For example, some Eastern Rites have a 3rd and 4th Maccabees in their canon. This does not make sense to me, because those books were never infallibly defined as the inspired Word of God. But yet Eastern Catholics might use those books in their liturgy.
If I understand correctly, the Church never declared that 3rd and 4th Maccabees are not inspired. When the Church declared the Books that are inspired, it did not necessarily mean that other books are not inspired. Several of the Eastern Churches used additional books, like the 2 you mentioned. The Latin Church typically did not use the additional books. When the books were infallibly declared at Trent, it was to defend the canon against the Protestants, but not to declare that some of the Eastern books were not inspired.
Many of the Eastern traditions used some of the additional books. The Western did not. Basically, what the Church declared was the minimum inspired Books of the Bible, but not necessarily all of them.
Furthermore, I learned (Although I found lots of contradiction online about this one) that some Eastern Catholics reject that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as the Father.
This is way more complex. Even Orthodox argue regarding what they believe vs. don’t believe. The important view (at least from the West’s perspective), is that the Eastern Churches believe the same thing we do, they simply express it differently (and linguistic issue). You can read all about this on
2lungs.com
I also learned that Eastern Catholics recognize post-East West schism Saints who were “canonized” by the Orthodox Churches, but never the pope. I though canonization was an infallible statement saying one person is in heaven. If these Saints were never canonized by the pope, then they aren’t necessarily saints are they?
The Church does NOT necessarily require the Pope to declare a Saint to be in Heaven in order to provide the title of Saint. There are a number of Saints which are considered Saints by in the Latin Church who were never declared a Saint by the Pope. The Eastern Catholic Churches must accept any declared Saints by the Pope as Saint, but they are also able to hold onto Saints declared by their tradition.
Technically speaking, a saint is someone in Heaven. Obviously, the Church does not know everyone who is in Heaven. The Church never declares someone is NOT in Heaven. The title of Saint is simply stating that the Church declares that someone is in Heaven. But again, there are many Saints who only have the title out of tradition, and not declared by the Pope.
I don’t understand how the Church can be the one true church if its different rites do not believe the same thing. Something cannot be true for someone and not for another:shrug:
Again… it’s not that one believes one thing and the other does not. We all share the exact same deposit of Faith. It’s that the traditions (lower case t, not Sacred Tradition) that are different.
I pray this is helpful.
God Bless.
