Arguments

[LoyalViews]

I absolutely LOVE the Eastern Church, and it’s traditions. Often times in forums, people seem to divide the Church into East and West. While the Church does breathe from two lungs, isn’t it also true that there is only ONE church, with two lungs, they being the East and West. The Roman church is just as much in communion with the Pope, the Successor of St Peter, as the Eastern church is, and I don’t understand why we are often hostile to each other. Aren’t our beliefs the same? Our Canon laws may differ, as do our traditions. But we are both just as Catholic as the other. Do I misunderstand? Why do we argue? I do hope I haven’t broken forum rules in any way, and if I have I greatly apologise! God Bless :byzsoc:

 

[LoyalViews]

I absolutely LOVE the Eastern Church, and it’s traditions. Often times in forums, people seem to divide the Church into East and West. While the Church does breathe from two lungs, isn’t it also true that there is only ONE church, with two lungs, they being the East and West. The Roman church is just as much in communion with the Pope, the Successor of St Peter, as the Eastern church is, and I don’t understand why we are often hostile to each other. Aren’t our beliefs the same? Our Canon laws may differ, as do our traditions. But we are both just as Catholic as the other. Do I misunderstand? Why do we argue? I do hope I haven’t broken forum rules in any way, and if I have I greatly apologise! God Bless :byzsoc:

To prevent an argument, I do realise that though we have the same core essential doctrine and dogma, as they are infallible truths, the way that we explain and view them are different.
I don’t want to start an argument, though, God Bless!

 

[Hesychios]

The “Two Lungs” analogy is actually a very poor one.

It juxtaposes the Latin/far western church with all the rest. That is misleading.

It would be far more accurate to reference the five fingers … or something like that

 

[LoyalViews]

The “Two Lungs” analogy is actually a very poor one.

It juxtaposes the Latin/far western church with all the rest. That is misleading.

It would be far more accurate to reference the five fingers … or something like that

That is much better. Believe me, I’m horrible at coming up with analogies, comparisons, quotes, and stuff like that

But, excuse my ignorance, could you please explain the 5 fingers analogy?

 

[Hesychios]

That is much better. Believe me, I’m horrible at coming up with analogies, comparisons, quotes, and stuff like that

Well, someone else popularized it, so I am not surprised that it will be used a lot. It’s not like you did anything wrong.

But, excuse my ignorance, could you please explain the 5 fingers analogy?

My point was that I thought the ‘two lung’ analogy was misleading, as if there is to say “Roman” and “Everything Else”. I won’t claim the five finger thing is much better, it was right off the top of my head when I wrote that. Maybe something that stands for four would be more accurate.

Depending on how one wants to count them, there may be five major religious traditions. Seriously, I think we could go deeper than five but I would at least include the Coptic/Egyptian and the Antiochian as well as the Roman. Then of course there is the Constantinopolitan, and one might want to include the Armenian as a unique tradition (I am not sure).

For their part the Constantinopolitan churches are, in some ways, closer to the Roman than to any of the other eastern traditions. If someone else was counting they might include the Byzantine rite as “western” compared to themselves.

The Church of the East (East Syrian) seems quite a bit different from the west Syrian (Antiochian), at least that is my impression, so some scholars might consider them unique. The rest of possible examples are mostly variations on one theme or another.

It’s just not fair to lump “all the east” into one bunch, I see them as each too unique.

 

[Aramis]

Canon Law expresses 6 major Rites:
Roman, Byzantine, Chaldean, Antiochene, Alexandrian, Armenian

Look at it as a tree struck by lightning…
One part (the Roman) has a straight trunk, and a few branches (Bragan, Mozarabic, Dominican, Ambrosian, Anglican Use, Carmelite, Carthusian)… All in a narrow but tall and thick trunk.
The other part has multiple trunks coming off of it at various times, and each but the Armenian has at least two main branches.

 

[Montalo]

why not a finger for each achient patriarchy

 

[smad0142]

Serious question:
How come the old ecclessiology which resulted in the terminology “switching rites” is now replaced by the modern “switching Churches”? Isn’t the Church one? And if so isn’t it just a matter of different hierarchies and not different Churches? Because even though the Bishop is the Local Church, it is not a different Church rather just the particular manifestation of the Universal Church?

Thanks!!

 

[ConstantineTG]

Serious question:
How come the old ecclessiology which resulted in the terminology “switching rites” is now replaced by the modern “switching Churches”? Isn’t the Church one? And if so isn’t it just a matter of different hierarchies and not different Churches? Because even though the Bishop is the Local Church, it is not a different Church rather just the particular manifestation of the Universal Church?

Thanks!!

Being one doesn’t mean there literally has to be one Church. We are one in faith, in creed. We all form the one Body of Christ, does this mean at the end of times we all lose our individuality and become just part of Jesus Christ? Of course not.

 

[KyivAndrew]

I absolutely LOVE the Eastern Church, and it’s traditions. Often times in forums, people seem to divide the Church into East and West. While the Church does breathe from two lungs, isn’t it also true that there is only ONE church, with two lungs, they being the East and West. The Roman church is just as much in communion with the Pope, the Successor of St Peter, as the Eastern church is, and I don’t understand why we are often hostile to each other. Aren’t our beliefs the same? Our Canon laws may differ, as do our traditions. But we are both just as Catholic as the other. Do I misunderstand? Why do we argue? I do hope I haven’t broken forum rules in any way, and if I have I greatly apologise! God Bless :byzsoc:

LoyalViews, you’ll forgive me, do you understand that there is not One Eastern Church - that there are Eastern Catholic Churches that are in communion with Rome which includes my Church, and that there are also Eastern Orthodox Churches which are NOT in communion with the Pope of Rome, such as is the Church of the poster Hesychios who responded above to your post. We don’t belong to the same Eastern Church.

Just to be clear, are you asking about arguments, as you say, between Roman Catholics and Eastern Catholics who are in communion with the Pope; or are you asking about arguments between Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox (who are not in communion with Rome) on this forum. It usually is the latter’s relationship on CAF that seems to produce the most arguments, if you wish to call them that.

The Eastern Catholic Churches are not the Eastern Orthodox Churches. Whom are you addressing when you speak of the Eastern Church: the Eastern Catholics or the Eastern Orthodox ? They are not the same. Some people answering you here may be Orthodox like Hesychios who are not in communion with Rome, and others are Eastern Catholic like myself who are in communion with Rome.

It would help if you could clear up whom specifically you mean by the Eastern Church - the Eastern Catholics or Eastern Orthodox ? Because some may be answering you as Orthodox, and some as Eastern Catholics, and it will clear things up for you to know whom you want to respond.

 

[mardukm]

I absolutely LOVE the Eastern Church, and it’s traditions. Often times in forums, people seem to divide the Church into East and West. While the Church does breathe from two lungs, isn’t it also true that there is only ONE church, with two lungs, they being the East and West. The Roman church is just as much in communion with the Pope, the Successor of St Peter, as the Eastern church is, and I don’t understand why we are often hostile to each other. Aren’t our beliefs the same? Our Canon laws may differ, as do our traditions. But we are both just as Catholic as the other. Do I misunderstand? Why do we argue? I do hope I haven’t broken forum rules in any way, and if I have I greatly apologise! God Bless :byzsoc:

I believe arguments happen when one side fails to understand one of the other sides, and vice-versa.

It would be interesting what responses you’d get in the Apologetics Forum if you presented this question there.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Great post, brother Michael.

Blessings,
Marduk

Well, someone else popularized it, so I am not surprised that it will be used a lot. It’s not like you did anything wrong.
My point was that I thought the ‘two lung’ analogy was misleading, as if there is to say “Roman” and “Everything Else”. I won’t claim the five finger thing is much better, it was right off the top of my head when I wrote that. Maybe something that stands for four would be more accurate.

Depending on how one wants to count them, there may be five major religious traditions. Seriously, I think we could go deeper than five but I would at least include the Coptic/Egyptian and the Antiochian as well as the Roman. Then of course there is the Constantinopolitan, and one might want to include the Armenian as a unique tradition (I am not sure).

For their part the Constantinopolitan churches are, in some ways, closer to the Roman than to any of the other eastern traditions. If someone else was counting they might include the Byzantine rite as “western” compared to themselves.

The Church of the East (East Syrian) seems quite a bit different from the west Syrian (Antiochian), at least that is my impression, so some scholars might consider them unique. The rest of possible examples are mostly variations on one theme or another.

It’s just not fair to lump “all the east” into one bunch, I see them as each too unique.

 

[LoyalViews]

Canon Law expresses 6 major Rites:
Roman, Byzantine, Chaldean, Antiochene, Alexandrian, Armenian

Look at it as a tree struck by lightning…
One part (the Roman) has a straight trunk, and a few branches (Bragan, Mozarabic, Dominican, Ambrosian, Anglican Use, Carmelite, Carthusian)… All in a narrow but tall and thick trunk.
The other part has multiple trunks coming off of it at various times, and each but the Armenian has at least two main branches.

+1

LoyalViews, you’ll forgive me, do you understand that there is not One Eastern Church - that there are Eastern Catholic Churches that are in communion with Rome which includes my Church, and that there are also Eastern Orthodox Churches which are NOT in communion with the Pope of Rome, such as is the Church of the poster Hesychios who responded above to your post. We don’t belong to the same Eastern Church.

Just to be clear, are you asking about arguments, as you say, between Roman Catholics and Eastern Catholics who are in communion with the Pope; or are you asking about arguments between Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox (who are not in communion with Rome) on this forum. It usually is the latter’s relationship on CAF that seems to produce the most arguments, if you wish to call them that.

The Eastern Catholic Churches are not the Eastern Orthodox Churches. Whom are you addressing when you speak of the Eastern Church: the Eastern Catholics or the Eastern Orthodox ? They are not the same. Some people answering you here may be Orthodox like Hesychios who are not in communion with Rome, and others are Eastern Catholic like myself who are in communion with Rome.

It would help if you could clear up whom specifically you mean by the Eastern Church - the Eastern Catholics or Eastern Orthodox ? Because some may be answering you as Orthodox, and some as Eastern Catholics, and it will clear things up for you to know whom you want to respond.

Ahh, I mean the Eastern Catholic churches in communion with Rome. I often see arguments between Roman catholics, and Eastern catholics…when there shouldn’t be as we are part of the very same church the Lord and Saviour founded.

I really thank you everyone, you’ve cleared a lot up for me! Especially you Hesychios!
God Bless :byzsoc:

 

[ConstantineTG]

+1

Ahh, I mean the Eastern Catholic churches in communion with Rome. I often see arguments between Roman catholics, and Eastern catholics…when there shouldn’t be as we are part of the very same church the Lord and Saviour founded.

I really thank you everyone, you’ve cleared a lot up for me! Especially you Hesychios!
God Bless :byzsoc:

It depends really from how you look at it. There is one universal Church. Now if you “zoom in” you will see that the universal Church comprises of many separate particular Churches who are autocephalous or sui juris. And within these self governing particular Churches, you will see further division of Archdiocese/Metropolitanates which again are particular and semi-independent Churches with their own head and structure.

 

[LoyalViews]

It depends really from how you look at it. There is one universal Church. Now if you “zoom in” you will see that the universal Church comprises of many separate particular Churches who are autocephalous or sui juris. And within these self governing particular Churches, you will see further division of Archdiocese/Metropolitanates which again are particular and semi-independent Churches with their own head and structure.

Yes, ad that’s how I see it

 

[Aramis]

why not a finger for each achient patriarchy

You wind up with a 3 fingered hand… Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria.

Byzantium and Jerusalem were additions.

 

[Montalo]

You wind up with a 3 fingered hand… Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria.

Byzantium and Jerusalem were additions.

ah, my mistake

it was my belief all five were equally achient

thank you, for the correction

 

[Aramis]

ah, my mistake

it was my belief all five were equally achient

thank you, for the correction

Byzantium branches off from Antioch.

Jerusalem was the parent of all the Rites, but was essentially the same rite as Antioch and Byzantium; it later spawned also the Armenian. The Byzantines diverge from Antioch before becoming a patriarchate, but truly become unique after.

The Armenians arise near Jerusalem, then migrate… and kept their separate practice, and were considered to be non-chalcedonians by the Byzantines.

The Gnostics and Arians were ejected in the First Council. Over time, various groups broke away; first the “monophysites”, then the non-chalcedonians, then the Jacobites, then Rome… Slowly, everyone broke communion with Byzantium… and Byzantium came to believe it was the only “true church” left.

Rome was not in regular contact with most of the rest; when they broke from Byzantium, they broke from Rome, until Byzantium and Rome broke apart.

Eventually, Some of each of these groups came back into union with Rome.

But each rite arises from a separation: time, distance, appearance of heresy… and each survives to this day… save the Gnostics and Arians. Arianism keeps re-arising, and Gnostic Christianity is mostly gone, but may have been part of early Islam.