Eastern Catholicism: Orthodox in communion with Rome

[Punchy]

This is a good article for better understanding the relationship between the Eastern Rite Churches and the Catholic Church as a whole:


Married Byzantine priest to serve as administrator of downtown parish
Father Frank to offer both Latin and Eastern-rite liturgies at St. Elizabeth Church
Roxanne King

For the last four years, a married priest has taught at St. John Vianney Theological Seminary, and now, he will also serve as a parish administrator.

And it's all in keeping with the teaching of the Church.

Byzantine Catholic Father Chrysostom Frank, 48, a professor of Church history at St. John Vianney Theological Seminary, is assigned to serve as administrator of St. Elizabeth of Hungary Parish located on the Auraria campus downtown, beginning July 1. His wife, Marica, a native of South Africa, teaches Greek and Latin at the seminary. The couple has three children...
http://www.archden.org/dcr/news.php?e=27&s=4&a=595

[kepha31]

I'm not sure if you are emphasizing the fact that he is Byzantine in a Catholic parish (we recognize their sacraments) or if he is a married priest in a Catholic parish.(celicacy is not a doctrine)

[QuantaCura]

Great article :thumbsup:

As an aside, the idea of Orthodox in Communion with Rome is a good statement. The position of Rome is that the doctrines of Eastern Orthodoxy are valid, orthodox, expressions of the deposit of faith with the exception of the authority of the Bishop of Rome. An Eastern Catholic can profess the same faith as the EO, but also be in full communion with the Apostolic See. When Pope Leo XIII explained this fact to the EO patriarchs, they unfortunately responded that they had a different view of the orthodoxy of our faith.

[Punchy]

I'm not sure if you are emphasizing the fact that he is Byzantine in a Catholic parish (we recognize their sacraments) or if he is a married priest in a Catholic parish.(celicacy is not a doctrine)

Being Orthodox in communion with Rome makes one both Orthodox and Catholic. That's the point of the story.

[Punchy]

I hope that the members of this forum are at least aware that the Eastern Rite exists.

[stivvy]

after the past year of me baggering them, I am sure they do. I and others have paved a clean road for you to wonder down here in OBOB with its veterens

[WarriorAngel]

I knew. :)

And I find the EC to be quite a special blend.
Holding both Cultural Traditions...or rather blending them rather well. :hug:

[Punchy]

Our traditions are more than cultural, they are spiritual. I believe in Orthodox theology and Orthodox worship, yet recognize the authority of the Pope and the need for unity in the Church.

[Punchy]

With the Second Vatican Council came a call, as a prerequisite for true ecumenical dialogue with the Orthodox Churches, for the Eastern Catholic Churches to rediscover every element of their authentic Tradition and theology. The Armenian Catholic Church, as one of these Eastern Catholic Churches, is thus at a turning point in her history. Now, Elder Rome herself, is calling us to continue this process of self rediscovery, the full recovery of our authenticTradition and the continuing removal of all foreign elements and latinizations within our Chruch (e.g., the loss of giving infants Holy Communion, etc.).

A major step in this process was taken with the restoration of our authentic Havadamk or Creed -eliminating the added "Filioque" ("and from the Son"). But more still remains to be done. It is important for Armenian Catholics to recall that the Armenian Church, which reunited with the Latin Church during the Cilician Kingdom, "did not call itself 'Catholic' for the simple reason that such a name could have equivocality [having two or more meanings], confounding them with the Franks and Latins. This Church preferred to call itself 'Orthodox' [Ooghapar, Arm.] in the full sense of the term rather than 'Catholic'." ("The Armenian Church and its Future," H.E. Garabed Amadouni). The time has come for us to rediscover our authentic Orthodox heritage and perspective which was so zealously maintained by our forefathers of the Cilician era.

Realizing that our call is to be "Orthodox in Communion with Rome," we must not be content to be latinized, Armenian Catholics. Formerly it was believed by some that the mission of Eastern Catholics would be to bring the Orthodox "back into the fold" of the Catholic Church. But now it is becoming increasingly obvious that our true service to unity is by familiarizing our Latin brethren with the authentic theology and Tradition of the East. It is only when we, as AUTHENTIC Eastern Churches (http://www.geocities.com/wmwolfe_48044/Churches_not_Rites.html), can in peace, equality and Communion, co-exist with the Latin Church, will there ever be reason for our Orthodox Mother Churches to consider resumption of full Communion. Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware once remarked that when he heard the Melkites make the Eastern Church's case at Vatican II, he felt that this was the voice of Orthodoxy being made known at the Catholic Council. THIS IS OUR CALLING: to be the voice of Orthodoxy within the Communion of the Catholic Church.
http://www.geocities.com/wmwolfe_48044/Who_are_we.html


Peace.

[Rising_Suns]

after the past year of me baggering them, I am sure they do. I and others have paved a clean road for you to wonder down here in OBOB with its veterens

I think the road was already paved years ago. Most Catholics in OBOB have considered Eastern Catholics as, what pope John Paul II coined, the other half of our lung, breathing together in unison.

I think where discussions have become somewhat abrasive in the past, it when it is said--or at least implied--that west/Latin Rite spiritualiy is inferior to eastern spirituality.

-Davide

[Punchy]

I think where discussions have become somewhat abrasive in the past, it when it is said--or at least implied--that west/Latin Rite spiritualiy is inferior to eastern spirituality.


Pre or post-Vatican II?

[salt_of_the_earth]

Wait I minute here... I am confused. People are saying that Eastern Catholics adhere to Orthodox doctrine. How could that be? Why would the Catholic Church accept Churches into communion with them if they don't believe in the same doctrines... I always thought that Eastern Catholics adhered to the same doctrine as the Catholic Church but practiced Eastern Orthodox style mass as well as other traditions....

I am confused right now.

[Rising_Suns]

Wait I minute here... I am confused. People are saying that Eastern Catholics adhere to Orthodox doctrine. How could that be? Why would the Catholic Church accept Churches into communion with them if they don't believe in the same doctrines... I always thought that Eastern Catholics adhered to the same doctrine as the Catholic Church but practiced Eastern Orthodox style mass as well as other traditions....

I am confused right now.

To paraphrase Vatican II, Orthodoxy is so closely united to Catholicism, that it takes very little to bring them together (this is why the Catholic Church permits the Orthodox to receive communion in our Churchs--a profound gesture being the sign of union). They may express their beliefs in different ways, and with different terms. But the same basic principles are present nonetheless.

Pre or post-Vatican II?

I meant more in terms of discussion on OBOB. But I think I can expand to say post-Vatican II.

-Davide

[AMDG]

Our traditions are more than cultural, they are spiritual. I believe in Orthodox theology and Orthodox worship, yet recognize the authority of the Pope and the need for unity in the Church.

Don't forget that there are Eastern Rite Catholic priests (and Roman Rite Catholic priests) that are bi-ritual. They can celebrate Mass and the Divine Liturgy. But yes, the Eastern Rites are very spiritual and very Marian.

[Anhelyna]

And sadly largely unknown :(

[Punchy]

Wait I minute here... I am confused. People are saying that Eastern Catholics adhere to Orthodox doctrine. How could that be? Why would the Catholic Church accept Churches into communion with them if they don't believe in the same doctrines

Canon 28
A rite is the liturgical, theological, spiritual and disciplinary patrimony, culture and circumstances of history of a distinct people, by which its own manner of living the faith is manifested in each Church sui iuris.
§2. The rites treated in this code, unless otherwise stated, are those which arise from the Alexandrian, Antiochene, Armenian, Chaldean and Constantinopolitan traditions.
http://www.jgray.org/codes/cceo90eng.html (http://www.jgray.org/codes/cceo90eng.html)


Part of the conditions of reunion was that the Eastern Churches would retain their theological, as well as liturgical, identity. The Byzantine Catholic Church has its own canons and its own catechism.

[AMDG]

Part of the conditions of reunion was that the Eastern Churches would retain their theological, as well as liturgical, identity. The Byzantine Catholic Church has its own canons and its own catechism.

But technically they have the same seven Sacraments--just use different words--like "Mysteries". My friend is actually Eastern Rite (although now she worships at a closer Roman Rite Parish) and although much of my spirituality comes to me from the teaching of a bi-ritual Eastern Rite Chaplain, I am Roman Rite.

Notice my avatar--it's real special to me--an icon of the Blessed Theotokos embracing the late Pope John Paul II. East and West are together as I think they should be.

[Punchy]

East and West are together as I think they should be.

There are only 12 million Eastern Catholics, as opposed to 500 million Orthodox Christians. True and final unity is still a long way from happening.

[Punchy]

The only substantial difference I've found between Eastern Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy is the acceptance of Roman Catholics to communion. The Pope of Rome is recognized as having the same authority that he possessed before the Great Schism.


Documentation: The Melkite Initiative with the Antiochian Orthodox Church

1. I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.
2. I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation.
http://www.byzcath.org/faith/documents/melkite_initiative_2.htm

[zhilan]

The only substantial difference I've found between Eastern Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy is the acceptance of Roman Catholics to communion. The Pope of Rome is recognized as having the same authority that he possessed before the Great Schism.

If they believe everything the Orthodox Church teaches they are not Catholic.

[Punchy]

If they believe everything the Orthodox Church teaches they are not Catholic.

Eastern Catholics understand themselves as Orthodox in communion with Rome, as the Eastern Church was before the Great Schism. In the creed, do you confess to believe in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church?

[zhilan]

Eastern Catholics understand themselves as Orthodox in communion with Rome, as the Eastern Church was before the Great Schism. In the creed, do you confess to believe in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church?

Of course we confess that, but that doesn't make us Catholic in the sense of Roman Catholic.

If they are Orthodox they cannot be in Communion with Rome as to be in Communion with Rome you must accept the faith of Rome. They can be Orthodox in liturgical practice and in culture, but they cannot be Orthodox in theology if they are in Communion with Rome. So it is incorrect to call them Eastern Orthodox in Communion with Rome.

[Punchy]

Of course we confess that, but that doesn't make us Catholic in the sense of Roman Catholic.

Eastern Catholics aren't Roman Catholic either.

They can be Orthodox in liturgical practice and in culture, but they cannot be Orthodox in theology if they are in Communion with Rome.

If that were true, the Eastern Church before the Great Schism was not Orthodox in theology.

[etherspirit]

Eastern Catholics aren't Roman Catholic either.



If that were true, the Eastern Church before the Great Schism was not Orthodox in theology.

In general, I believe Catholicism has much fewer issues with Eastern Orthodoxy than the number of issues Eastern Orthodoxy has with Catholicism.

[QuantaCura]

In general, I believe Catholicism has much fewer issues with Eastern Orthodoxy than the number of issues Eastern Orthodoxy has with Catholicism.

That is definitely true. In the last century or so, the Popes who have formally invited the Orthodox to reunion have all said the authority of the Roman Pontiff is the only thing they would have to accept. Pope Leo XIII, for example, explained to them that we already shared a unity of faith and that the differences were basically from semantics and certain theological approaches, and not differences in truth. The Orthodox leaders rejected this position.

[zhilan]

Eastern Catholics aren't Roman Catholic either.



If that were true, the Eastern Church before the Great Schism was not Orthodox in theology.

I don't understand what you mean at all. Can you explain more?

And yes Eastern Catholics are Roman Catholic. I've had that clarified for me many times. They are not Latin Rite, but they are indeed Roman Catholic.

[stivvy]

In general, I believe Catholicism has much fewer issues with Eastern Orthodoxy than the number of issues Eastern Orthodoxy has with Catholicism.
The exact reason I didn't turn to Orthodox, but still love them. God is answering our Eastern prayers daily though through the One True Faith and one day soon we will be all one.

[stivvy]

I don't understand what you mean at all. Can you explain more?

And yes Eastern Catholics are Roman Catholic. I've had that clarified for me many times. They are not Latin Rite, but they are indeed Roman Catholic.
100% wrong. Roman Rite is it's own Rite. Punchy is correct in saying that we have our own traditions, Liturgy, and authority. We pass very few items through Rome for approval and are not bound by most of what the RC sends out. In the USA for example, we are bound under the Byzatine Rite under Metroploitan Basil's rules and guidence.

Now 20 years ago you could have had an arugument, as much of the Eastern church was wrapped in Latin (Roman) Rite traditions and laws. That all went away and we are very independent.

[AMDG]

100% wrong. Roman Rite is it's own Rite. Punchy is correct in saying that we have our own traditions, Liturgy, and authority. We pass very few items through Rome for approval and are not bound by most of what the RC sends out. In the USA for example, we are bound under the Byzatine Rite under Metroploitan Basil's rules and guidence.

Now 20 years ago you could have had an arugument, as much of the Eastern church was wrapped in Latin (Roman) Rite traditions and laws. That all went away and we are very independent.

Stivvy, I think zhilan is using the popular term. Both the Eastern Catholic Rites and the Roman Rite are Catholic (the word is just that--no modifier, since it includes the Roman Rite And the Eastern Rites.) However, in the 1600s-1700s the Anglicans tried to call themselves "catholic" as well and called the Catholics who were in communion with the Pope "Roman Catholics" in an effort to insult them. The Catholics, in turn, simply started using the term themselves so it couldn't be classed as an insult anymore. Now just about everybody calls those in communion with the Pope a Roman Catholic (even though it is technically incorrect since Roman is only a Rite.)

Am quoting from the welcome pamphlet of the Byzantine Catholic Rite near me.

Yes, we are Catholics in union with the Bishop of Rome whom we recognize as the visible Head of the Catholic Church. We are recognized as being "Catholic" by the local Roman Catholic Bishops and the Bishops of the United States and the whole world.

Having said that we are "Catholics", we must now state that we are NOT Roman Catholics, but Catholics who are identified as being Eastern Catholics. As Catholics, we Eastern and Roman Catholics share the same faith and have the same seven sacraments. The difference is that we Eastern Catholics have a different way or rite of expressing our faith in regards to Liturgy and customs.

[Globalnomad]

Stivvy, I think zhilan is using the popular term. Both the Eastern Catholic Rites and the Roman Rite are Catholic (the word is just that--no modifier, since it includes the Roman Rite And the Eastern Rites.) However, in the 1600s-1700s the Anglicans tried to call themselves "catholic" as well and called the Catholics who were in communion with the Pope "Roman Catholics" in an effort to insult them. The Catholics, in turn, simply started using the term themselves so it couldn't be classed as an insult anymore. Now just about everybody calls those in communion with the Pope a Roman Catholic (even though it is technically incorrect since Roman is only a Rite.)

Am quoting from the welcome pamphlet of the Byzantine Catholic Rite near me.
Let me add to that. It's not only the Anglicans that started calling all Catholics "Roman Catholics" - Arabic-speaking Christians do it too. They don't use the term "Catholic" for us at all, in order not to create confusion, since they are conversant with the Greek term Katholikos in its original sense of "universal". They call Catholics "Rumi", "Roman" - whether they are Latin-rite or Eastern Catholic.

So, while here in the West the rite is generally referred to as Roman, we should in fact be getting away from that, and move to the more globally-understood definitions: Roman Catholic for the Church, Latin for the rite.

[QuantaCura]

Let me add to that. It's not only the Anglicans that started calling all Catholics "Roman Catholics" - Arabic-speaking Christians do it too. They don't use the term "Catholic" for us at all, in order not to create confusion, since they are conversant with the Greek term Katholikos in its original sense of "universal". They call Catholics "Rumi", "Roman" - whether they are Latin-rite or Eastern Catholic.

What do they refer to as Catholic then? Are they branch theoriests or Eastern or Oriental Orthodox peoples? Anyway, we too use the term in its original sense.:thumbsup: The Catholic Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome is rightfully called Catholic/Katholicos/universal. The Catholic Church is the Universal Church. :)

[stivvy]

...So, while here in the West the rite is generally referred to as Roman, we should in fact be getting away from that, and move to the more globally-understood definitions: Roman Catholic for the Church, Latin for the rite.
I disagree with that. We must remain Catholic as a church and keep the rites in place to differentiate between the rites. Calling an Eastern Rite "Roman" is completely inaccurate to the true identification of our church. Were were never designed under the Roman based church and will be lost in the designation to that title.

I love my brothers and sisters of the Roman Rite, but how would they feel if they were forced to be called Byzantine or anything other than Roman. We recognize Rome and the Bishop of Rome as the First (equals to be determined later) and much of the rest is independency.

[Globalnomad]

"Katholikos" is used by the Orthodox also, when referring to the Universal Church and, by some of them (the Armenians) to refer to their patriarchs. So it can cause confusion, and perhaps offence, in that part of the world. The way I see it, they just use "Rumi" instead, so everybody is clear and happy. I think we should do it too.

And admit it, QC - we all know, quite painfully, that although "in theory" the Catholic Church and the Universal Church are the same (actually they are not - the correct theoretical expression is that the Universal Church subsists in the Catholic Church, which is not the same thing), in reality we are aching from the loss of our "other half". We are like the earthworm who has been cut in half. All the genetic material may still be there, so in theory we are still a whole and viable earthworm.... but...

[nyj]

So, while here in the West the rite is generally referred to as Roman, we should in fact be getting away from that, and move to the more globally-understood definitions: Roman Catholic for the Church, Latin for the rite.Uh, no. Two thousand years and suddenly we're going to give ourselves a name change?

[Globalnomad]

Calling an Eastern Rite "Roman" is completely inaccurate to the true identification of our church.

Why, Stivvy? "Roman" only refers to the fact that you are in union with the Bishop of Rome. As regards the rite, you are not Latin, just as we are not Byzantine, and that seems quite simple and uncontroversial to me.

[stivvy]

No, Roman refers to the traditions of Rome and we don't have those. We are just getting our identity back and you want to mix it all back up into the same batter again? Ain't gonna happen, trust me.

[Globalnomad]

Uh, no. Two thousand years and suddenly we're going to give ourselves a name change?

What change? I am suggesting that we use "Roman Catholic" for all rites in union with the Bishop of Rome, and "Latin" for the specific rite we use.

[Globalnomad]

No, Roman refers to the traditions of Rome and we don't have those. We are just getting our identity back and you want to mix it all back up into the same batter again? Ain't gonna happen, trust me.
That's just what I am saying. You refer to the traditions as "Roman", I suggest that we use "Latin" for those and keep "Roman" to refer to the church, as the Anglicans and the Arab Christians do.

[Anhelyna]

There is still a lot of confusion here [ yes I do mean on OBOB :( ] about the Eastern Catholic Churches.

I think - if folk would permit me - it would help if you would read this thread - by Irish Melkite from another Board .

http://forums.catholic.com/t99337.

There is this thought that I see in many places that the only Catholic Church is the one that most folk call the Roman Catholic Church.

Frankly this drives me and many others totally round the bend.

The Catholic Church is made up of many Churches - the Roman / Latin Church is just one of them.

Frankly I would be insulted if anyone told me , a member of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church that I was a Roman Catholic - I'm not !!

My Church is in Communion with His Holiness Benedict XVI but I'm not Roman - not by any shape or form.

Please do NOT equate Church with Rite - they are two entirely different things .

Please read Irish Melkite's post/posts. They are not an easy read - but they summarise exactly how the Eastern / Oriental Catholic Churches fit into THE Catholic Church

[nyj]

What change? I am suggesting that we use "Roman Catholic" for all rites in union with the Bishop of Rome, and "Latin" for the specific rite we use.

We're the Catholic Church. That incorporates the Latin Rite and all of the Eastern Rites. That is how it should be. You don't change the brand name of a 2000 year old institution. That's absurd.

[Globalnomad]

sorry -mutilated post.

[Globalnomad]

I don't think any of us are confused, Anhelyna. We know exactly the difference between a rite and a church. We are only arguing over how to call them.

Look Stivvy, I can very much understand you guys bristling at being misunderstood/subjugated again - God knows (and I do too) just how much prejudice and ignorance you face all the time from us Latins - but I think you make things worse by not wanting anything to do with the word Roman. That's how you get into the position where Latin Catholics think you are not one of us. How much nicer and saner it would be if we all compromised to call ourselves Roman Catholics of the Latin/Byzantine/Ukrainian/Coptic etc. rite. We Latins would need to learn that we are of the Latin, not the Roman rite; you would accept to be called Roman in the sense of being in union with the Bishop of Rome - and everybody would know what they are and what we are talking about. All over the Christian world.

[Anhelyna]

The real problem is that you are of the ROMAN RITE - that's what it is called

I'm not

You and I are Catholics

[Globalnomad]

NYJ, we've used "Roman Catholic" for the last 500 of those 2000 years. Hardly a change in brand name.

[Globalnomad]

YOU call it the Roman rite, Anhelyna, but many call it the Latin rite, and I THINK that is in fact the "technically correct" name.

[stivvy]

It isn't going to happen, so why not just drop the subject. We can agree to disagree and obviously you don't know what a hot button this is outside the Roman Rite church. We are Catholic and proud of it. All others outside of the Catholic Church are Protesting Faiths and are welcome to come back into union with her. But they are not going to hijack our faith title...Catholic. We are the One True Faith, we are the universal true church. This is what Pope Benedict was trying to express in his completely misconstruded writings.

[lionroar0]

We could call ourselves the lionnites:holy: :D

Peace

[nyj]

NYJ, we've used "Roman Catholic" for the last 500 of those 2000 years. Hardly a change in brand name.No we haven't. It's still, the last time I checked, the Catecheism of the Catholic Church. No "Roman" to be found at all.

[Punchy]

I
And yes Eastern Catholics are Roman Catholic. I've had that clarified for me many times. They are not Latin Rite, but they are indeed Roman Catholic.

Where do you get your ideas?


Are Byzantines, Roman Catholics of the Byzantine Rite?

No, Byzantines are there own separate church. "Sui Generis" is often the term used to describe this state.
Basically, although the Byzantine Church falls under the authority of the Pope, it is governed by its own rules. What is the difference between the Orthodox and Byzantine Catholics?

Orthodox and Byzantine Catholics are virtually identical. The biggest difference is that Byzantine Catholics are in communion with the Pope of Rome, while Orthodox are not. There are also some differences in belief. http://www.byzantines.net/faq/index.htm

[zhilan]

As the name implies, Roman Catholic means under Rome. Latin is the rite, but Roman Catholic is the universal term. If they are Catholic they are Catholic and under Rome. If they are under Rome, why try to make themselves different?

[Punchy]

If they are under Rome, why try to make themselves different?

The term used isn't "under Rome" but "Orthodox in communion with Rome," as the Eastern Church was before the schism.

[nyj]

Latin is the rite, but Roman Catholic is the universal term. Are we talking about the "universal term" used by some people, but never the Catholic Church?

[zhilan]

The term used isn't "under Rome" but "Orthodox in communion with Rome," as the Eastern Church was before the schism.

Whatever wording you use, to be Catholic you must submit to the teachings of the Church and of Rome. Thus it is not Orthodox in Communion with Rome, but Eastern Christians in Communion with Rome, as they may externally practice Orthodox customs but must accept Catholic (ie the Pope's) Dogma.

[zhilan]

Are we talking about the "universal term" used by some people, but never the Catholic Church?
I grew up as a Roman Catholic, going to a Roman Catholic Church and a Roman Catholic school, don't know about the rest of you. =)

[Anhelyna]

Here we go again

Catholics are not necessarily ROMAN Catholics

I'm not and never will be and never was

[Anhelyna]

so did I :D

and your point is ?

[Anhelyna]

OH and when you were in that RC school you were taught that Catholic meant universal :)

You were not taught that Roman Catholic meant universal

[nyj]

You were not taught that Roman Catholic meant universal

Roman Universal. Oxymoron.

[Punchy]

I grew up as a Roman Catholic, going to a Roman Catholic Church and a Roman Catholic school, don't know about the rest of you. =)

That might explain why you weren't exposed to what Eastern Catholics believe. When I went to a Roman Catholic school and Roman Catholic churches, the Eastern Rite wasn't even mentioned. While some Eastern Catholics would assert that to be in communion with Rome, one must accept all Latin Rite doctrines, that is not what all Eastern Catholics believe.


Elias Zoghby (born January 9, 1912) is the retired Melkite Greek Catholic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melkite_Greek_Catholic_Church) Archbishop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archbishop) of Baalbek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baalbek) and a leading advocate of Catholic-Orthodox ecumenism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenism). He is best known for his 1995 Profession of Faith, known as the Zoghby Initiative, which attempted to re-establish communion between the Melkite Greek Catholic Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melkite_Greek_Catholic_Church) and the Eastern Orthodox Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church) while maintaining communion with the Roman Catholic Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church).

In February 1995, Zoghby declared this Profession of Faith:
1. I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.
2. I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation.

At the 1995 meeting of the Melkite Synod, twenty-four of the twenty-six attending bishops present subscribed to the so-called "Zoghby Initiative".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elias_Zoghby#The_Zoghby_Initiative_and_Tous_Schismatiques.3F

[nyj]

That might explain why you weren't exposed to what Eastern Catholics believe. When I went to a Roman Catholic school and Roman Catholic churches, the Eastern Rite wasn't mentioned. While some Eastern Catholics would assert that to be in communion with Rome, one must accept all Latin Rite doctrines, that is not what all Eastern Catholics believe.Now if the Eastern Catholics would stop referring to those in the Latin Rite as Roman Catholic ... the world would be perfect.

[Punchy]

Now if the Eastern Catholics would stop referring to those in the Latin Rite as Roman Catholic ... the world would be perfect.

Latin Rite Catholics are Roman Catholic, just as Eastern Rite Catholics are Eastern Catholic.

[nyj]

Latin Rite Catholics are Roman Catholic, just as Eastern Rite Catholics are Eastern Catholic.No.

The phrase "Roman Catholic" is a pejorative, coined by the Anglicans in an attempt to justify their split. If you must call me anything other than Catholic, though I see no reason to do so, I'd prefer Latin Rite Catholic.

[Punchy]

The phrase "Roman Catholic" is a pejorative, coined by the Anglicans in an attempt to justify their split.

That might be true, but sometimes pejorative terms are adopted by the people they've been used against. Just consider the Melkites, for example.

[zhilan]

That might explain why you weren't exposed to what Eastern Catholics believe. When I went to a Roman Catholic school and Roman Catholic churches, the Eastern Rite wasn't even mentioned. While some Eastern Catholics would assert that to be in communion with Rome, one must accept all Latin Rite doctrines, that is not what all Eastern Catholics believe.

Maybe not all Eastern Catholics believe that, just as many Western Catholics choose not to follow the doctrines and teachings of the Church, but in choosing not to do that, they like their counterparts of the liberal Catholics, are putting themselves outside of full communion with Rome and are sinning.

[Punchy]

Maybe not all Eastern Catholics believe that, just as many Western Catholics choose not to follow the doctrines and teachings of the Church, but in choosing not to do that, they like their counterparts of the liberal Catholics, are putting themselves outside of full communion with Rome and are sinning.

I don't think you know enough about what Eastern Catholics believe, who they are, and the terms of their reunion with the Church of Rome, to say things like that.

[zhilan]

I don't think you know enough about what Eastern Catholics believe, who they are, and the terms of their reunion with the Church of Rome, to say things like that.

I do know the situation. I also know that the to be in good standing with the Catholic Church you must submit to the doctrines of the Church. So a Western Catholic can enjoy a charismatic service and style of worship, but he can not be "Pentecostal in communion with Rome" that is he may choose to take part is charismatic services and associate himself culturally with charismatics, but when it comes to issues of doctrine he must submit to Rome. Similarly, one can enjoy an Anglican style liturgy and associate oneself culturally with Anglicans practices, but when it comes to areas where Anglicans and Catholics differ in terms of belief, he must submit to the Catholic belief. The Eastern Rite is no different. You cannot be Catholic while not accepting the doctrines and dogmas of the Church.

[AMDG]

I believe that zhilan is right. Quoting the welcome pamphlet from the Byzantine Catholic Rite Church near me:

Our Community is opened to any Catholic and to anyone who accepts the teachings of the Catholic Church, and who acknowledges the legitimate authority of the Pope, Bishop and Pastor.

and

As Catholics, we Eastern and Roman Catholics share the same faith and have the same seven sacraments Emphasis mine

Also think, why would there be bi-ritual priests if the same faith wasn't shared? And why would the military employ an Eastern Rite Catholic chaplain who couldn't serve the majority of the Latin Rite servicemen assigned to the base or post? (Remember that there is a priest shortage.) The answer is obvious. The two rites share the same faith--not one being Orthodox while the other being Catholic. The Eastern Rite Catholic priest in question could provide service to the Latin or Roman Rite Catholics.

Oh and Stivvy, just because we share the same faith does not mean that we share the same Rites. AFAIK the Rites are to be kept separate.

[nyj]

That might be true, but sometimes pejorative terms are adopted by the people they've been used against. Just consider the Melkites, for example.
Yeah, yeah ... and the Jesuits.

So ... when it becomes the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, you come speak to me. In the meantime, I ask you to refrain from using the term. It's offensive, it's not accurate, it's not used by the Holy See.

[Punchy]

I do know the situation. I also know that the to be in good standing with the Catholic Church you must submit to the doctrines of the Church.

The situation is more complicated than you might think. The diversity in unity between the Latin and Eastern Rites demonstrates the universality of the Catholic faith. The Latin and Eastern Churches believe the same essential doctrines, albeit from different perspectives. To be Eastern Catholic is to be Orthodox in communion with Rome.


Elias Zoghby (born January 9, 1912) is the retired Melkite Greek Catholic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melkite_Greek_Catholic_Church) Archbishop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archbishop) of Baalbek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baalbek) and a leading advocate of Catholic-Orthodox ecumenism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenism). He is best known for his 1995 Profession of Faith, known as the Zoghby Initiative, which attempted to re-establish communion between the Melkite Greek Catholic Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melkite_Greek_Catholic_Church) and the Eastern Orthodox Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church) while maintaining communion with the Roman Catholic Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church).

In 1975, Zoghby first suggested that the Melkite church might enter communion with the Orthodox churches without ceasing to be in communion with Rome. After consideration, the Melkite Synod effectively shelved proposal. [5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elias_Zoghby#_note-4)

In February 1995, Zoghby declared this Profession of Faith:

1. I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.

2. I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation.

At the 1995 meeting of the Melkite Synod, twenty-four of the twenty-six attending bishops present subscribed to the so-called "Zoghby Initiative".[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elias_Zoghby#_note-5)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elias_Zoghby



Ecclesiastical Communion (http://www.mliles.com/melkite/popecommunion.shtml) means that Melkites recognize the Holy See of Rome and that direct successor (the Patriarch of the West) of The Holy, Glorious and Illustrious Prince of the Apostles Peter (http://www.mliles.com/melkite/apostlepeter.shtml) "in the primacy". That direct successor, the Patriarch of the West, is the "first among equals". "Equals" are the other Patriarchs, one of which is The Patriarch of Antioch (http://www.mliles.com/melkite/patriarch.shtml) . (The Patriarch of Antioch is also a direct successor of The Holy, Glorious and Illustrious Prince of the Apostles Peter, but he is not "in the primacy".)
The title given to the Patriarch of the West (Holy See of Rome) as the direct successor of The Holy, Glorious and Illustrious Prince of the Apostles Peter "in the primacy" is "Pope" (http://www.mliles.com/melkite/pope.shtml). The current Patriarch of the West and Pope is His Holiness Benedictus XVI (Benedict XVI).
http://www.mliles.com/melkite/



Canon 28
A rite is the liturgical, theological, spiritual and disciplinary patrimony, culture and circumstances of history of a distinct people, by which its own manner of living the faith is manifested in each Church sui iuris.
§2. The rites treated in this code, unless otherwise stated, are those which arise from the Alexandrian, Antiochene, Armenian, Chaldean and Constantinopolitan traditions.
http://www.jgray.org/codes/cceo90eng.html (http://www.jgray.org/codes/cceo90eng.html)

[AMDG]

"Orthodox" (capital "O") and "orthodox" (small "o"). Don't forget that there is "orthodox" (small "o") as opposed to "heterodox". That "orthodox" has nothing to do with the "body of churches derived from the the church of the Byzantine Empire". That definition is "adhering to the accepted or traditional and established faith". (Heterodox would then be "holding unorthodox opinions".) So using the small "o" definition, we can also say that the Church headed by the Roman Pontiff is also "orthodox".

There is precedence. Remember that "Church" (capital "C") and "church" (small "c") seem the same, but are actually there two different meanings. Same with "Tradition" (capital "T") and "tradition" (small "t"). So, what orthodox are we 100% sure that is actually being used here--the one indicating the "body of churches derived from the Byzantine Empire" or the one meaning "adhering to accepted traditional faith". If it is the small "o" definition, we can say that both lungs of the Church (Eastern Rites and Roman Rite) are orthodox.

[prodromos]

To be Eastern Catholic is to be Orthodox in communion with Rome.Um, no. To be Eastern Catholic is to be Eastern Catholic. If you want to be Orthodox then there is a catechism class waiting for you.

[Orthosdoxa]

Um, no. To be Eastern Catholic is to be Eastern Catholic. If you want to be Orthodox then there is a catechism class waiting for you.
Exactly.

[Anhelyna]

Punchy

How would you describe yourself canonically ?

I have a feeling that this would help me , and possibly others as well , to know where you are coming from .

I'm getting an awful lot of mixed messages here

[Irish Melkite]

100% wrong. Roman Rite is it's own Rite.

No, there is no "Roman Rite" - there is a "Latin Rite"

We pass very few items through Rome for approval and are not bound by most of what the RC sends out.

The Ruthenian Church sui iuris of the Metropolia of Pittsburgh of the Ruthenians is actually significantly more encumbered by Rome than its Sister Patriarchal and Major-Archepiscopal Churches. It does have somewhat more authority than its Sister Eparchial Churches.

under Metroploitan Basil's rules and guidence

Actually under the Council of Hierarchs.

Now 20 years ago you could have had an arugument, as much of the Eastern church was wrapped in Latin (Roman) Rite traditions and laws. That all went away and we are very independent.

Those of my Ruthenian brothers and sisters who continue to be disenchanted by the failure of the Ruthenian Metropolia (except the Eparchy of Parma of the Ruthenians) to reassert its historical praxis and ordain married men to the presbyterate would take rather much issue with that.

Many years,

Neil

[Irish Melkite]

Arabic-speaking Christians do it too. They don't use the term "Catholic" for us at all, in order not to create confusion, since they are conversant with the Greek term Katholikos in its original sense of "universal". They call Catholics "Rumi", "Roman" - whether they are Latin-rite or Eastern Catholic.

Actually, the usage is Roum - "Roum Catolique" refers to Melkite Catholics only; "Roum Orthodoxe" refers to Antiochian (or, as they were once termed) Melkite Orthodox only. The word Roum is in reference to New Rome (Byzantium or Constantinople) - it has nothing to do with Western or First Rome.

Many years,

Neil

[Irish Melkite]

Um, no. To be Eastern Catholic is to be Eastern Catholic. If you want to be Orthodox then there is a catechism class waiting for you.

John, my brother,

Nice to see you. Allow me to echo your post :thumbsup:

Punchy,

Your postings, as my sister, Anhelyna, has suggested, are doing little but causing confusion. I'd also suggest that there's not a lot of clear understanding of the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches and Rites being demonstrated by the majority of the Latin participants to this thread.

The link that Anhelyna posted to my text on the CA forum can also be read in the Wiki at this site - albeit one or both might be a bit out of date as regards the names of a couple of primatial hierarchs. I recommend reading one or the other; even out-of-date they'll afford significant more understanding of the structure of the Churches sui iuris (not sui generis) that together constitute the Catholic Church than is presently being exhibited.

Many years,

Neil

[Globalnomad]

Actually, the usage is Roum - "Roum Catolique" refers to Melkite Catholics only; "Roum Orthodoxe" refers to Antiochian (or, as they were once termed) Melkite Orthodox only. The word Roum is in reference to New Rome (Byzantium or Constantinople) - it has nothing to do with Western or First Rome.

Many years,

Neil

Tahnks, Neil.

Ouch. YET another usage of the words. It seems as if every country, language and rite uses these words with different meanings....

Roum (or Roumi, or Rumi) is used among Egyptian Christians to denote Coptic Catholics as well as Latin Catholics. That is where I get my usage from.

Look, everyone, PLEASE stop getting offended. We obvioudsly all know the difference between a rite and a church - nobody needs to think they are being considered "less than Catholic". All we are arguing about is the most efficient single way of labelling ourselves, that does not need to change depending on the country/culture you are in.

OK, if it is too sensitive to call ourselves Roman Catholics - given people like NYJ who think it's pejorative, and people like Anhelyna who think they are being coopted by Big Brother - then there is no alternative to calling ourselves simply Catholics.

But then:

1. we must strongly protest every time someone uses the term "Roman Catholic" for the Church rather than simply for the rite. That'll be a lot of protesting! - but then we owe it to our Eastern-rite brothers, who are too often believed not to be real Catholics since they are not Roman.

2. Drop the term "Latin Rite" since it duplicates "Roman Rite": again, protest every time our liturgists use it.

3. Correct all Middle Easterners who use the word "Roumi" to denote those who are in communion with Rome. Good luck with that.

4. Keep emphasising - AMDG's useful post refers - that the word Catholic in "Catholic Church" is meant with a big C. catholic with a small c is the Universal Church, which subsists in the Catholic Church but is not congruent with it. And this is an important point (I'll admit, it was the reason why I was trying to push the use of the qualifying word "Roman" for all of us). Remember after all that we ARE trying to reconcile with the Orthodox.

[Anhelyna]

1. we must strongly protest every time someone uses the term "Roman Catholic" for the Church rather than simply for the rite. That'll be a lot of protesting! - but then we owe it to our Eastern-rite brothers, who are too often believed not to be real Catholics since they are not Roman.Yes please - that will do very very nicely :D as long as you remember that you are LATIN' Rite folk :D

I'll now quote from Neil here [ and yes I had slipped up too :D ] No, there is no "Roman Rite" - there is a "Latin Rite"

[prodromos]

John, my brother,

Nice to see you. Allow me to echo your post :thumbsup::wave: nice to see you too dear brother.

[AMDG]

[ and yes I had slipped up too :D ]

It's far, far too easy to slip up. :hug: And that "Roman Catholic" gives me the willies too (like fingernails screeching across a blackboard), but I've actually been "called on the carpet" for protesting that term and insisting on "Catholic". "Roman Catholic" is such a popular term now that I don't think anyone wants to even know the correct term.

But I'm not quite sure why Global wants us to forget that we are separate Rites within the one Church. East is East and West is West. There are two ways of expressing one idea--the Eastern way and the Western way and both are correct. Might I even go so far as to say that we need each other--as one songwriter put it "as the sunshine needs the rain".

[Globalnomad]

It's far, far too easy to slip up. :hug: And that "Roman Catholic" gives me the willies too (like fingernails screeching across a blackboard), but I've actually been "called on the carpet" for protesting that term and insisting on "Catholic". "Roman Catholic" is such a popular term now that I don't think anyone wants to even know the correct term.

But I'm not quite sure why Global wants us to forget that we are separate Rites within the one Church. East is East and West is West. There are two ways of expressing one idea--the Eastern way and the Western way and both are correct. Might I even go so far as to say that we need each other--as one songwriter put it "as the sunshine needs the rain".

:eek: Did I ever give the impression I want us to forget that????? Heck, no, never - I don't know how you managed to misunderstand me!! I was only getting picky with the terminology of how we call our different Rites. The way youall make it sound, we should drop the word "Roman" completely, in any context - I don't see you leaving it any "raison d'être" at all. Which in the end, I think, is a pity. But, as my kids would say, whatever. This is not something worth fighting about.

Incidentally, I have realised that I hijacked the thread somewhat, and I want to apologize. The original theme was not the "labels" - it was, I think, the question of WHAT, if anything, divides us, in addition to the liturgy and married/non-married priests. That is in fact a far more interesting question, and not so simple.

"Eastern ways of thinking". Hmmm. Tell me, non-Latin Catholics on this thread, how do you define the Immaculate Conception and Purgatory? (Links to Estern Catholic writings on thes points, perhaps, please?) You believe in both, of course - but I suspect you think about them in slightly different terms from ours. And do you have the concept of theosis?

[AMDG]

:eek: Did I ever give the impression I want us to forget that????? Heck, no, never - I don't know how you managed to misunderstand me!! I was only getting picky with the terminology of how we call our different Rites. The way youall make it sound, we should drop the word "Roman" completely, in any context - I don't see you leaving it any "raison d'être" at all. Which in the end, I think, is a pity. But, as my kids would say, whatever. This is not something worth fighting about.



Sorry, I must have read the post while I was waking up and without the benefit of coffee. Will give it a proper read now.

BTW, I agree. :hug: This is not worth fighting over. We need each other (I was awake for that one!) ;)

[Globalnomad]

Sorry, I must have read the post while I was waking up and without the benefit of coffee. Will give it a proper read now.

BTW, I agree. :hug: This is not worth fighting over. We need each other (I was awake for that one!) ;)



:hug: :)

[AMDG]

"Eastern ways of thinking". Hmmm. Tell me, non-Latin Catholics on this thread, how do you define the Immaculate Conception and Purgatory? (Links to Estern Catholic writings on thes points, perhaps, please?) You believe in both, of course - but I suspect you think about them in slightly different terms from ours. And do you have the concept of theosis?

Ummm--I'm Latin rite, but like I said, was taught spirituality by a bi-ritual Eastern Rite (Byzantine--Rutherian Rite priest :::I bet I put the designation wrong, but you get the idea where he was coming from::: ) and I'd like to address the Immaculate Conception and Purgatory if I may.

First the Immaculate Conception. We of the Latin Rite will say that the Theotokos--err Blessed Virgin--was conceived without sin (and we can cite Scripture about this). Now although I believe the Eastern thought does not include "original sin", the Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God "Panagia" ("the All-Holy") and celebrate her as "free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature". It seems the terms are like six-of-one/half dozen of the other. Seems to be just a word for the same concept.

As to Purgatory, well, Scripture tells us that nothing unclean can enter into heaven. And so, we will have a "purgation" of some type IF our destination is heaven--doesn't matter what one believes or what word for the concept is used.

IMO (and remember my opinion and four quarters will get you a dollar) is that Eastern thought is more mystical and Western thought is more legalistic. It's the Western mind that wants every little "i" dotted, while the Eastern mind is content with mystery. And without each other, we experience a "hunger" because the whole concept of a matter can't really be experienced, Sort of like one person said about different languages--in his opinion, Russian is more "spiritual" and German is more "instructional". So when he needs to experience things in a spiritual way, he says he reads it in Russian, but he reads instruction manuals in German.

Oh, I hope I haven't offended anyone.

[Punchy]

Um, no. To be Eastern Catholic is to be Eastern Catholic. If you want to be Orthodox then there is a catechism class waiting for you.

Why have you ignored everything I've posted about the Eastern Catholic Churches in this thread?

[Punchy]

How would you describe yourself canonically ?


Byzantine Catholic. One should be aware that Eastern Catholics commonly refer to themselves as "Orthodox in communion with Rome" and that it's right and proper for an Eastern Catholic to believe everything that Eastern Orthodoxy teaches. If we are nothing more than latinized Eastern Christians, why do we not include the filioque in the creed?


Elias Zoghby (born January 9, 1912) is the retired Melkite Greek Catholic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melkite_Greek_Catholic_Church) Archbishop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archbishop) of Baalbek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baalbek) and a leading advocate of Catholic-Orthodox ecumenism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenism). He is best known for his 1995 Profession of Faith, known as the Zoghby Initiative, which attempted to re-establish communion between the Melkite Greek Catholic Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melkite_Greek_Catholic_Church) and the Eastern Orthodox Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church) while maintaining communion with the Roman Catholic Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church).

In 1975, Zoghby first suggested that the Melkite church might enter communion with the Orthodox churches without ceasing to be in communion with Rome. After consideration, the Melkite Synod effectively shelved proposal. [5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elias_Zoghby#_note-4)

In February 1995, Zoghby declared this Profession of Faith:

1. I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.

2. I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation.

At the 1995 meeting of the Melkite Synod, twenty-four of the twenty-six attending bishops present subscribed to the so-called "Zoghby Initiative".[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elias_Zoghby#_note-5)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elias_Zoghby



Ecclesiastical Communion (http://www.mliles.com/melkite/popecommunion.shtml) means that Melkites recognize the Holy See of Rome and that direct successor (the Patriarch of the West) of The Holy, Glorious and Illustrious Prince of the Apostles Peter (http://www.mliles.com/melkite/apostlepeter.shtml) "in the primacy". That direct successor, the Patriarch of the West, is the "first among equals". "Equals" are the other Patriarchs, one of which is The Patriarch of Antioch (http://www.mliles.com/melkite/patriarch.shtml) . (The Patriarch of Antioch is also a direct successor of The Holy, Glorious and Illustrious Prince of the Apostles Peter, but he is not "in the primacy".)
The title given to the Patriarch of the West (Holy See of Rome) as the direct successor of The Holy, Glorious and Illustrious Prince of the Apostles Peter "in the primacy" is "Pope" (http://www.mliles.com/melkite/pope.shtml). The current Patriarch of the West and Pope is His Holiness Benedictus XVI (Benedict XVI).
http://www.mliles.com/melkite/



Canon 28
A rite is the liturgical, theological, spiritual and disciplinary patrimony, culture and circumstances of history of a distinct people, by which its own manner of living the faith is manifested in each Church sui iuris.
§2. The rites treated in this code, unless otherwise stated, are those which arise from the Alexandrian, Antiochene, Armenian, Chaldean and Constantinopolitan traditions.
http://www.jgray.org/codes/cceo90eng.html (http://www.jgray.org/codes/cceo90eng.html)

[prodromos]

Why have you ignored everything I've posted about the Eastern Catholic Churches in this thread?You are free to call yourself whatever you want, but it doesn't necessarily make it real. For example, there is a former Yugoslav republic, north of Greece and west of Bulgaria which calls itself the 'Republic of Macedonia' or simply 'Macedonia' and the people there and in the diaspora call themselves 'Macedonians'. Now the truth of the matter is that they are in fact Bulgarian Slavs who have been fed this propaganda by their Communist government in order to lay claim to the region of Northern Greece which is known as Macedonia. They do not in fact have any ancestral links to the ancient Macedonians (a Greek tribe) and their country lies outside the original borders of the ancient Macedonian kingdom as it was under King Philip, the father of Alexander the Great.
They, however, have bought the entire fable they have been fed and demand that the rest of the world recognises them as 'Macedonians'.

The facts of the matter are that the Orthodox Church rejects the Latin ecclesiology and some aspects of her theology as error and cannot accept Rome into communion with the Church until those errors are dealt with. So Zoghby's claims that Eastern Catholics "believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches" is obviously not a true statement. It might sound good to you guys but it rings very hollow to us.

[Globalnomad]

You know, considering that the Catholic Church is defined as "more legalistic and less spiritual" than the Orthodox - and I think we generally accept and agree with that - we seem to be both acting very uncharacteristically on this. As AMDG said (interesting post, thanks!) we regard a lot of the ecclesiological and theological differences between us as "six-of-one-half-a-dozen of the other". It is the Orthodox who seem to be more legalistic on them.

Just what are the ecclesiological and theological differences you are referring to, Prodromos? (Don't bother mentioning the status of the Bishop of Rome - we all know that that is a serious difference - I am interested in your view of the others.)

Friends, let's remember that this is a "Latin-versus-Eastern-Catholic" thread - let's keep the standard Catholic-Orthodox disputes out of it. I am just asking Prodromos to elucidate, because I do think the question is pertinent to a proper perspective of our Eastern-Western-Catholic differences.

[Punchy]

So Zoghby's claims that Eastern Catholics "believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches" is obviously not a true statement. It might sound good to you guys but it rings very hollow to us.

You have a right to your opinion, but in its first thousand years, the Eastern Church was in communion with Rome, just as the Church of Rome was in communion with the East.

[zhilan]

I don't understand why there are different standards for Latin Rite and Eastern Rite Catholics. When a Latin Rite Catholic says they don't see the Pope as infallible but a leader among equals or does not buy into the IC or purgatory he is labeled a liberal or worse and is generally told he is not a Catholic. If he claimed to be "Anglican in communion with Rome" would be be able to opt out of the infallible teachings of the Church? Why are members here so quick to leap onto any Latin Rite Catholic who doesn't believe 100% in Catholic teachings but then parade to the Orthodox how they could come back into Communion without really changing their beliefs? Why is there a double standard?

[AMDG]

I don't understand why there are different standards for Latin Rite and Eastern Rite Catholics. When a Latin Rite Catholic says they don't see the Pope as infallible but a leader among equals or does not buy into the IC or purgatory he is labeled a liberal or worse and is generally told he is not a Catholic. If he claimed to be "Anglican in communion with Rome" would be be able to opt out of the infallible teachings of the Church? Why are members here so quick to leap onto any Latin Rite Catholic who doesn't believe 100% in Catholic teachings but then parade to the Orthodox how they could come back into Communion without really changing their beliefs? Why is there a double standard?

Perhaps the reason is that the Eastern Rites are not questioning anything. There is acceptance (sometimes tacit, and sometimes it's the same concept under a different terminology. There is no prideful "I want it my way.") Some of the Eastern Rites have worked out their differences with the Holy See and decided to come back into the fold, and I think there are one or two (like the Marionites) who never left to begin with! IMO, I don't think it's even similar with the liberals. With them it's more like "I just don't want to believe and no one can force me to look into the matter to work out those differences, I just want the Church to accept those differences."

I think that it's perfectly within the rights of an organization to have rules and to expect it's members to believe all the things the organization espouses whether the organization be the local Kiwanas club or the Church.

[Punchy]

Why is there a double standard?

Latin theology is for Latin Christians and Eastern theology is for Eastern Christians.

[a_ntv]

I don't understand why there are different standards for Latin Rite and Eastern Rite Catholics. When a Latin Rite Catholic says they don't see the Pope as infallible but a leader among equals or does not buy into the IC or purgatory he is labeled a liberal or worse and is generally told he is not a Catholic. If he claimed to be "Anglican in communion with Rome" would be be able to opt out of the infallible teachings of the Church? Why are members here so quick to leap onto any Latin Rite Catholic who doesn't believe 100% in Catholic teachings but then parade to the Orthodox how they could come back into Communion without really changing their beliefs? Why is there a double standard?

Consider a mountain.

You can climb a side, or you can climb the opposite side: it is ok anyway.

But to climb you need a guide (the church) that teach you the right path.

It is important to follow the guide, not to go by yourself.

So you cannot choose by yourself what you believe or what you dont.
If Latin, you cannot reject the IC or the rosary
If Eastern you cannot reject the need of fast or a propter Liturgy

Thanks to the EC, we Latin catholics have understood that the East way to climb the mountain is a correct one,(if done following the East Church), even if it follows a different path from ours
The EO have not jet all understood that the Western way to climb the mountain is a correct one too (if done following the West Church)

[Globalnomad]

Perhaps the reason is that the Eastern Rites are not questioning anything. There is acceptance (sometimes tacit, and sometimes it's the same concept under a different terminology. There is no prideful "I want it my way.") Some of the Eastern Rites have worked out their differences with the Holy See and decided to come back into the fold, and I think there are one or two (like the Marionites) who never left to begin with! IMO, I don't think it's even similar with the liberals. With them it's more like "I just don't want to believe and no one can force me to look into the matter to work out those differences, I just want the Church to accept those differences."

I think that it's perfectly within the rights of an organization to have rules and to expect it's members to believe all the things the organization espouses whether the organization be the local Kiwanas club or the Church.
AMDG, that was not quite true about liberals. In fact, most of us take pretty much the same view as how you define the ECs: acceptance (sometimes "against our judgement"), and sometimes it's the same concept under a different terminology. I know that is the way I relate to Papal infallibility... my view is closer to the Orthodox one about the infallibility of the Church.

Look zhilan and others, this is a complex issue. The same belief CAN be expressed in different ways, in different "theological languages". There can be no basic doctrinal difference between us, or we could not be in union; but there ARE different "languages" that make some doctrines sound quite different, even if they are basically not. Go ask - not a parish priest, he may not be trained for this - but any expert comparative theologian, s/he will confirm it.

I do not agree that "if we are Westerners, we cannot reject the IC". Neither LC nor EC may reject the doctrine of the complete purity and sinlessness of Mary as Mother of God (I have purposely used non-theological, ordinary words); but just as ECs may reject the specific definition of original sin that underlies the LC concept of the IC, I, as a LC, may also reject it if I feel that the Eastern theological language makes more sense to me. Same thing with all the other questionable concepts like Purgatory, Papal infallibility etc.

As for the Rosary - that is not something that anyone would reject. It is a tool of prayer. Use it, not use it, it is up to you. Nobody would force a LC to use it if the devotion does not speak to them - and no EC would be condmned if they wanted to use it. I must say, though, that I can't imagine a LC not wanting to use it at all, it is so ingrained in our bones from childhood on. Still, it's not a must, theologically.

[stivvy]

Punchy, welcome to the world of the Orthodox pride battle. They think they have the corner on tradition and eastern faith. This is the main reason I couldn't venture to them.

We are orthodox in our practice, tradition and faith while being led by the Holy Pontiff. We have the perfect world, and I believe many times they are jealous of that. They use their pride to try and make us feel we are nothing more than lost sheep and cannot be of orthodox. The ECC is the true representation of the other lung in the One True Faith, walking, as Jesus intended, hand in hand with our brothers and sister in the RCC

[Globalnomad]

Stivvy, no disrespect meant (I have a tremendously high regard for the riches of Eastern Catholicism), but that sounded prideful, too. Let's all try to cut it out. "Turning the other cheek" and all that. Remember, we are MANDATED to work towards reconciliation with the EO - (AND I AM GOING TO BITE THE HEAD OFF ANYONE WHO REMARKS THAT "ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS TO COME BACK TO THE FOLD"! :mad: ) and this tone will not help. Pride is there on all sides, unfortunately....

This having been said, I know that you ECs are getting the worst of Orthodox hate-vibes - much worse than us LCs. I'm sorry about that. You have all my sympathy... whatever good that may do... and prayers... and those DO help, I hope.

[AMDG]

This having been said, I know that ... ECs are getting the worst of Orthodox hate-vibes - ...

That is true and it just about sent me in all confusion. Hated (pure and unadulterated hate--forget about Jesus and His plea for unity) by the Eastern Orthodox while the Western Rite shows such ignorance. I don't know how the Eastern Rite Catholics manage to survive without a touch of pride for their history.

[Orthosdoxa]

.

[AMDG]

Wow.

:sigh:

I think it's really unfair to paint us all with the same brush. I'm sure there have been some Orthodox who are buttheads (just as the same word could describe some in your fold), and instead of recognizing that there are going to be some people like that in every group, some of you just put on the martyr's crown about how hateful the Orthodox are against you.

I still fail to see how it's pride to cling fiercely to traditions you feel are correct, and not compromise them for the sake of a false unity, but okay. (Some of) you say there are no real differences between us. I say, God bless Pope Benedict for being honest that there are. I was not offended by his recent proclamation, but relieved that he wasn't white washing things. Until there is more honesty about the REAL DIFFERENCES, there is no hope for REAL DIALOGUE.

But of course, I'm only saying that because I'm jealous that you have the papacy :scratch: , send off hate vibes to the EC's (much more than to the LC's I guess - good to know we do that), and have pure and unadulterated hate, forgetting about Jesus.

Nice.

:sigh:

Ever hear of the word "Uniate"? (It's used quite regularly by the Eastern Orthodox to describe Eastern Catholic Rites. It's not meant in a nice way or even a descriptive way.) I've also heard "We don't need you." (That's not what Our Lord said and I, for one, was just "floored".) :sigh: Indeed.

[Globalnomad]

Please don't get hurt, Orthosdoxa. I know there is a lot of hate-vibes out there (from both sides - or should I say all three!), but let's try to beat them down with love-vibes.

It is a fact that the EO-EC hostility is a lot deeper than the LC-EO one - it has to do, I understand, with a feeling that the EC "apostasised" from you, a point of view I can understand even if of course I cannot share it - but of course it hurts. Luckily there is plenty of understanding and cooperation, too, between all three of us.

You know, Orthosdoxa, we won't get anywhere in this dialogue if we stick to generalities. "I still fail to see how it's pride to cling fiercely to traditions you feel are correct, and not compromise them for the sake of a false unity" - of course you are right with that statement, as it stands - but the point is to go deeper and see just WHICH traditions are being menaced, and which ones are not. I think a lot of us would be pleasantly surprised if we dug deep into each issue one by one.

Well, this thread cannot go into all that - but as I asked Anhelyna before, it would be useful to get a list from you of the specific theological issues that you feel are at stake. Maybe we can open other threads on each of them!

:hug:

[Globalnomad]

Another example of terms beign used differently in different places, AMDG (like the "Roman" and "Latin" we were discussing earlier...) - I learnt the word Uniate in Italy, a long time ago, without the least negative connotation! Just an easier and shorter way of expressiong "in communion with Rome". Now, of course, I have learnt to be careful about using it - but it still surprises me that it should have such a load of hate attached to it.

[a_ntv]

Punchy, welcome to the world of the Orthodox pride battle. They think they have the corner on tradition and eastern faith. This is the main reason I couldn't venture to them.

We are orthodox in our practice, tradition and faith while being led by the Holy Pontiff. We have the perfect world, and I believe many times they are jealous of that. They use their pride to try and make us feel we are nothing more than lost sheep and cannot be of orthodox. The ECC is the true representation of the other lung in the One True Faith, walking, as Jesus intended, hand in hand with our brothers and sister in the RCC
"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to stivvy again."

[copticorthodoxy]

I think that some of the Eastern Catholic churches celebrate the Christmas in 7 January as the Orthodox

[Globalnomad]

Hi, Copticorthodoxy!

Well, the dates for Christmas and Easter are certainly something we could agree on. I think it would be great if we could all celebrate Christmas on 25 December and Easter on the Orthodox date, don't you think? But there is no theological reason not to keep to the separate traditional dates, if both sides feel too strongly about them. Still, Easter is the bigger feast and we really SHOULD celebrate it together - and I am pretty sure we Westerners would not mind switching to the Orthodox date.

[AMDG]

Another example of terms beign used differently in different places, AMDG (like the "Roman" and "Latin" we were discussing earlier...) - I learnt the word Uniate in Italy, a long time ago, without the least negative connotation! Just an easier and shorter way of expressiong "in communion with Rome". Now, of course, I have learnt to be careful about using it - but it still surprises me that it should have such a load of hate attached to it.

I actually learned the word from someone professing the Eastern Orthodox faith--he insisted that it meant "those who artificially adopted a union (which does not exist) for political reasons alone" not just "churches in communion with Rome". And I was really surprised at the load of hate attached to it. And yet, I know of writings which use the term without the menace attached. I also know others who have read those writings and wondered where on earth the author got the idea that the term wasn't meant to insult and cause division. I guess it's a little like the term "Roman Catholic" in that it was meant to insult, but there are some that simply ignore that connotation.

As far as the dates of particular celebrations, if it's for the same celebration, I fail to see the problem--it's not as if the feast is denied.

[Anhelyna]

Too rite [ yes pun intended :D ] we celebrate the same Feasts - well on the whole :)

Here in the UK we are on the Old / Julian Calendar - like many of our Orthodox Christian Brothers and Sisters.

In many respects it gives us the best of both worlds .

You are just about to have the Feast of the Assumption in the Latin Church.

Next Sunday we celebrate the Feast of the Transfiguration :)

[Michael the Iconographer]

Great article :thumbsup:

As an aside, the idea of Orthodox in Communion with Rome is a good statement. The position of Rome is that the doctrines of Eastern Orthodoxy are valid, orthodox, expressions of the deposit of faith with the exception of the authority of the Bishop of Rome. An Eastern Catholic can profess the same faith as the EO, but also be in full communion with the Apostolic See. When Pope Leo XIII explained this fact to the EO patriarchs, they unfortunately responded that they had a different view of the orthodoxy of our faith.
An Eastern Catholic can not express the same faith as Orthodoxy and still be Catholic. Orthodox see original sin in a very different light from the Catholic Church, and the idea of the Immaculate Conception goes against Orthodox doctrine as well. The idea that some one would make such a comment that you can teach Orthodox Christianity and still be in union with Rome reveals how little the person making the statement actually knows about Orthodox doctrine. I would know this because I spent 2 years as a Byzantine Catholic prior to my Chrismation in the Orthodox Church.

[AMDG]

You are just about to have the Feast of the Assumption in the Latin Church.

Next Sunday we celebrate the Feast of the Transfiguration :)

Yes, the Latin Rite will celebrate the Feast of the Assumption on Wednesday. It is a Holy Day of Obligation.

The Byzantine Catholic Rite Church near me lists the Holy Day of Obligation as the Feast of the Dormition of the Theotokos.

In comparison, the Latin Rite celebrates the Transfiguration on a Sunday and a bit earlier--but it's celebrated none-the-less.

[Anhelyna]

AMDG - look at my post again :)

I commented that we were on the Old/Julian Calendar - that 13 day slip .

For me - the Dormition of the Theotokos is on the 28th August :) and the Fast in preparation is about to start

[Michael the Iconographer]

Yes, the Latin Rite will celebrate the Feast of the Assumption on Wednesday. It is a Holy Day of Obligation.

The Byzantine Catholic Rite Church near me lists the Holy Day of Obligation as the Feast of the Dormition of the Theotokos.

In comparison, the Latin Rite celebrates the Transfiguration on a Sunday and a bit earlier--but it's celebrated none-the-less.
Orthodox Churches do not have Holy Days of Obligation the way the Roman Catholic Church has. There is no penalty of sin if you miss a holy day. This is just a further example of how Byzantine Churches can not say they are orthodox while following Roman Catholic teaching.

[AMDG]

Orthodox Churches do not have Holy Days of Obligation the way the Roman Catholic Church has. There is no penalty of sin if you miss a holy day. This is just a further example of how Byzantine Churches can not say they are orthodox while following Roman Catholic teaching.

Am afraid this is going off topic, but I'll comment and out of curiosity, I'll ask a question. Seems to me, that requiring members to follow certain requirements is the perogative of an organization, and in this case it is the organization asking the members to "put their time and money where their mouths are" and honor the days in which even Scripture tells us we are to "come together to worship as a community". This comes under honoring "authority" or the "Honor thy Father and thy Mother" Commandment. The Church has chosen Sunday's to normally be these "holy days of obligation", but there are some special days as well--the U.S.A. normally has six (of course one of these days has been transferred to the Sunday in some places.) So, IMO, the penalty of sin for disregarding "family rules" is one of failure to "honor" authority.

Are you saying that the Eastern Orthodox Church does not require its members to follow it's rules and regulations? If so, yes, that is a difference indeed and if so, it doesn't seem very orthodox (small "o"). Is it possible that there might be a misunderstanding?

[Michael the Iconographer]

Am afraid this is going off topic, but I'll comment and out of curiosity, I'll ask a question. Seems to me, that requiring members to follow certain requirements is the perogative of an organization, and in this case it is the organization asking the members to "put their time and money where their mouths are" and honor the days in which even Scripture tells us we are to "come together to worship as a community". This comes under honoring "authority" or the "Honor thy Father and thy Mother" Commandment. The Church has chosen Sunday's to normally be these "holy days of obligation", but there are some special days as well--the U.S.A. normally has six (of course one of these days has been transferred to the Sunday in some places.) So, IMO, the penalty of sin for disregarding "family rules" is one of failure to "honor" authority.

Are you saying that the Eastern Orthodox Church does not require its members to follow it's rules and regulations? If so, yes, that is a difference indeed and if so, it doesn't seem very orthodox (small "o"). Is it possible that there might be a misunderstanding?
What I am saying is Eastern Orthodoxy does not put a penalty of mortal sin upon those who do not attend Holy Day services. There is no formal pronouncement of it the way the Roman Catholic Church has made it clear that if you miss a Holy Day of Obligation you have committed mortal sin. The whole Orthodox view of sin is completely different from that of the Roman Catholic Church, and thus the Byzantines can not say they teach Orthodoxy but are under Rome.

[stivvy]

An Eastern Catholic can not express the same faith as Orthodoxy and still be Catholic. Orthodox see original sin in a very different light from the Catholic Church, and the idea of the Immaculate Conception goes against Orthodox doctrine as well. The idea that some one would make such a comment that you can teach Orthodox Christianity and still be in union with Rome reveals how little the person making the statement actually knows about Orthodox doctrine. I would know this because I spent 2 years as a Byzantine Catholic prior to my Chrismation in the Orthodox Church.
Oh my, a whole 2 years. Well excuse me master! Come on! That is a ridiculous statement to support your statement!

I love my orthodox brothers and sisters, but to say because we are in unity with the pontiff that we are serving in a "false unity" and that we have no clue about what it means to be orthodox because we "recognize and accept" the RC views on the subjects you use as an example are just ignorant rants. We are more loving because we do accept those, but we do not need to embrace them into our practice. That is, my brother, true unity. So take your anger and take it back to your TAW. Thank you and God bless.

[Michael the Iconographer]

Oh my, a whole 2 years. Well excuse me master! Come on! That is a ridiculous statement to support your statement!

I love my orthodox brothers and sisters, but to say because we are in unity with the pontiff that we are serving in a "false unity" and that we have no clue about what it means to be orthodox because we "recognize and accept" the RC views on the subjects you use as an example are just ignorant rants. We are more loving because we do accept those, but we do not need to embrace them into our practice. That is, my brother, true unity. So take your anger and take it back to your TAW. Thank you and God bless.

No, not an ignorant rant. I grew up Roman Catholic, studied in seminary and know the Byzantine Church fairly well. I also know the Orthodox Church very well, having spent the past 9 years in it. I did not bring up the multitude other points there are to prove the point that Byzantines are not Orthodox in union with Rome they claim to be because I have already stated them time and again in OBOB and I do not want to beat a dead horse. So maybe you should take yourself back to those posts and read what myself and the others from TAW have had to say about the whole issue in our ignorant rants there. Byzantine Catholics are not Orthodox in union with Rome because Rome and Orthodoxy are mutually exclusive of each other and to be both Roman and Orthodox is impossible. But then, what do I know, I am just another ignorant rant. But then what do you know about Orthodoxy since you are NOT Orthodox?

[prodromos]

Punchy, welcome to the world of the Orthodox pride battle. They think they have the corner on tradition and eastern faith.If you think my response to Punchy's assertions is the result of pride then you are gravely mistaken. I am the most miserable of worms who has been shown immeasurable mercy by God of which I am completely unworthy. I cannot express how unworthy I am to have been led by God into Holy Orthodoxy. If you are looking for pride, you won't find it here.
We are orthodox in our practice, tradition and faith while being led by the Holy Pontiff. We have the perfect world, and I believe many times they are jealous of that.What precisely would give us cause for jealousy? We have not had a papacy yet have maintained the Orthodox faith for centuries without it. What possible benefit could we possibly derive from the papacy?
They use their pride to try and make us feel we are nothing more than lost sheep and cannot be of orthodox. The ECC is the true representation of the other lung in the One True Faith, walking, as Jesus intended, hand in hand with our brothers and sister in the RCCAnd you accuse us of pride!

[Globalnomad]

Michael, for someone who grew up as a Catholic and studied in a seminary, you seem to give undue importance to that point regarding holidays of obligation. Yes, they are defined as "mortal sins", but this is not a point of doctrine, but of Church discipline. In other words, it is only a "club rule" that applies to Catholics only, and can be changed at any time by the Pope. The reason they are defined as "mortal sins" is not that it is intrinsically evil to miss Mass on a holyday, but that by doing so, you are flouting a basic "club rule". If (when!) we achieve unity, there will be no theological problem about keeping this rule valid just for the "Western club" but not for the "Eastern club", for whom it was never a rule. Just like priests marrying... no theological problem about keeping separate rules there, either.

[stivvy]

...you are NOT Orthodox?
I sure am. But love you anyways! Hehehe. We are in the truest sense of the word, since we have not only kept tradition, but stayed in the One True Faith, the church of Jesus the Christ Himself.

I have followed your rants and raves about what you believe and how you feel about us Eastern Catholics. None of it holds water with me. You can't look beyond your shady knowlege of the relationship into the cooperation that continues to grow. But I understand, without embracing the EC and living it, you only have your "studies" to fall back on. Taking things out of context and trying to make a case out of it is a famous route of our fallen Lutheren Brothers and Sisters how they use Sola Scripture to do the same thing, but instead you use history and tradition. Gotta see, perform, and react in order to get the whole picture.

You state so many things but never listen to the fact of what actually is happening in the church and obviously are not participating in it. So your bias overwelmingly defunks your arguments.

[Anhelyna]

Stivvy

That's going just a wee bit far . :scratch: :(

[stivvy]

Stivvy

That's going just a wee bit far . :scratch: :(
How so?

[Globalnomad]

Sorry Stivvy, I agree with Anhelyna. Please cut it out, both of you (Michael is not exactly being an archangel either) or the mods will quite rightfully close this thread. It was not even meant to be a Catholic-Orthodox thread, it was meant to be a LC-EC one, and you are spoiling it.

[Davidnic]

Michael, for someone who grew up as a Catholic and studied in a seminary, you seem to give undue importance to that point regarding holidays of obligation. Yes, they are defined as "mortal sins", but this is not a point of doctrine, but of Church discipline. In other words, it is only a "club rule" that applies to Catholics only, and can be changed at any time by the Pope. The reason they are defined as "mortal sins" is not that it is intrinsically evil to miss Mass on a holyday, but that by doing so, you are flouting a basic "club rule". If (when!) we achieve unity, there will be no theological problem about keeping this rule valid just for the "Western club" but not for the "Eastern club", for whom it was never a rule. Just like priests marrying... no theological problem about keeping separate rules there, either.

I would not say it is a mortal sin because it is a "club rule". It is a mortal sin because if you miss it saying (actually saying that or implying it) that there is something better you can do that day to keep it holy that is greater than the Eucharist...then it is a pretty direct slap at God. And I think that our Orthodox brothers and sisters would agree that to miss mass on Sunday or a Holy Day without a valid reason is very problematic to our relationship with God. An if we discuss sin as a damaged relationship (because it is) we see how our theological views are closer than we admit sometimes. They are not exclusive of each other.

Of course there are many circumstances that could mitigate that fact.
Many...many things that could make it not a mortal sin. And a priest in confession would clear that up.

But you are right that the points of view on this are not exclusive or divisive by their nature.

[Michael the Iconographer]

Michael, for someone who grew up as a Catholic and studied in a seminary, you seem to give undue importance to that point regarding holidays of obligation. Yes, they are defined as "mortal sins", but this is not a point of doctrine, but of Church discipline. In other words, it is only a "club rule" that applies to Catholics only, and can be changed at any time by the Pope. The reason they are defined as "mortal sins" is not that it is intrinsically evil to miss Mass on a holyday, but that by doing so, you are flouting a basic "club rule". If (when!) we achieve unity, there will be no theological problem about keeping this rule valid just for the "Western club" but not for the "Eastern club", for whom it was never a rule. Just like priests marrying... no theological problem about keeping separate rules there, either.
Orthodoxy sees a major theological problem with the idea of mortal sin. I don't get your idea of club rules. It really does play down the vital differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy which we, atleast, see as being grave.

[Globalnomad]

Orthodoxy sees a major theological problem with the idea of mortal sin. I don't get your idea of club rules. It really does play down the vital differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy which we, atleast, see as being grave.
Sorry, Michael, perhaps my expression "club rules" does sound as if it minimized the issue - but the difference between a doctrine and a Church discipline IS vital. (It was the first thing I learnt on CF when I started here in 2005 - I got quite a sharp put-down by someone because I had confused the two - I am so grateful for that piece of learning now!) That is something we do have to understand if we are not to create nonexistent difficulties.

The concept of mortal sin? I never realised we have a problem with that. I'd love to ask you to elucidate, but perhaps we'd better do it in another thread, or you could PM me - I am really a bit concerned that this one is going off-track.

[Davidnic]

The concept of mortal sin? I never realised we have a problem with that. I'd love to ask you to elucidate, but perhaps we'd better do it in another thread, or you could PM me - I am really a bit concerned that this one is going off-track.

We could have the discussion in the Apostolic forum. That is why it is there. We can bring up points and not be held by safe haven debate rules. Just the rules of civil behavior. ;)

Ah. Saint Augustine. A topic we will all need to discuss before unity.

[Davidnic]

I made a thread on it and related issues over in the Apostolic Forum (link) (http://www.christianforums.com/t5899487-a-discussion-of-the-catholic-and-orthodox-views-on-mortal-sin-and-realted-issues.html#post37645227)

I think it is an important discussion.

[AMDG]

We could have the discussion in the Apostolic forum. That is why it is there. We can bring up points and not be held by safe haven debate rules. Just the rules of civil behavior. ;)



Sorry Global, this IS off topic. And I'm sorry to you too Davidnic, but when you have debating, things get to be real "uncivil" real fast. So if the problems are not going to be addressed except in the apostolic debating thread, it might as well be addressed in a PM. IMO there is nothing to be gained (or learned) when things get "down and dirty" in debate!

[Globalnomad]

I made a thread on it and related issues over in the Apostolic Forum (link) (http://www.christianforums.com/t5899487-a-discussion-of-the-catholic-and-orthodox-views-on-mortal-sin-and-realted-issues.html#post37645227)

I think it is an important discussion.
Wow, thanks, Davidnic! I never discovered that forum before!

[Davidnic]

Sorry Global, this IS off topic. And I'm sorry to you too Davidnic, but when you have debating, things get to be real "uncivil" real fast. So if the problems are not going to be addressed except in the apostolic debating thread, it might as well be addressed in a PM. IMO there is nothing to be gained (or learned) when things get "down and dirty" in debate!

Sadly often true. Let us hope something good may come from it. But at least we can get this thread back on track to some extent. Apostolic is not knock down drag out debate area, more open discussion. And if we can not police ourselves in at least a few cases then we are the real divisions. But your point is, sadly, more often right than not.

[Anhelyna]

I'm sure now that what I have to say will not be received well by some people - but I feel it needs to be said.

BTW I have been EC for just under 2 years - and I know I have a lot to learn still. I'm in contact with other ECs and EOs and I learn from them and my SF.

Sadly I will not be in Church for the Dormition - I can't get to my Parish easily so I will worship at home - and yes - this has been discussed with my SF .

So please - don't anyone tell me it's a mortal sin to be absent - it's not . We do not have this legalistic mindset in the East , we are expected to go if it is possible - and the same applies on Sundays. If we can't we can't and we know what to do about it - and that will take me a good hour - far longer than going to a daily Mass at the nearest RC Church .

Now to the topic in hand

Oh my, a whole 2 years. Well excuse me master! Come on! That is a ridiculous statement to support your statement!

I love my orthodox brothers and sisters, but to say because we are in unity with the pontiff that we are serving in a "false unity" and that we have no clue about what it means to be orthodox because we "recognize and accept" the RC views on the subjects you use as an example are just ignorant rants. We are more loving because we do accept those, but we do not need to embrace them into our practice. That is, my brother, true unity. So take your anger and take it back to your TAW Thank you and God bless.Stivvy - what an example of Christian Love . Foot stamping will get you nowhere.

I am just another ignorant rant. But then what do you know about Orthodoxy since you are NOT Orthodox?Yes OK -Michael stamped his foot as well - but I have to admit that in many ways he is absolutely correct. We may not like what he has to say - but that is what the Orthodox Christians believe - and in all honesty we should not stamp our feet and cry - it's wrong.

We have a different outlook on many things.- but his view is as valid as mine . We need to learn to respect each other far more.



We are in the truest sense of the word, since we have not only kept tradition, but stayed in the One True Faith, the church of Jesus the Christ Himself.Stivvy - how triumphalistic can you get - go away and read a certain Chapter in Corinthians - you know the one - it says

1Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. 2And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing.
4Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; 5does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; 6does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; 7bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
8Love never fails...........11When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.Now how about closing this thread ? We are never going to agree on everything.

The sorry split between our Churches happened well over a thousand years ago . It's going to take a very long time to heal - and it won't happen by people saying - " Come back to us - we will forgive you " , we are going to have to meet in the middle at some time in the future.

[stivvy]

It isn't that I don't love, I do. I am simply defending my faith when someone comes in here time and time again and declares we have false unity. Thta is exactly what they declared about the EC. I am not going to stand for that at all. That is my passion. And I will not apologize for it.

Jesus declares in Matthew over and over again the Jewish leaders and priests who lead their people falsely and for their own profits and such as hypocrites and decievers and snakes and so many other not so nice things. He is just as passionate as I am about defending the church of God and it's people.

They cannot even come in here and respectfully treat us as brothers and sisters. They come in here and trash and whip their scorn and distaste for the EC. They want to squash our faith to be nothing more than someones lap dog. They do not recognize our sacriments and declare our priests null and void without aposteletic succession. This is the falsehood I stand up against.

So I think it is wrong to try and tell me not to do it. I pray for them and love them and our shared value on traditions and orthodoxy. So my love is there.

[Punchy]

An Eastern Catholic can not express the same faith as Orthodoxy and still be Catholic.

Elias Zoghby (born January 9, 1912) is the retired Melkite Greek Catholic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melkite_Greek_Catholic_Church) Archbishop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archbishop) of Baalbek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baalbek) and a leading advocate of Catholic-Orthodox ecumenism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenism). He is best known for his 1995 Profession of Faith, known as the Zoghby Initiative, which attempted to re-establish communion between the Melkite Greek Catholic Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melkite_Greek_Catholic_Church) and the Eastern Orthodox Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church) while maintaining communion with the Roman Catholic Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church).

In 1975, Zoghby first suggested that the Melkite church might enter communion with the Orthodox churches without ceasing to be in communion with Rome. After consideration, the Melkite Synod effectively shelved proposal. [5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elias_Zoghby#_note-4) In February 1995, Zoghby declared this Profession of Faith:

1. I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.

2. I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation.

At the 1995 meeting of the Melkite Synod, twenty-four of the twenty-six attending bishops present subscribed to the so-called "Zoghby Initiative".[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elias_Zoghby#_note-5)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elias_Zoghby

The relationship between the Eastern and Latin Rites is of diversity in unity. For its first thousand years, the Eastern Church was in communion with Rome, just as the Church of Rome was in communion with the East.

[Da_Funkey_Gibbon]

Just because one guy says something it doesn't make it true. You can't hold to everything Eastern Orthodoxy teaches and still be in full communion with Rome as things currently stand.

I'd never heard of Elias Zoghby before, but it seems to me that as his ideas are not accepted by either the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church, or even his own synod he is hardly an authoritative source on the issue.

[zhilan]

That is true and it just about sent me in all confusion. Hated (pure and unadulterated hate--forget about Jesus and His plea for unity) by the Eastern Orthodox while the Western Rite shows such ignorance. I don't know how the Eastern Rite Catholics manage to survive without a touch of pride for their history.
For the record, I don't have any hate for the EC. In fact, it was a wonderful EC priest who helped finally escort me to Orthodoxy. I think it's unfair, however, that Latin Catholics who say, don't see eye to eye with the Church on issues that HAVE NOT been declared infallible get told their are not Catholics and are in mortal sin and going to hell unless they repent while ECs are allowed to reject infallible doctrines of the Church with a pat on the head with an almost condescending "it's ok they are foreign."

[Da_Funkey_Gibbon]

For the record, I don't have any hate for the EC. In fact, it was a wonderful EC priest who helped finally escort me to Orthodoxy. I think it's unfair, however, that Latin Catholics who say, don't see eye to eye with the Church on issues that HAVE NOT been declared infallible get told their are not Catholics and are in mortal sin and going to hell unless they repent while ECs are allowed to reject infallible doctrines of the Church with a pat on the head with an almost condescending "it's ok they are foreign."
Exactly, that is so strange - I mean, maybe I'm missing something here, but the guy quoted above by Punchy seems to be about on the Hans Kung level of hetrodoxy, and yet because he's wrapped up in the Schism issue he seems to avoid the criticism that a Latin Rite theologian would undoubtedly get for asserting the same kind of stuff.

[Punchy]

Just because one guy says something it doesn't make it true.

We are not just speaking of "one guy," but his fellow Melkite bishops who signed it.

[stivvy]

Just because one guy says something it doesn't make it true. You can't hold to everything Eastern Orthodoxy teaches and still be in full communion with Rome as things currently stand.

I'd never heard of Elias Zoghby before, but it seems to me that as his ideas are not accepted by either the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church, or even his own synod he is hardly an authoritative source on the issue.
It isn't about agreeing with the way the orthodox church is today, but more of the traditions and faith practices that you find in the orthodox churchprior to schism. The other things that are outside the Catholic church's belief system that the Orthodox church practices today are not what we say the EC supprts. These are things such as not recognizing the authority of the pontiff and the invalidity of the Catholic priests and sacriments

[zhilan]

Also Stivvy,

I have no issue with you defending your faith. I have absolutely no issue with your belief and insistence that you are in the one true church and the only way to be fulfilled is to join it. I have no problem with your insistence that to be fully within the truth you must be under Rome. In fact, since you call yourself a Catholic, I HOPE that you believe that.

What I (and my fellow Orthodox) have a problem with is you telling us that you are the same belief as us, but under Rome. Because when you do that you try to put claims on OUR beliefs. I have seen for myself OBOB members be offended with Anglicans try to tell Catholics they they (the Anglicans) are actually Catholic just not under the Pope. Why does this offend you? Because you are Catholic a