suggestion in that Orthodox like me don't know what we're talking about when we regard the filioque as a serious issue. Not being sufficiently versed in recent Orthodox history to counter him directly, I let it slide... for now. :)

Comments? Anybody know what I should have said or done? Anybody want to take a wack at me with a wet noodle for bringing up such a controversial subject? Anybody want a peanut? They're Lenten!

[InnerPhyre]

I'm not sure that's what he meant re: the filioque. I think the whole thing is being re-examined within the Church. The Vatican is taking a good long look on what separates East from West (even among churches in communion....which might sound like a contradiction...and maybe it is...but I'm a fool, so who knows? :) ) Eastern Catholics don't include it of course and never have, but the Pope himself excluded it when he would visit Eastern Catholic churches. Being inside the Catholic Church, you get a different perspective. Things are in motion right now...I can't really explain it, but you can just feel it from the inside. I don't know where it will lead, but it's definitely an interesting and exciting time. I don't think any Catholic worth his salt would say that "the Orthodox don't know what they're talking about." Every single Catholic priest I've spoken to about Orthodoxy has immense respect for your Church and not a single one belittled it. Even the Catholic priest I spoke to during the time when I was attending Divine Liturgy had nothing but good things to say about you guys, which really surprised the heck out of me, since I went in expecting him to say "You're going WHERE?!?!" :)

This was an interesting read though, thank you Matrona. I honestly don't know very much about the Byzantine Catholic view of things. I dated a Byzantine Catholic girl for about 3 years, but she usually came to church with me at my Latin rite parish, and she wasn't exactly hard core about her faith.

[Julio]

I think he's simply deceived by the idea, widespread among Eastern-Rite Roman Catholics, that they're "Orthodox in communion with Rome". I used to have lunch frequently with an Ukrainian Catholic deacon who was firmly convinced of this. As you note, however, there is deep Christological chasm between Orthodoxy and the Roman-Latin confession which loosely worded agreements cannot cover up. The Truth always comes out, sooner or later, and one must budge to the more powerful party, or else. Poor soul.

Now, where's my peanut? :D

[Philip]

But today in class, I had the opportunity, so I snatched it up and asked the good doctor about what ByzCaths believe re: the pope, purgatory, etc. He says they believe the pope is a valid bishop, etc., but that as far as universal jurisdiction and other doctrinal discrepancies go, they agree to disagree.


I think 'agree to ignore' is a better description. From what I understand, use statements that are so vague as to allow both sides interpret them as they see fit. They know the other side interprets it differently, but they pretend
that it doesn't matter.

If that is true, that explains a lot of the dissonance between Orthodox and RC's, because what he says suggests that RC's don't place a priority on doctrinal accuracy in order to merit being part of their communion, which explains on why they are so confused about us not rushing towards reunion with them.

It seems that to the Church of Rome, being in communion with the Bishop of Rome is paramount.

But I don't think that can be true, because from what I know about Roman Catholicism, they are very exacting on defining things (Aquinas and medieval scholasticism, transubstantiation, etc)

I would agree that it used to be that way. Things have changed over the last century.


Then we got into an argument about that, and I told him that I think the filioque is the foundation of an entirely different Christology from the Orthodox one. So the professor declared that he would bet me that within ten years, Orthodox and RC's would come to an agreement on the filioque, sort of putting the suggestion in that Orthodox like me don't know what we're talking about when we regard the filioque as a serious issue. Not being sufficiently versed in recent Orthodox history to counter him directly, I let it slide... for now. :)

I suppose it is possible that the Church of Rome will change its view.

[Philip]

Oops, I forgot: Snark. Snark.

[Rilian]

-

[Matrona]

The problem is, is that the stick up this professor's behind, has a stick up its behind!

In other words, he thinks he knows everything. I need help finding sources that prove him wrong, because he has a lot of street cred himself among theologians. I don't have enough sway on my own to convince him or anyone else that these "agreements" are just loosely worded enough for everyone to walk away happy. What's more, I can't explain the Orthodox motivation for signing them in the first place.

For the record, he doesn't take the heresy of monothelism(monotheletism? I forget, it's that one will thing) seriously, which we all know was an attempt to bring the Eutychians and miaphysites back into the fold, which backfired because it just ended up inventing another heresy, so that should give y'all an idea of his character.

[Rilian]

-

[Rilian]

-

[Robbie_James_Francis]

I'm extremely confused!:scratch: I don't understand how any Rite that doesn't accept the full deposit of Faith (as Catholics see it) can even be considered Catholic. Surely if the Uniate Rites (am I allowed to call them that?) really recognised the authority of the See of Peter, they would fully subscribe to all of the same doctrines as the Latin Rite? :confused: Disciplinary and liturgical variety is fully acceptable and obviously present, but how can Catholic Rites differ on dogma?

In Christ,

A very confused Robbie

[Konstantinos]

I believe that Rome Brought the EC's into the Church because they submitted to Papal Authority. while keeping their Customs.

[Philip]

For the record, he doesn't take the heresy of monothelism(monotheletism? I forget, it's that one will thing) seriously, which we all know was an attempt to bring the Eutychians and miaphysites back into the fold, which backfired because it just ended up inventing another heresy, so that should give y'all an idea of his character.

Does he accept the Western idea of forensic justification?

[Philip]

I'm extremely confused!:scratch: I don't understand how any Rite that doesn't accept the full deposit of Faith (as Catholics see it) can even be considered Catholic. Surely if the Uniate Rites (am I allowed to call them that?) really recognised the authority of the See of Peter, they would fully subscribe to all of the same doctrines as the Latin Rite?

One would think this to be the case, but it does not seems to true in practice.

[Matrona]

I'm extremely confused!:scratch: I don't understand how any Rite that doesn't accept the full deposit of Faith (as Catholics see it) can even be considered Catholic. Surely if the Uniate Rites (am I allowed to call them that?) really recognised the authority of the See of Peter, they would fully subscribe to all of the same doctrines as the Latin Rite? :confused: Disciplinary and liturgical variety is fully acceptable and obviously present, but how can Catholic Rites differ on dogma?

In Christ,

A very confused Robbie
Don't worry, Robbie. I think my professor was trying to mislead the class, or perhaps he has been mislead himself.

[Matrona]

Does he accept the Western idea of forensic justification?
He mushed atonement with "Christus Victor", saying that the atonement is Western and Christus Victor is Eastern and that they don't negate each other.

[Rilian]

-

[MariaRegina]

I'm extremely confused!:scratch: I don't understand how any Rite that doesn't accept the full deposit of Faith (as Catholics see it) can even be considered Catholic. Surely if the Uniate Rites (am I allowed to call them that?) really recognised the authority of the See of Peter, they would fully subscribe to all of the same doctrines as the Latin Rite? :confused: Disciplinary and liturgical variety is fully acceptable and obviously present, but how can Catholic Rites differ on dogma?

In Christ,

A very confused Robbie

Dear Robbie:

I was in the Melkite Church for 2.5 years. And one reason why I became Orthodox was because the Melkites said that they were Orthodox Catholics in communion with Rome but not in union with Rome. The Melkites told me that the Orthodox were not in heresy, that it was only a political split.

Is it any wonder that my former Roman Catholic confessor told me that I was in schism when I joined the Melkite Church and that he refused to hear my confession from that point on? Even some Maronite priests call the Melkites schmatics.

I understand your confusion. I was confused while I was a Melkite also. Finally an Orthodox Priest told me to put the schizophrenia of being a uniate Catholic behind me and join the Orthodox Church. I did.

Lovingly in Christ,
Elizabeth

[Padraig]

Then we got into an argument about that, and I told him that I think the filioque is the foundation of an entirely different Christology from the Orthodox one. So the professor declared that he would bet me that within ten years, Orthodox and RC's would come to an agreement on the filioque, sort of putting the suggestion in that Orthodox like me don't know what we're talking about when we regard the filioque as a serious issue. Not being sufficiently versed in recent Orthodox history to counter him directly, I let it slide... for now. :)

Comments? Anybody know what I should have said or done? Anybody want to take a wack at me with a wet noodle for bringing up such a controversial subject? Anybody want a peanut? They're Lenten!

In recent years it is the RC that has reconsidered the filioque. JPII reiterated the dogmatic value of the original Creed a few years back. There's also this article (http://www.scoba.us/resources/filioque-p01.asp)from the SCOBA site in which the recommendation to the RC is to remove the filioque claus. Now this is just a consultation and they are under no obligation to put it in practice, but it's a start.

[Matrona]

This person is teaching?

He has a Ph.D. from Harvard in Theology and Religious Thought.

Refer to earlier comment regarding the stick up his behind.

[Michael the Iconographer]

Matrona,
You are right, the professor is wrong. Byzcats agree with Rome formally, while they may personally disagree with Rome, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is binding for all the Rites of the Catholic Church and not just the Latin Rite. I commend you for being bold and Orthodox and standing up to such pigheaded ignorance! I wish I were as bold as you are! Keep up the good work my friend!
Michael

[MariaRegina]

Do we really have to be reminded of the stick .... ad nauseum

[Matrona]

In recent years it is the RC that has reconsidered the filioque. JPII reiterated the dogmatic value of the original Creed a few years back. There's also this article (http://www.scoba.us/resources/filioque-p01.asp)from the SCOBA site in which the recommendation to the RC is to remove the filioque claus. Now this is just a consultation and they are under no obligation to put it in practice, but it's a start.

Does that entail dropping the doctrine behind the filioque as well? Because this professor told us that the Roman Catholic teaching is that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son.

[Michael the Iconographer]

Matrona,
You are making me wish I had not sold my copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church a few years ago! :( The Catechism of the Catholic Church makes it clear that it is binding to all of the Rites of the Catholic Church and not just the Latin (Roman) Rite. Byzantine Catholics may personally disagree with some of what Rome teaches, but they are in dissent from the Catholic Church and their dissent does not change the fact that their bishops and priests (atleast officially) agree with Rome on all matters of faith and morals. The RC definition of being Catholic makes it clear that to be Catholic one must agree with Rome on all matters of faith and morals.

[MariaRegina]

One of the Byzantine Catholic Bishops [whose name shall remain unmentioned per his wish] told me that the Byzantine Catholics can believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son since some Ancient Fathers of the Holy Church teach this.

How do the Orthodox here feel about this? Especially those who are seminarians.

[Michael the Iconographer]

One of the Byzantine Catholic Bishops [whose name shall remain unmentioned per his wish] told me that the Byzantine Catholics can believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son since some Ancient Fathers of the Holy Church teach this.

How do the Orthodox here feel about this? Especially those who are seminarians.

That is a game of semantics!

[MariaRegina]

That is a game of semantics!

Can you be more specific?

Does the belief that "The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son" diminish the figure of the Father as the Godhead? Does this distort the image of the Holy Trinity in some way?

Where is Irish Melkite when we need him?

[Matrona]

I'm not sure that's what he meant re: the filioque. I think the whole thing is being re-examined within the Church. The Vatican is taking a good long look on what separates East from West (even among churches in communion....which might sound like a contradiction...and maybe it is...but I'm a fool, so who knows? :) ) Eastern Catholics don't include it of course and never have, but the Pope himself excluded it when he would visit Eastern Catholic churches. Being inside the Catholic Church, you get a different perspective. Things are in motion right now...I can't really explain it, but you can just feel it from the inside. I don't know where it will lead, but it's definitely an interesting and exciting time.

I think you're right about this being a time of change for your church. I can see it even from all the way "over here".

I don't think any Catholic worth his salt would say that "the Orthodox don't know what they're talking about." Every single Catholic priest I've spoken to about Orthodoxy has immense respect for your Church and not a single one belittled it. Even the Catholic priest I spoke to during the time when I was attending Divine Liturgy had nothing but good things to say about you guys, which really surprised the heck out of me, since I went in expecting him to say "You're going WHERE?!?!" :)

This was an interesting read though, thank you Matrona. I honestly don't know very much about the Byzantine Catholic view of things. I dated a Byzantine Catholic girl for about 3 years, but she usually came to church with me at my Latin rite parish, and she wasn't exactly hard core about her faith.

You're welcome, Mike, although you should know that I'm not sure this guy is representative of ByzCaths. Through the semester he's repeatedly referred to himself as an Orthodox Christian, and twice today said "I'm not Catholic".

I don't know who he thinks he's fooling--I know where he goes on Sunday morning!

[Matrona]

One of the Byzantine Catholic Bishops [whose name shall remain unmentioned per his wish] told me that the Byzantine Catholics can believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son since some Ancient Fathers of the Holy Church teach this.

How do the Orthodox here feel about this? Especially those who are seminarians.

Them's dangerous waters--that's too hierarchical a view of the Most Holy Trinity.

The Spirit proceeds from the Father alone eternally, but temporally is sent by the Son. "From the Father through the Son" doesn't reflect this at all.

[Padraig]

Does that entail dropping the doctrine behind the filioque as well? Because this professor told us that the Roman Catholic teaching is that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son.

We have to look at what gave rise to the filioque in the first place. It was an attempt (albeit a bad one) to refute arianism. It was attempting to show the consubstantiality of all 3 Persons of the Trinity. I think we can all agree that it failed miserably. I don't think many RC's really think about the doctrine behind it. As I understand it the RC believes the source of the Holy Spirit is the Father alone, but I could be wrong.

padraig

[Padraig]

One of the Byzantine Catholic Bishops [whose name shall remain unmentioned per his wish] told me that the Byzantine Catholics can believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son since some Ancient Fathers of the Holy Church teach this.

How do the Orthodox here feel about this? Especially those who are seminarians.

There wouldn't be anything technically wrong with the above definition though it gets a little tricky. Suffice it to say that we believe the Father is the sole source of the other 2 Persons of the Trinity. It'd be better to just leave it like that (as in the Creed) The Son is begotten of the Father, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father. To go beyond this in a doctrinal way would be dangerous I think.

padraig

[drewmeister2]

The Eastern Catholics, while claiming they dont have to accept things like Purgatory and Papal Infallibility, do actually formally teach Purgatory and Papal infallibility, they just dont like to admit it. They claim they teach other things, but what they teach isnt the official teaching of the Catholic Church, but rather what THEY want to believe.

[MariaRegina]

The Eastern Catholics, while claiming they dont have to accept things like Purgatory and Papal Infallibility, do actually formally teach Purgatory and Papal infallibility, they just dont like to admit it. They claim they teach other things, but what they teach isnt the official teaching of the Catholic Church, but rather what THEY want to believe.

How do you feel about that, Andrew? I encountered almost the same thing and it left me feeling confused.

[Matrona]

The Eastern Catholics, while claiming they dont have to accept things like Purgatory and Papal Infallibility, do actually formally teach Purgatory and Papal infallibility, they just dont like to admit it. They claim they teach other things, but what they teach isnt the official teaching of the Catholic Church, but rather what THEY want to believe.

Thanks Drew! :) Do you know of any sources I can cite that show EC's really do believe in purgatory and papal infallibility? The professor said explicitly that they don't believe in either. I know that's a lie but I need to be able to prove him wrong.

[drewmeister2]

an extra post so I can make a link in my next post (I didnt have 15 posts yet)

[drewmeister2]

Aria,

For me, I just see the EC's as a really weird group of Catholics when they say they dont believe in Purgatory or Infallibility, and that they have lots of discipline problems as far as enforcing Church teaching. But, thats my opinion. If I were to remain Catholic, it would be Roman Catholicism.

Matrona,

All I can say is to look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is binding upon all rites of the Catholic Church (Roman rite, Eastern rite, etc). You can see the Catechism (called the CCC for short) here: http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm

I will look in my hardbound copy at home to see if I can find something in the introduction (which may or may not be online), and let you know.

God bless, to both of you!

[Julio]

From Pope Benedict XVI's 1992 lecture entitled The Doctrinal Relevance of the CCC (http://www.ewtn.com/library/Theology/CCCRELEV.HTM) (underlinings mine):

How to achieve unity in the midst of a variety of rites
Without entering into particulars, I would like in a general way to mention certain aspects of the Catechism's teaching on the sacraments, in which, by way of examples its current doctrinal relevance can be discerned. The proposal to illustrate the individual sacraments based upon their liturgically celebrated form, initially faced the obvious fact that, since the liturgy of the Church consists of a plurality of rites, so a unifying liturgical form for the whole Church does not exist. This did not create a problem for a catechism written only for the Western (Latin) Church or for one particular Church. But a Catechism, such as ours which wills to be "Catholic" in the strongest sense, and, therefore, is directed to the one Church with a plurality of rites, cannot favour one rite exclusively. How then to proceed? The Catechism cites first of all the oldest text of a description of the Christian Eucharistic celebration, which Justin Martyr outlines in an Apology for Christianity addressed to the pagan Emperor Antoninus Pius (138-161) around the year 155 A.D. (1345). From this basic text of tradition, which precedes the formation of specific rites, one can determine the essential structure of the Eucharistic celebration, which has remained common to all the rites, the Mass of all the centuries. The recourse to this text thus allows at the same time a better understanding of the individual rites and a discovery within these of the common structure of the central Christian sacrament, which ultimately dates back to the time of the apostles and thus to the institution by the Lord Himself. The solution found here is indicative for the overall concept of the Catechism, which could never be only Western and—as it is at the heart of the Oriental Churches—also never solely Byzantine, but has to take into account the wide breadth of tradition. The many texts of the Fathers and witnesses of the faith of all the centuries—men and women—that are included in it, form one of the most valuable aspects of this book, A glance at the list of names shows that ample space is given to the Eastern and Western Fathers, and the voices of holy women are also strongly present, from Joan of Arc, Juliana of Norwich, and Catherine of Siena, to Rose of Lima, Thérèse of Lisieux, and Teresa of Avila. This treasury of quotations alone gives the Catechism its value both for personal meditation and for the ministry of preaching.

[drewmeister2]

All I can add right now is that it is called the Catechism of the Catholic Church, not the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church.

Also, your professor may say there is an Eastern Catholic Catechism, but many see this as a fantasy of the EC's of what they wished they formally taught. The fact is, the Magisterium and the CCC are binding on all rites of Catholicism, whether or not everyone acknowledges this or not.

[Rilian]

-

[Michael the Iconographer]

Matrona,
What the EC's officially teach and what they believe are two different things. What their church officially teaches is found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is binding for all 7 rites of the Catholic Church. What they want to believe is often the Orthodox view of things. They can't have it both ways. This is why my x-wife called me (then a Byzantine Catholic) a fence sitter the summer before I was Chrismated an Orthodox Christian. Their existence really does break the Law of Non-Contradiction which states you can't be X and NOT X at the same time when X and NOT X are mutually exclusive of each other, without contradicting yourself.
Michael

[Matrona]

By the way, thank you so much to everyone who has responded so far. I am terrible at trying to back up these things that I know, and all of you have helped me so much.

[Philip]

You're thinking of the Lutheruniates.

Possibly. I was actually thinking of what I see as strong relationship between monothelism and certain aspects of Western atonement.

[Matrona]

All I can add right now is that it is called the Catechism of the Catholic Church, not the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church.

Also, your professor may say there is an Eastern Catholic Catechism, but many see this as a fantasy of the EC's of what they wished they formally taught. The fact is, the Magisterium and the CCC are binding on all rites of Catholicism, whether or not everyone acknowledges this or not.
Thanks drew... I should have noticed the name of the CCC upfront, thank you for pointing that out. :)

[Dominus Fidelis]

I'm extremely confused!:scratch: I don't understand how any Rite that doesn't accept the full deposit of Faith (as Catholics see it) can even be considered Catholic. Surely if the Uniate Rites (am I allowed to call them that?) really recognised the authority of the See of Peter, they would fully subscribe to all of the same doctrines as the Latin Rite? :confused: Disciplinary and liturgical variety is fully acceptable and obviously present, but how can Catholic Rites differ on dogma?

In Christ,

A very confused Robbie

They don't Robbie. :sigh:

[D'Ann]

I don't want this to turn into a battleground, so I don't want any snarky comments from the peanut gallery... just the facts and thoughtful remarks. This issue is important enough to me that I have taken 30 minutes of my precious studying time, to write this OP! Please don't make me regret it!

But today in class, I had the opportunity, so I snatched it up and asked the good doctor about what ByzCaths believe re: the pope, purgatory, etc. He says they believe the pope is a valid bishop, etc., but that as far as universal jurisdiction and other doctrinal discrepancies go, they agree to disagree. According to him, Roman Catholics hold to their own Christology and ByzCaths hold to Orthodox Christology, and they simply agree to disagree about the whole thing. Same with other rites under the RCC, etc.

If that is true, that explains a lot of the dissonance between Orthodox and RC's, because what he says suggests that RC's don't place a priority on doctrinal accuracy in order to merit being part of their communion, which explains on why they are so confused about us not rushing towards reunion with them. But I don't think that can be true, because from what I know about Roman Catholicism, they are very exacting on defining things (Aquinas and medieval scholasticism, transubstantiation, etc) and we Orthodox are the other way around!

Then we got into an argument about that, and I told him that I think the filioque is the foundation of an entirely different Christology from the Orthodox one. So the professor declared that he would bet me that within ten years, Orthodox and RC's would come to an agreement on the filioque, sort of putting the suggestion in that Orthodox like me don't know what we're talking about when we regard the filioque as a serious issue. Not being sufficiently versed in recent Orthodox history to counter him directly, I let it slide... for now. :)

Comments? Anybody know what I should have said or done? Anybody want to take a wack at me with a wet noodle for bringing up such a controversial subject? Anybody want a peanut? They're Lenten!

Actually, this is my first time posting over here... I'm Catholic from the OBOB...Hi... I don't have any comments... I'm just learning stuff myself... I just wanted to say that I found your op very interesting and I hope that others will have more knowledge to share with you. In the meantime... thanks for your OP... now I'm curious too.

God's Peace,

D'Ann

P.s.

Hi Unworthy and Andrea...

[Rilian]

-

[Matrona]

They don't Robbie. :sigh:
I have several quotes from the CCC that prove him wrong and I will talk to Father tomorrow, and then write an email to him. I think I will simulpost on the class message board because there are a lot of people who heard what he said.

[MariaRegina]

Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on us and save us.

Ask your priest first before you do anything. Remember your priest knows your professor better than you do. Do you want him to walk away and become an atheist? Or do you want him to come home?

If you want him to return home to Orthodoxy, then some kindness is imperative.



O Lord in my love of the Truth, don't let me forget the truth about Love.
Who said this?

[nicodemus]

I'm extremely confused!:scratch: I don't understand how any Rite that doesn't accept the full deposit of Faith (as Catholics see it) can even be considered Catholic. Surely if the Uniate Rites (am I allowed to call them that?) really recognised the authority of the See of Peter, they would fully subscribe to all of the same doctrines as the Latin Rite? :confused: Disciplinary and liturgical variety is fully acceptable and obviously present, but how can Catholic Rites differ on dogma?

In Christ,

A very confused Robbie
The Melkite parish in my hometown consider themselves "Orthodox in communion with Rome" (their words not mine.) I went to their food festival and their bookstore only carried books from Orthodox publishers. That told me a lot, at least about that particular parish.

[Maximus]

Anyone who wants to discuss some of these things with the Eastern Catholics themselves can go to the forum at ByzCath.org (http://www.byzcath.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi).

There used to be a few Orthodox who participated there, as well, but I don't know how things are now.

[Matrona]

O Lord in my love of the Truth, don't let me forget the truth about Love.
Who said this?

I think it was either Thomas Aquinas or Thomas More, I'm not sure. Either way, it was some guy named Thomas. ^_^

[Lifesaver]

The Pope is the supreme authority of the Church, as defined by Jesus. Every Catholic person, even those who belong to other rites than the Latin rite must accept that, or they have fallen into schism.
If one is not obedient and submitted to the Pope, they are not in communion with the Catholic Church.

[Aymn27]

The Pope is the supreme authority of the Church, as defined by Jesus. Every Catholic person, even those who belong to other rites than the Latin rite must accept that, or they have fallen into schism.
If one is not obedient and submitted to the Pope, they are not in communion with the Catholic Church.:confused: :doh: ;) ...and we wonder why we've been in schism for 1,000 years!!

[isshinwhat]

Suffice it to say that we believe the Father is the sole source of the other 2 Persons of the Trinity.

What is the difference between "begotten" and "proceeding" in reference to the Son and the holy Spirit in Orthodox theology?

God Bless,

Neal

[Matrona]

The Pope is the supreme authority of the Church, as defined by Jesus. Every Catholic person, even those who belong to other rites than the Latin rite must accept that, or they have fallen into schism.
If one is not obedient and submitted to the Pope, they are not in communion with the Catholic Church.

Thank you, Lifesaver. That's what I thought Roman Catholics believe. Frankly I thought it was an insult to both Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics to insinuate such a thing.

I talked to my priest today who advised me on what to do, and I plan to follow his advice. Thanks to everyone who helped and I will let everyone know the results.

[isshinwhat]

I talked to my priest today who advised me on what to do, and I plan to follow his advice. Thanks to everyone who helped and I will let everyone know the results.

May God be with you in your work.

Neal

[gzt]

difference between begotten and proceeding: I think that we don't know, except that they are different. I might be wrong, but that is what I recall.

[Matrona]

How do you cite something out of the CCC?

[MariaRegina]

I think it was either Thomas Aquinas or Thomas More, I'm not sure. Either way, it was some guy named Thomas. ^_^

It was St. Thomas Aquinas.

St. Thomas More is one of my ancestors who was beheaded by King Henry VIII.

[MariaRegina]

How do you cite something out of the CCC?


APA or MLA style?

[Matrona]

APA or MLA style?
Neither, this isn't a bibliography. I need to know what those numbers mean by the paragraphs, and how the book is organized.

[Vasya Davidovich]

APA or MLA style?
Maybe it would be best to show her how to cite using both methods, if you know them both, Aria.

Though I seem to remember that MLA was the standard we used in Uni. Is it different in the States?

Vasya.

[gzt]

The paragraphs are numbered in numerical order. If you say it's CCC 1587, they'll know what you're talking about.

[Vasya Davidovich]

Oh! That's what you meant! Well, it is a bit befuddling...

The bolded numbers are the points, or thoughts. Whatever you want to call them. The smaller numbers to the side (in the margin) help you cross-reference with pertinent points elsewhere in the CCC.

[MariaRegina]

Each instructor has a different style manual for essays and research papers.

For my linguistics classes they want either MLA or LSA (Linguistic Society of America) - which is a pain. MLA is the easiest format.

[Matrona]

Oh! That's what you meant! Well, it is a bit befuddling...

The bolded numbers are the points, or thoughts. Whatever you want to call them. The smaller numbers to the side (in the margin) help you cross-reference with pertinent points elsewhere in the CCC.

Thanks Vasya!

I need to go to bed now, but hopefully I will have this ready to fire tomorrow afternoon. :clap:

[Vasya Davidovich]

Not a prob, Matrona.

It took me a bit to figure it out, too. All the best with the project. The Holy Hierarchs give you wisdom and intellectual accuity.

Vasya.

[drewmeister2]

It was St. Thomas Aquinas.

St. Thomas More is one of my ancestors who was beheaded by King Henry VIII.

You are related to St. Thomas More?

[MariaRegina]

Apparently so, from geneological researches.

[Matrona]

Oh, one more thing, when I was asking him questions about Purgatory, he told me to read Dante's Purgatorio for a good idea of the RC doctrine. Is this true? :scratch:

[MariaRegina]

Dante's Purgatorio, part of the Divine Comedy, was a political work more than a religious work.
It is interesting how Dante's enemies ended up in the various parts of Inferno.

The Divine Comedy was required reading for my class in Religious Science - Western Civilization.

[ProCommunioneFacior]

Oh, one more thing, when I was asking him questions about Purgatory, he told me to read Dante's Purgatorio for a good idea of the RC doctrine. Is this true? :scratch:

No.

[Michael the Iconographer]

Dante's Purgatorio, part of the Divine Comedy, was a political work more than a religious work.
It is interesting how Dante's enemies ended up in the various parts of Inferno.

The Divine Comedy was required reading for my class in Religious Science - Western Civilization.

Kind of like how Michelangelo's enemies had their faces painted on the demon's in the Sistine Chapel? I have a friend who wanted her face painted on one of the angels in an icon! :)

[Matrona]

No.

Thanks.

Did it reflect medieval RC teaching on purgatory?

:)