Do Eastern Catholics need to be taught Latin theology?

[Isa_Almisry]

I have to note that the CCC does quote a number of texts from the East (DL, hymns, Fathers) etc., so it is not as totally one sided as one might think, as compared, say, to the Baltimore Catechism.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I suppose that you did not mean it in such a way, but I took some offense to this.

I don’t know anyone (Orthodox, I mean) who thinks of the Pope as anti-Christ, and I don’t think of the Pope as anti-Christ. You should not generalize.

I didn’t.​

What I did say, was:

• That’s what so wonderful about so many Orthodox - they regard the Pope as Antichrist, so they match their words to their beliefs; again, they let people know exactly where they stand.
  [my *emphasis

Generalisation ? I don’t think so.

As for some examples of calling the Pope Antichrist:

• antichrist = anti + Christ = instead of Christ. The Pope is an antichrist as he places himself as the head of the Church, and only Christ can have that place. The Antichrist of the Revelation is also an antichrist as he will be loved “in place of Christ”.
• geocities.com/Athens/Styx/3079/religion.htm?200731
  As the owner of the site explains on this page:
• geocities.com/Athens/Styx/3079/religion.htm#whoami:
• Who am I?
• Of course, why should you believe me at the end of the day? The views put forward here are those of the Church of Greece, which undoubtedly is at the centre of Orthodox Christianity; not one jot of what you read here will be different from the beliefs of any of the other Churches of the Orthodox world
  “Not one jot” ? “The Pope is an antichrist…” is one of those jots.
  Or there is this item:
• Mourning bells to chime for pope’s visit.
  Bleeding Madonnas are, in the Christian tradition, nothing new. The normal interpretation is that Mary is manifesting her sorrow at the sufferings of Jesus, or the world, or both.

This time, however, some conservative Greek monks have applied a novel spin. Mary is bleeding, they say, from her pain over the arrival on Orthodox soil of the archenemy of true Christianity: Pope John Paul II, head of the apostate Roman Catholic church.

As the pope prepared in early May to depart for Greece and Syria, the bleeding Madonna was just one of many hints that he may face unusually frosty receptions. The perils of traveling to places where Catholicism is a minority, where both ecclesiastical and secular politics can be painfully complex, seemed more apparent by the day.

In Greece, more than 2,000 Orthodox monks and activists marched in Athens April 30 in opposition to John Paul’s May 4 and 5 visit.

Protesters held aloft icons or the Byzantine flag with its two-headed eagle crest. Some waved black flags as they chanted against the pope. Banners in Greek and Italian said: “Get the anti-Christ pope out of Orthodox Greece.”

[My[/COLOR] emphasis]

There was a fellow who was a Protestant most of his life, became a Catholic and then Orthodox who was posting here for a while. He swore off both Catholicism and Orthodoxy together, and continued to lurk a bit apparently. He became very disillusioned (especially about the CAF recently…for some reason) and posted some things in a fit of indignation, but I know it was just the heat of the moment. How do you classify such a person? He did not learn about the Pope from Orthodox.

About Latin theological constructs…they are not mine…I don’t need to flush anything. The forum and thread is about Eastern Catholics, they are the one’s who need to deal with it.

My apologies for thinking you were Catholic.​

If anything, you know where Orthodox stand on the subject of the additional doctrines.

But of course - anywhere but where Rome does ​

Thank you for that

 

[ASimpleSinner]

I have to note that the CCC does quote a number of texts from the East (DL, hymns, Fathers) etc., so it is not as totally one sided as one might think, as compared, say, to the Baltimore Catechism.

Remembering the BC was a regional American Catechism, I would suspect not.

 

[twf]

I have to note that the CCC does quote a number of texts from the East (DL, hymns, Fathers) etc., so it is not as totally one sided as one might think, as compared, say, to the Baltimore Catechism.

Actually I would say that the Catechism draws quite a bit from the East. Pope John Paul really tried to implement his vision of “two lungs”. Keep in mind how vague the CCC’s definition of purgatory, for example, is. In its article on the sacrament of marriage, reference is made to both the Latin and Eastern understanding. There are many other examples. The Catechism of the Catholic Church most certainly presents itself as a summary of the teaching of the Magisterium of the Universal Church…not just the Latin Church.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Remembering the BC was a regional American Catechism, I would suspect not.

America had a sizable number of Eastern Catholics. Until Arbh. Ireland drove them out.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

America had a sizable number of uniates. Until Arbh. Ireland drove them out.

How utterly and expediently provacative and pedantic!

If you cannot honor the forum policy on the use of the term “uniate” I will simply not deal with your posts. (If you need a utilitarian justification for another term - consider ECs - at the very least it is fewer key strokes.)

No Catholic who wants to post here long would persist in calling the EO “Eastern schismatics” (and rightly so). It is against the rules, it is polemic and provacative on top of that.

I hope spending all this time on here in combat with contradistinction, slurs and provocation is helping you to grow in your Orthodoxy.

Good luck with that.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

<<“If anyone should say that the Roman Pontiff has merely the function of inspection or direction, but not full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, . . . or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate over all Churches and over . . . all the faithful, and over each individual one of these, let him be anathema.”>>

Frankly, the possibility of receiving a letter from Pope Benedict saying, “Basil, you are to do such and such or refrain from doing so and so” is infintessimal.

If he were to tell me to do something, health and ability permitting, I would.

OTOH, if he were to tell me to stop taking my medicines, I would have to respectfully decline.

But as a practical matter, has any pope been into such micromanagement?

An eastern Catholic answers to his Patriarch or Major Archbishop. It is the Patriarch or Major Abp’s responsibility to maintain full communion with the Roman Pontiff by following the Code of the Eastern Churches, or developing their own canon law which is in compliance with the Canon of the Eastern/Oriental Churches. Micromanagement is not in the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church, it’s why we have Bishops and Patriarchs. I, as a Latin answer first to my steward, Archbishop Charles Chaput, OFM Cap. I must assent to all infallible declarations from the Roman Pontiff in the matters of faith and morals, but I need not assent to any personal opinion the Pope has or to a decree he has promulgated acting as the Bishop of Rome and not the head of the Church on Earth regarding the Roman Church (the Diocese of Rome).

The same goes for the eastern Catholics.

The Pope is the head of the Catholic Church when acting in the matter of faith and morals, the Sovereign of the Vatican City State, the head of the Diocese of Rome and the Bishop of Rome. The Pope also has the perogative to appoint the head of the Episcopal Conference of Italy (Conferenza Episcopale Italian) as Primate of Italy. In his personal affects he is also Professor Emiretus of several Catholic colleges. He heads the church on Earth when acting as the Roman Pontiff, but there are many instances when he does not act as the Roman Pontiff but through one of his other capacities on matters local to Italy and in his position as its Primate.

 

[Irish_Melkite]

How utterly and expediently provacative and pedantic!

If you cannot honor the forum policy on the use of the term “uniate” I will simply not deal with your posts. (If you need a utilitarian justification for another term - consider ECs - at the very least it is fewer key strokes.)

No Catholic who wants to post here long would persist in calling the EO “Eastern schismatics” (and rightly so). It is against the rules, it is polemic and provacative on top of that.

As I recollect, the forum policy that the former Moderator enunciated on the use of “uniate” was that it was acceptable unless employed in a pejorative manner (which Isa did not do in my opinion). If that ruling has changed, I haven’t seen it as yet.

Many years,

Neil

PS I now see that it has indeed changed

 

[Isa_Almisry]

As I recollect, the forum policy that the former Moderator enunciated on the use of “uniate” was that it was acceptable unless employed in a pejorative manner (which Isa did not do in my opinion). If that ruling has changed, I haven’t seen it as yet.

Many years,

Neil

PS I now see that it has indeed changed

Yes, it changed after I posted. So be it.

 

[Hesychios]

As I recollect, the forum policy that the former Moderator enunciated on the use of “uniate” was that it was acceptable unless employed in a pejorative manner (which Isa did not do in my opinion). If that ruling has changed, I haven’t seen it as yet.

Many years,

Neil

PS I now see that it has indeed changed

Yes, I recall the old policy as well. It made sense to me.

When I was an Eastern Catholic I never personally took offense at the term.

What surprises me is that the “come lately” Latins attending Eastern Catholic churches on occasion are the ones who stir up a fuss over it. I think it’s a cheap way to score polemical points, as if we old timers are bad, bad people. The Nash can take it in stride.

Michael

 

[dvdjs]

What surprises me is that the “come lately” Latins attending Eastern Catholic churches on occasion are the ones who stir up a fuss over it. I think it’s a cheap way to score polemical points, as if we old timers are bad, bad people. The Nash can take it in stride.
Michael

This “Nash” sees it differently.

I have used the term myself when, for example, I am exchanging information with someone from the FSU. It’s a word that I am sure that they will know, whereas Greek, Eastern, or Byzantine Catholic is less likely to be familiar.

On the other hand, those who are familiar with the latter terminology, and know that these terms are what we generally use to identify ourselves, but nevertheless persist in using the U-word deliberately, I view as peculiar and probably unfriendly. I *can *“take it in stride”, but have to wonder: why do such people want me to “take it”?

 

[ASimpleSinner]

America had a sizable number of uniates. Until Arbh. Ireland drove them out.

Very provacative.

1. 
   *]We are still here buddy. +Ireland didn’t drive us all out.
   *]Kinda begs the question as to what level of participation all bishops had in the council… but this helps to strengthen your arguments based on provcation

 

[Hesychios]

1. 
   *]We are still here buddy. +Ireland didn’t drive us all out.

1. 
   I never really realized you were a Byzantine Catholic, does that mean you are Ruthenian or are you using the term more generically? Anyway, good for you!
   
   I just had a thought :idea: that in an an odd sort of way, you can credit Saint Alexis of Wilkes Barre, (as well as Archbishop Ireland of Minneapolis) for the creation of the Ruthenian Metropolia of Pittsburgh.
   
   Had they not taken the steps they both did, the Metropolia would not exist. The Ruthenian recension had no future in America, it (along with all non-Latin rites) was formally and incontrovertibly forbidden by the US Catholic hierachy.
   
   There were quite a few more people with one foot out the door (perhaps your ancestors among them…who knows? ) when Rome finally caved in to the panic of the Austro-Hungarian government and named a bishop for the Greek Catholics in America. If that drama had not played out, the BCC, UGCC and the Melkites, as well as the Chaldeans, Maronites and others would probably be missing (or at least severely impaired) from the North American landscape today.
   :harp:
   
   Saint Alexis of Wilkes Barre pray for us!

 

[ASimpleSinner]

I never really realized you were a Byzantine Catholic, does that mean you are Ruthenian or are you using the term more generically? Anyway, good for you!

I am a Greek Catholic of Magyar-Rusyn heritage.

Had they not taken the steps they both did, the Metropolia would not exist. The Ruthenian recension had no future in America, it (along with all non-Latin rites) was ***formally and incontrovertibly forbidden by the US Catholic hierachy. ***

Can you offer a document that shows non-Latin ritual practice was “***formally and incontrovertibly forbidden by the US Catholic hierachy. ***”?

Blessed Leonid Federov pray for us!

 

[Hesychios]

Can you offer a document that shows non-Latin ritual practice was “***formally and incontrovertibly forbidden by the US Catholic hierachy. ***”?

Yes, I can.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Yes, I can.

Please do.

 

[Hesychios]

My former pastor, Father Thomas Loya, is also of Magyar descent. He is originally from Ohio.

As I see it, Archbishop Ireland was acting within formal policy of the Roman Catholic church in North America, as approved by the Holy See. (Although he might have used a bit more common courtesy…another issue.)

Here are the relavent passages…

First Plenary Council of Baltimore - May, 1852

3 The Roman Ritual, adopted by the First Council of Baltimore, is to be observed in all dioceses, and all are forbidden to introduce customs or rites foreign to the Roman usage.

Second Plenary Council of Baltimore - October, 1866

Title v, Of the Sacraments.-
(i) The Roman Ritual and the Baltimore “Ceremonial” are to be followed.

 

[Woodstock]

I would further add the below as proof of the American Roman Catholics’ direct influence in extinguishing the Byzantines’ rights.

The Carpatho-Ruthenians in America
The first Byzantine Catholic Bishop for the United States was named in 1906, in the person of Soter Stephen Ortynsky, a Basilian monk, highly educated and an outstanding orator. He was to be the bishop for Byzantine Catholics from Carpatho-Ruthenia and Galicia.
**
His appointment, however, was strongly opposed by the American hierarchy, who forced the Holy See to concede full control of Bishop Ortynsky’s activities to the local Roman Catholic bishops. **The Apostolic Letter, “Ea Semper”, dated June 14, 1907, Delegated Bishop Ortynsky to the position of Vicar General, forced celibacy upon the Ruthenian clergy, forbade the Ruthenian clergy to administer the Sacrament of Holy Chrismation and made the Bishop’s jurisdiction dependent upon the “discretion” of the local Roman rite bishops.

The saintly Bishop Ortynsky patiently endured all humiliations and injustices. Before his untimely death, however, he received some satisfaction. On May 28, 1913, the Apostolic See established a separate Byzantine Catholic Exarchate for the United States.

After being administered for eight years by an Apostolic Administrator Fr. Gabriel Martyak the Carpatho-Ruthenians of the Byzantine rite received their first Bishop, Basil Takach, former Spiritual Director of the Seminary of Uzhorod.

To see what Bishop Basil then did because of the influence of American Roman Catholic clergy, see the below.

Ordination of Married Men in the Eastern Church

1595 Union of Brest - Rome agreed to not restrict married clergy in the East and to treat Eastern clergy equally.

“We require prior guarantees of these articles from the Romans before we enter into union with the Roman Church…
9. That the marriages of priests remain intact, except for bigamists.
21. That the archimandrates, hegumenoi, priests, archdeacons, and our other clergy be held in the same esteem as the Roman clergy, and should enjoy and make use of the same liberties and privileges which were granted…”

**1929 **Cum Data Fuerit - Rome restricted Eastern clergy from serving their people in the United States if they were married or if they were widowed if they took their children.

“In the meantime, as has already several times been provided, priests of the Greek-Ruthenian rite, who wish to go to the United States of North America and stay there, must be celibates.”

**1934 Letter from the Sacred Oriental Congregation **- The Roman Curia reinforced the restrictions on married clergy among Eastern Catholics.

“The regulation arose not new, but anew, from the peculiar conditions of the Ruthenian population in the United States of America. There it represents an immigrant element and a minority, and it could not, therefore, pretend to maintain there its own customs and traditions which are in contrast with those which are the legitimate customs and traditions of Catholicism in the United States, and much less to have there a clergy which could be a source of painful perplexity or scandal to the majority of American Catholics.”

 

[ASimpleSinner]

My former pastor, Father Thomas Loya, is also of Magyar descent. He is originally from Ohio.

As I see it, Archbishop Ireland was acting within formal policy of the Roman Catholic church in North America, as approved by the Holy See. (Although he might have used a bit more common courtesy…another issue.)

Here are the relavent passages…

First Plenary Council of Baltimore - May, 1852

3 The Roman Ritual, adopted by the First Council of Baltimore, is to be observed in all dioceses, and all are forbidden to introduce customs or rites foreign to the Roman usage.

Second Plenary Council of Baltimore - October, 1866

Title v, Of the Sacraments.-
(i) The Roman Ritual and the Baltimore “Ceremonial” are to be followed.

And now if I could implore you to take the next step and make the correlation between this text from the regional council of Baltimore and demonstrate it was in refernece to and with view of precluding Eastern Catholics…

Using these quotes from a council that predates our arrival, out of context and without fuller explination is a curious and provacative thing.

 

[Alexius]

:crying: Why do they hate us…:crying: