R
roncriss
Guest
Your logical argument is conspicuous by its absence. If you ever want to actually discuss the facts let me know.
Ron
- Status
Ron
H
Hesychios
Guest
This is not the thread nor the section for that, as I am sure you know.
Start a new one on an Orthodox board. Or, if you prefer, take it to the non-Catholic section. You might have better luck there because there are mostly Protestants, Mormons and Muslims there, the Orthodox having left these parts some time ago.
As for this thread, you stated your opinion, and I stated mine.
I, for one, am not going into it again. If you want to know what Orthodox think of the subject, you can read old threads.
Pax et Bonum,
R
roncriss
Guest
Let me try to clarify my position. The problem here is one of disparate practice, not dogma or doctrine. The West simply delays confirmation (chrismation) and reception of communion for children to a later date. There is really no doctrinal differance as the Magisterium (and the CCC) fully recognizes the legitimacy of Byzantine Catholic sacraments.
“Latin theological constructs”, a rather vague term in itself, are simply the result of theological speculation by Latin Rite theologians. All these theologians do is translate doctrines common to East and West into terminology understandable to their readers. There is absolutely no requirement that Byzantine Catholics understand Latin theology. On the other hand there is no requirment for Latin rite Catholics to understand “Latin theological constructs” either. For example I am fully within my rights to ignore the theological ramblings of a Rahner or a Fox.
I would also suggest that worthy contemporary Latin rite theologians are fully cognizant of Greek theology. Western theologians such as Hans Urs von Balthasar rely heavily on the Greek Fathers. Even Latin fathers such as St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas quote frequently from the Greek Fathers and use their works as proof-texts.
Ron
R
roncriss
Guest
Respectfully, I used to be Orthodox. I have no need to be instructed on what Orthodox Christians think. Since you did not respond to my points I will assume you concur. There is and never has been any requirement that Byzantine Catholics understand “Latin theological constructs”.
Ron
M
Mickey
Guest
But it would be beneficial if you were properly informed on what Orthodox Christians actually teach.
R
roncriss
Guest
Mickey,But it would be beneficial if you were properly informed on what Orthodox Christians actually teach.
It would be “beneficial” if you actually tried to support your arguments with facts instead of resorting to insulting those who disagree with you. Insults are not considered a valid argument in any forum. They merely serve to symbolize your frustration.
Ron
N
NancyCNM
Guest
Roncriss
I was talking about the ORTHODOX, not the Latin Rite. I do know the difference.
But the lack of allowing the children communion is not limited to one parish, one priest or one area of the country, We have moved all over the US and have come across the same problem, despite talking to the priests and Bishops. It is saddening to us that priests deny a validy received sacrament (and yes, we have the “paperwork” to prove the reception of the sacraments) Fortunately we have found a parish that has a wonderful priest who knows about the Eastern Rite and even went so far as to explain it to his congregation.
I think that the CLERGY should know Both Eastern and Western Theology- at least some of the primary points, and certainly should recognize folks who are of both traditions, AND accept them as valid. It is ONE Catholic church.
Nancy
Nancy
I was talking about the ORTHODOX, not the Latin Rite. I do know the difference.
But the lack of allowing the children communion is not limited to one parish, one priest or one area of the country, We have moved all over the US and have come across the same problem, despite talking to the priests and Bishops. It is saddening to us that priests deny a validy received sacrament (and yes, we have the “paperwork” to prove the reception of the sacraments) Fortunately we have found a parish that has a wonderful priest who knows about the Eastern Rite and even went so far as to explain it to his congregation.
I think that the CLERGY should know Both Eastern and Western Theology- at least some of the primary points, and certainly should recognize folks who are of both traditions, AND accept them as valid. It is ONE Catholic church.
Nancy
Nancy
M
Mickey
Guest
I did not insult you my dear friend. I made a suggestion that you make a bit more effort to understand Holy Orthodox (whether you were Orthodox at one time or not). I will not be drawn into petty arguments with you. But here is another suggestion: before you accuse someone falsely of insulting you, perhaps it would be beneficial for you to look at your own words.
"the Man-made errors that have crept into Orthodoxy"
(roncriss)
From what I have seen thus far, you are uncharitable toward your Christian brothers and sisters and I will no longer converse with you.
R
roncriss
Guest
Nancy,
You are confusing “theology” with practices. It is not a matter of theology as to when a child is admitted to the sacraments. It is just a matter of rules in the respective churches. Byzantine Catholic and Orthodox practice is virtually identical. The Catholic Church recognizes these sacraments. Yes, Roman Rite priests should understand the differences with Byzantine practice. But don’t confuse the ignorance or prejudice of a specific Roman Rite priest concerning Byzantine practice with “theology”, Latin or otherwise.
This seems to be the problem here. Practices and rituals are being confused with theology. Refusing Byzantine children communion in Roman churches has nothing at all to do with theology. The Catholic Church accepts the validity of these sacraments and the custom of admitting infants to the Eucharist.
On the other hand I think it is only common courtesy to observe the customs of the other rite when visiting. I’m confused now, are you Orthodox or Byzantine Catholic?
Ron
R
roncriss
Guest
Mickey,
The implied insult, as you surely intended, was the unstated assumption that I do not know Orthodox theology, even though I was formerly Orthodox. You have no way of knowing anything about my theological training. It is you who have been unchristian and uncharitable in your insulting assumption.
Speaking the truth is not uncharitable. The errors I mentioned are man-made. For example you cannot find justification in Scripture or the Fathers for allowing divorce and re-marriage up to three times, which is indeed the Orthodox practice. When I was Orthodox I met several ex-Catholics who became Orthodox just so an adulterous relationship could be validated. Nothing in Scripture or the Fathers legitimates this. It is obviously a man-made error. If you disagree with this then please cite Scripture or the Fathers to prove your contention.
If you indeed understood Orthodox theology you would know that the Orthodox acknowledge only the first seven ecumenical councils. Any subsequent departures from these, such as developments concerning procession of the Holy Spirit or any other theological speculations, logically, therefore lack anything but human authority.
When you actually want to discuss Orthodox theology instead of trading childish insults I am more than willing.
Ron
M
Mickey
Guest
Though I promised to discontinue discourse with you, I will respond to this because it epitomizes your ignorance of Orthodox teaching. There is one divorce allowable for valid reason (adultery, drug abuse etc). The spouse may marry again. There is no allowable second divorce, but if that spouse dies, the individual is permitted to marry a third time. There is no fourth marraige allowable.
At this point, a conversation about annulments usually commences, but start a thread if you would like to talk about it.
In fact, go to the non-catholic forum and start different threads if you would like to know more about the teachings of Holy Orthodoxy. (that is where the moderator has directed these types of discussions)
Peace,
Mickey
R
roncriss
Guest
"Despite the fact that the Church condemns sin, she also desires to be an aid to those who suffer and for whom she may allow a second marriage. This is certainly the case when the marriage has ceased to be a reality. A possible second marriage is therefore only permitted because of “human weakness…
“Orthodox canon law can permit a second and even a third marriage “in economia”, but strictly forbids a fourth. In theory divorce is only recognized in the case of adultery, but in practise is also recognised in light of other reasons. There is a list of causes of divorce acceptable to the Orthodox Church. In practise the bishops sometimes apply “economia” in a liberal way.”
[Mgr. Athenagoras Peckstadt, Bishop of Sinope]
Now I suppose, Mickey, that you will suggest that Bishop Athenagoras needs to brush up on his Orthodoxy? I was Orthodox for many years and witnessed this personally. Orthodox churches (there really is no one monolitihic “Orthodox Church”, but many associated autonomous churches in communion) allow up to three marriages. Death of the spouse is not required. The practice cannot be supported by reference to the Fathers or Scripture. The practice is of human origin and contradicts Scripture:
1 Corinthians 7
8To the unmarried and to widows I say: it is good for them to stay as they are, like me. 9But if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry, since it is better to be married than to be burnt up. 10To the married I give this ruling, and this is not mine but the Lord’s: a wife must not be separated from her husband- 11or if she has already left him, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband-and a husband must not divorce his wife.
and the Fathers:
“Now that the Scripture counsels marriage, and allows no release
from the union, is expressly contained in the law, ‘Thou shalt not
put away thy wife, except for the cause of porneia;’ and it
regards as porneia, the marriage of those separated while the
other is alive…‘He that taketh a woman that has been put away,’ it is said, ‘committeth adultery; and if one puts away his wife, he makes her an adulteress,’ that is, compels her to commit adultery. And not only is he who puts her away guilty of this, but he who takes her, by giving to the woman the opportunity of sinning; for did he not take her, she would return to her husband.”
Clement of Alexandria,Stromata,2:24(A.D. 202),in ANF,II:379
I gave the differences in theology concerning marriage as an example of later Orthodox theological developments which differ from Catholicism. Byzantine Catholics follow Catholic doctrine in the case of marriage. In this case, in fact, the Catholic Church (East and West) is the one that follows the truly orthodox teachings of the Greek Fathers, while Orthodoxy has compromised with human failings in the name of “economia”.
By your efforts to deny the practice you effectively condemn the Orthodox practice.
Ron
C
Catherine_Grant
Guest
Note from moderator:
Please continue the discussion on Catholic vs. Orthodox views on divorce and annulment here: Orthodoxy on divorce and annulments
Please continue the discussion on Catholic vs. Orthodox views on divorce and annulment here: Orthodoxy on divorce and annulments
C
Claudius
Guest
You know, I recently found out that the verb Procedet in the Latin Creed and the Greek verb that is used in the East do not mean the same thing. When it comes to proceeding, to me it is only logical that he should proceed from the Father and the Son, which in Latin is rendered with an Ablative so the real meaning is From the Father and (by means of) the Son. I also know that Jesus is said to be the same substance as the Father. (I and the Father are one) but I also know that he is equated with the Holy Spirit in Mark when the the Parasis say he is possessed with an unclean spirit and Jesus points out that his spirit really is the Holy Spirit. So all in all, I makes perfect sense to me and I can’t see why it was ever a dividing issue.
On the other hand, in Greek the word used means “originates” and Greek has no Ablative case. When I think about what this word means and when I consider that they have no way to understand the Ablative then I can see where the problem comes from. The word origin forces us to think of the only One origin. They have no way to know that ablative can mean without a prepostision “through the Son” so it gets all messed up.
All in all though, the cannos of the 7th ecumnical council are clear, the Holy Spirit proceeds (originates) from the Father through the Son.
All in all , would say we were saying the same thing on this issue.
On the other hand, in Greek the word used means “originates” and Greek has no Ablative case. When I think about what this word means and when I consider that they have no way to understand the Ablative then I can see where the problem comes from. The word origin forces us to think of the only One origin. They have no way to know that ablative can mean without a prepostision “through the Son” so it gets all messed up.
All in all though, the cannos of the 7th ecumnical council are clear, the Holy Spirit proceeds (originates) from the Father through the Son.
All in all , would say we were saying the same thing on this issue.
A
Alexios
Guest
So has East and West’s question to LakaYaRabb been answered?
One of the requirements of all Catholics is that we all hold to the same beliefs, although expressed differently.
So, as LakaYaRabb implies, can the official teaching of the Melkite Church be somehow contradictory or not in agreement with that of the Catholic Church at large, or the Roman Church in particular? No, that is illogical.
I don’t see how Eastern Catholics are able to not accept required Catholic beliefs such as the universal jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome. They can rightly say that these truths of the Faith have not been sufficiently couched in language more easily understood or acceptable to Eastern Catholics, but they cannot deny outright that they do no hold to these beliefs, it would seem to me. Otherwise they would cease to be orthodox Catholics.
Oh, and I would agree that the truths of the Faith like those clarified in Vatican I haven’t been sufficiently couched in Eastern wording.
One of the requirements of all Catholics is that we all hold to the same beliefs, although expressed differently.
So, as LakaYaRabb implies, can the official teaching of the Melkite Church be somehow contradictory or not in agreement with that of the Catholic Church at large, or the Roman Church in particular? No, that is illogical.
I don’t see how Eastern Catholics are able to not accept required Catholic beliefs such as the universal jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome. They can rightly say that these truths of the Faith have not been sufficiently couched in language more easily understood or acceptable to Eastern Catholics, but they cannot deny outright that they do no hold to these beliefs, it would seem to me. Otherwise they would cease to be orthodox Catholics.
Oh, and I would agree that the truths of the Faith like those clarified in Vatican I haven’t been sufficiently couched in Eastern wording.
H
Hesychios
Guest
Actually, it is a requirement of all Christians, not to mention Catholics.
But we can see that is not the case in reality.
Surprise! That may very well be the case.
A paradox
to be sure, logic may not suffice. Are we going to dismiss clear statements from the Patriarchs of the Melkites, their Patriarchal synod and also prominent bishops of that synod because it is not logical? This is not Animal Farm, it’s the Catholic communion, don’t say “black is white” when you know what color it really is.I might suggest a point I have posted elsewhere: The fact is that those doctrines were not Roman Catholic doctrines when the Melkite Orthodox decided to come into communion with Rome in the early eighteenth century. This act of communion with Rome was not a submission to Universal Jurisdiction (a concept unknown to the church at large then) and the Melkite synod continues to appoint and announce it’s own bishops.
Canonically, the Pope does not appoint the Melkite Patriarch, the Synod does that, and the Patriarch asks for communion with the Pope. Canonically, the Patriarch does not have to ask for communion with the Pope, and the Pope does not have to ask communion of the Melkites. They could go their separate ways that easily.
There is also no Concordat between the Papacy and Syria (nor between the Papacy and the Turkish empire before that), so the Vatican cannot gain control of the Melkites through the courts either.
The Melkite association with the bishop of Rome is purely voluntary. It is for this reason that they are able to take liberties most other particular churches cannot. The Vatican is aware of this, and can stop recognizing the Patriarchs at any time, but it does not do that.
Melkite bishops have stated things publicly that would probably get them excommunicated if they were Roman Catholic bishops, but but their synod does not apply any discipline at all.
Is this rebelliousness? No, it is the Patriarch of Antioch exercising his Patriarchal rights to run his ancient church as he sees fit, in cooperation with his synod.
I cannot see how the Latin church is not able to accept the Melkite understanding of limited jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome. But they don’t, unless they do they will not be ever be Orthodox Catholics.
I can assure you that there is no way to put the claims enunciated in 1870AD into Eastern wording, so don’t worry about it.
Pax et Bonum,
N
NancyCNM
Guest
We are Byzantine.
There is a difference in the theology- the theoogy is behind the differences in practic between East and West- though perhaps my verbage is not correct. The whole focus of the east is a different, but one does not trump the other.
Examples:
The east: focus is on the Risen Christ
the west: focus is on the Crucified Christ
Different Holy Days
Differenty Fasts and fast days
East: Rites of Initiation (baptism, chrismation and Eucharist) are not things to be “earned”, they are free gifts from Christ himself. he died and gave his body and blood for ALL of us,
West: Who knows- every diocese is different now days
Anyhow, I don’t mean to stir up trouble, Just missing things…
There is a difference in the theology- the theoogy is behind the differences in practic between East and West- though perhaps my verbage is not correct. The whole focus of the east is a different, but one does not trump the other.
Examples:
The east: focus is on the Risen Christ
the west: focus is on the Crucified Christ
Different Holy Days
Differenty Fasts and fast days
East: Rites of Initiation (baptism, chrismation and Eucharist) are not things to be “earned”, they are free gifts from Christ himself. he died and gave his body and blood for ALL of us,
West: Who knows- every diocese is different now days
Anyhow, I don’t mean to stir up trouble, Just missing things…
H
Hesychios
Guest
This is true, I never said otherwise.
The Papacy does not requires Byzantine Catholics to understand Latin theological constructs (a term, BTW, I picked up from Cardinal Husar UGCC). It requires them to accept them whether they understand or not!
What I actually stated is that posters here accuse Eastern Catholics of not being good Catholics for their lack of understanding and acceptance of Latin theological constructs. These same posters are quite apparently ignorant of the fact that this theology is not taught to Byzantine Catholics.
It happens every so often, and I have been watching this board for a long time. It has never really stopped. Usually they are the Latin Trad type of poster, although sometimes they have even taken up worshipping among Eastern Catholics.
My idea is that perhaps (just perhaps…) Byzantine Catholics should actually be taught these things so that they can understand what they have been routinely accused of not believing! They would also be better able to defend it when they are out on the street evangelizing, because most assuredly they will encounter criticism of their sister church and it’s teachings when they are out there trying to make converts into their own church, I have first hand experience of this.
I think that this training would also be helpful for converts from Orthodoxy, who are automatically ascribed to the Byzantine Catholic churches. They need to know just what they are accepting from a western perspective as well as an eastern one, they should not be given a free pass just because they were baptised Orthodox.
Michael
R
roncriss
Guest
Nancy,
Of course there is a difference of theology. Theology is merely a translation of eternal truths into language that can be understood. Different cultures require different terms. But the underlying truth is the same. Is it wrong to say “Merry Christmas” instead of “God is with us”? No. Both are true. You are creating a false dichotomy where none exists. You are basing this on limited subjective observation and the opinion, interpreted in your own way, of various sources. None of these are official doctrines or dogmas.
Ron
R
roncriss
Guest
Michael,
I would like to see your quote from Cardinal Husar (I note that very few here actually providing supporting citations. Why?), but I seriously doubt that he said the Papacy requires Byzantines to accept something as vague as “Latin theological concepts”, whatever that might mean. I assure you that you will find no official Vatican text suggesting any such thing.
As to criticism from Catholic Trads, who cares? They have no authority and respect none. Why should you give them the recognition of being hurt or confused by their diatribes?
Ron
- Status