Are Eastern Catholics considered in the same Catholic Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter coolcatholicguy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

coolcatholicguy

Guest
In other words, do they fit under “No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church” umbrella? What about Protestants?
 
coolcatholicguy said:
In other words, do they fit under “No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church” umbrella? What about Protestants?
Click to expand...
Given that there are twenty odd distinct sui iuris Catholic Churches - - - yes.

Go here to learn about only one of the EC Churches.

Just those in North America.

And a wiki bit - just remember that Wikipedia is subject to error. But this should have a somewhat complete list.

I am wondering what makes you ask the question. 🙂 Have you only heard of the EC recently? I really had no good idea of their existence until I was 21, and I had passed a parish 100’s of times throughout my youth. I had asked my Dad once what a Byzantine Catholic was, and he said a different kind of Catholic. He was raised at a time that you went to your parish in the rite that generations before you had gone to. You just did not do anything else. It was not until college that I went a Divine Liturgy - Byzantine Rite. In grad school I went to a Maronite liturgy. I now go to that same Church that I had passed so many times. It had remained in there in my subconscious all those years.😃
 
Baptism, specifically non-repeatable trinitarian baptism with water which intends to remit original sin’s damnation effect, unites one to the Church, as is stated in the CCC (#1271-1274) and canon law (CIC 849, CCEO 675).

All the baptized are part of the church, tho not all are in full communion with the visible church.

The Church’s definition of “outside the church” isn’t quite as simple as some wish it to be.

Especially with the teachings of Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood.
 
I have to say, Allyson, I’m reading the link on Byzantine Catholicism, and I find it very interesting. I had no idea until earlier this year Catholics besides Roman Catholics existed!
 
coolcatholicguy said:
In other words, do they fit under “No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church” umbrella? What about Protestants?
Click to expand...
An equally accurate question is “Are Roman Catholics considered in the same Catholic Church?” Maybe that will shed some light to the answer to your question.
 
coolcatholicguy said:
In other words, do they fit under “No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church” umbrella? What about Protestants?
Click to expand...
Yes they do, they are fully Catholic. That is the whole reason why saints like St. Josaphat were brutally martyred. If the Catholic Church is not the one true Church outside of which there is no salvation, then St. Josaphat should not have been canonized but condemned as a lunatic for throwing away his life for a cause that has absolutely nothing to do with truth or eternal salvation.

To put it differently: life is a gift from God and never to be thrown away over a trivial difference between two good ways to get to Heaven. ANYTHING, that can get anyone into Heaven is, by definition, good. And IF the Eastern Catholic martyrs could have been saved without unity with Rome, THEN these martyrs were enemies of the good, and died, not as witnesses to the good, but in opposition to it, for they held that unity of Rome was necessary for salvation.

Or if Patriarch Josef Slipy could have been saved by renouncing unity with Rome and becoming a Russian Orthodox (as was offered him) prelate then what he did by refusing was totally senseless. Either that or we can praise him for merely “following his conscience” but then he would be lowered to the level of a “great man” who followed his conscience like Gandhi.
 
Tradycja said:
Yes they do, they are fully Catholic. That is the whole reason why saints like St. Josaphat were brutally martyred. If the Catholic Church is not the one true Church outside of which there is no salvation, then St. Josaphat should not have been canonized but condemned as a lunatic for throwing away his life for a cause that has absolutely nothing to do with truth or eternal salvation.

To put it differently: life is a gift from God and never to be thrown away over a trivial difference between two good ways to get to Heaven. ANYTHING, that can get anyone into Heaven is, by definition, good. And IF the Eastern Catholic martyrs could have been saved without unity with Rome, THEN these martyrs were enemies of the good, and died, not as witnesses to the good, but in opposition to it, for they held that unity of Rome was necessary for salvation.

Or if Patriarch Josef Slipy could have been saved by renouncing unity with Rome and becoming a Russian Orthodox (as was offered him) prelate then what he did by refusing was totally senseless. Either that or we can praise him for merely “following his conscience” but then he would be lowered to the level of a “great man” who followed his conscience like Gandhi.
Click to expand...
You’re ignoring here the fact that Eastern Catholics recognize many saints that were not in communion with the bishop of Rome. In other words, Orthodox saints who became saints after the 1054 Schism. One primary example would be St. Gregory Palamas. His feast day is celebrated during the second Sunday of Great Lent by Byzantine Catholics, at least by the Melkites. Also, there are many other Orthodox saints who are venerated by Byzantine Catholics non-liturgically. A number of examples would be St. John of Kronstadt (my parish has an icon of him hanging in the narthex of our church), St. Seraphim of Sarov, Blessed Seraphim Rose, St. Theophan the Recluse, etc. The list can go on and on. These are saints that are highly revered and prayed to, albeit non-liturgically, by Eastern Catholics. So it would seem that communion with Rome is not a prerequisite for sainthood. Rome does not have a monopoly on canonization.

You also ignore the fact that many Ukrainian Catholics were “martyred” in the last century by Polish Roman Catholics simply because these Ukrainians clung to their authentic liturgical and ecclessial Tradition (which is Orthodox at its roots). Sadly, I can’t think of one of these people who have been officially canonized. Maybe one of our Ukrainian brethren can enlighten us.
 
I’d say the Vatican pretty much has a monopoly on the canonization of Saints recognized by the Catholic Church. The cases deciding the Sainthood of Blessed Andrew Shetypsky, Blessed Pavel Gojdich, Blessed Theodore Romzha and others are being handled by Rome, and apparently the Eastern Rite Churches are not objecting.
 
My point is that Rome did not canonize St. Gregory Palamas, St. Seraphim or Sarov, or any of the other saints mentioned in my previous post and honored by Eastern Catholics. Rome, therefore, does not have a monopoly on canonization.

As to whether or not Eastern Catholics are happy about the fact that it is up to Rome to canonize their saints, I’d recommend asking Eastern Catholics. I know a good number who would rather that Rome butt-out and allow Eastern Catholics to canonize their own saints, as it was in the days prior to the Schism. Personally I think its criminal that holy people like Kyr Elias Zoghby, Kyr Joseph Raya, and Metropolitan Andrew Sheptytsky are not on the fast-track to canonization, even though these men are held in the highest esteem in their particular Churches, and honored as “saints” by many members of those Churches.
 
Sounds a bit like picking and choosing. Rome should butt out in this instance, but when it comes to de-Latinization and the Revised Divine Liturgy in the Ruthenian Rite, then it’s “Rome has commanded us”
 
Seamus_L said:
Sounds a bit like picking and choosing. Rome should butt out in this instance, but when it comes to de-Latinization and the Revised Divine Liturgy in the Ruthenian Rite, then it’s “Rome has commanded us”
Click to expand...
In certain of the Oriental Churches, the call for “de-latinization” has been answered with Novus Ordo-inspired NEO-latinization and Rome has not seen fit (Summorum Pontificum notwithstanding) to say one word to correct what is truly a devastating trend. Rome says one thing and then does another. If Rome were to reject the Novus Ordo-inspired neo-latinizations, they would certainly go away quickly. But, of course, Rome has not. Talk about picking-and-choosing.

Quite a quandary.
 
Seamus_L said:
Sounds a bit like picking and choosing. Rome should butt out in this instance, but when it comes to de-Latinization and the Revised Divine Liturgy in the Ruthenian Rite, then it’s “Rome has commanded us”
Click to expand...
Not quite. The only reason I ever say “Rome has commanded us…” is because it’s usually the only argument that most Roman Catholics will listen to. I post with the presumption that the majority of people reading this forum are either Roman Catholics, or very Latinized Eastern Catholics. I also try to point out what Rome says for the sake of our Orthodox brethren who may have the misperception that Rome simply wants to absorb the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Churches and turn everybody into Roman Catholics.

But the fact is that the Eastern Churches (both Catholic and Orthodox) have a right to their authentic liturgical, theological, spiritual, etc. heritage, whether or not Rome says so. As to the Revised DL, the only reason I think Rome should butt-in in this case is because of the serious damage that it has done to many/most of the Ruthenian parishes in this county; damage that the Ruthenian hierarchy in this country doesn’t seem too concerned about. After doing so much to uphold the authentic liturgical tradition of the Slavic Churches with the publication of the “Ruthenian Rescension,” I would hope that Rome would give the same helping hand to the Slavic (mostly Ruthenian) Churches here in the U.S. Will Rome intervene? No. Should it? I don’t know. 🤷 I think the current situation will go much the same way as that which produced the “Ruthenian Rescension;” i.e. the bishops quibble amongst themselves for a number of decades, then, when they’re unable to reach a definitive conclusion, they will finally turn to Rome to adjudicate the issue. Rome, in turn, will uphold the highest standard of the Byzantine liturgical tradition. 👍
 
malphono said:
In certain of the Oriental Churches, the call for “de-latinization” has been answered with Novus Ordo-inspired NEO-latinization and Rome has not seen fit (Summorum Pontificum notwithstanding) to say one word to correct what is truly a devastating trend. Rome says one thing and then does another. If Rome were to reject the Novus Ordo-inspired neo-latinizations, they would certainly go away quickly. But, of course, Rome has not. Talk about picking-and-choosing.

Quite a quandary.
Click to expand...
Communion with Rome obviously has its pluses and minuses. 😦 It’s disheartening to hear Rome say one thing, then act in the opposite way. My heart goes out to you in the Oriental Churches, especially the Maronites.
 
I’ve heard both St. Photius and St. Gregory Palamas commemorated during Roman Liturgies. There are specific litanies of Saints, and the longest versions include a number of these Eastern Saints. I’ve heard quotes from both from the pulpit (from an FSSP trained priest, no less).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top