Z
ziapueblo
Guest
I’ve heard the same. Most recently His Grace Lubomyr Husar Church of the UGCC of blessed memory.
ZP
Does the Pope have supreme universal jurisdiction over the Eastern Churches?
- Status
ZP
T
twf
Guest
This is true. The Latin traditionalists who insist the Pope could suppress the Eastern Rites seem much more protective of their own traditional Roman Rite… sympathy for the SSPX et al…
S
steve-b
Guest
Wasn’t it one of the Orthodox who said they don’t believe in mortal sin? THAT creates an issue right there.
I
Isaac14
Guest
That is NOT what I said. I said we don’t draw a formal distinction as does the Latin church. All sin works to cause our death, but some sins (which not surprisingly would be a list similar to what Catholics define as mortal sin) are going to bring you to spiritual death more quickly than others if left unconfessed.
S
steve-b
Guest
So after committing mortal sin, one is NOT in spiritual death at that point?steve-b:
That is NOT what I said. I said we don’t draw a formal distinction as does the Latin church. All sin works to cause our death, but some sins (which not surprisingly would be a list similar to what Catholics define as mortal sin) are going to bring you to spiritual death more quickly than others if left unconfessed.
I
Isaac14
Guest
Good grief. I just said that the Orthodox (and likely most other Eastern Christians) don’t draw formal distinctions. All sin leads to death. If you’re unwilling to accept that Eastern Christianity approaches our spiritual lives differently than the West, we are not going to be able to have a reasonable conversation.
Frankly, everything you say seems to be angling towards a “gotcha” to somehow imply that Eastern Chrisitianity is just wrong and that the West, and in particular the Roman church, is the only acceptable form of Christianity. I really empathize with the frustrations of the Eastern Catholics on this board.
B
babochka
Guest
Does it really matter if the East does not distinguish between mortal and venial sin in the same way as the the West if the individual has repented and been to confession and received absolution? The end result is the same.Isaac14:
So after committing mortal sin, one is NOT in spiritual death at that point?steve-b:
That is NOT what I said. I said we don’t draw a formal distinction as does the Latin church. All sin works to cause our death, but some sins (which not surprisingly would be a list similar to what Catholics define as mortal sin) are going to bring you to spiritual death more quickly than others if left unconfessed.
Last edited:
A
AlNg
Guest
Let us suppose that you stole your friend’s credit card and charged $1000 on it. This amounts to a theft of one thousand dollars, which is a mortal sin, No? Let us suppose that you stole a piece of blank paper from someone when he was not looking and it was without his permission. This was worth about one cent. This would be a venial sin, No?
Now let us reduce this by one cent in the first case, and increase by one cent in the second case:
Theft of $999.99 mortal sin
Theft of $0.02 venial sin.
Again
Theft of $999.98 mortal sin
Theft of $0.03 venial sin.
Continuing on you come to a point where there is only a one cent difference between a mortal sin and a venial sin. Suppose for example, that point is $75.00
Theft of $75.00 mortal sin
Theft of $74.99 venial sin.
Assuming this sin is unrepented, Is it reasonable to say that in one case God will punish you with eternal fire in hell and that in the other case you will go to a temporary punishment. After all, the difference in the two punishments is eternal, which is rather large, but the difference in the two sins is only one cent.
S
steve-b
Guest
Eastern Catholics accept mortal sin, the formal distinction.steve-b:
Good grief. I just said that the Orthodox (and likely most other Eastern Christians) don’t draw formal distinctions.
From and Eastern Catholic Bishop emeritus,
“Catholic is Catholic and truth is truth. We cannot pose as “Orthodox united to Rome” only for what suits us. I do mean it when we pray every day, at the Divine Liturgy, for “unity of faith and the communion of the Holy Spirit.”
There is no ‘Eastern truth’ vs ‘Western truth’. Truth is one. It may be articulated according to various cultural expressions, but truth is super-cultural. Truth should not be restricted by “party line” positions. We should accept or reject ideas for their worth and not for an artificial attachment to a given “identity.” The Church teaches truth. If something is true, it would be absurd to say “Oh, we don’t believe that in the East. This seems to be where we get short-circuited in ecumenical “dialogue.” All too frequently, such “dialogue” seems to presuppose a relativism where you speak “your truth” and I’ll speak “my truth” and we’ll just leave it at that. A sort of ecumenical schizophrenia.
» How do the Pope’s encyclicals and teachings impact on the Melkites?
Last edited:
S
steve-b
Guest
your penny example shows lack of formation in this subjectsteve-b:
Let us suppose that you stole your friend’s credit card and charged $1000 on it. This amounts to a theft of one thousand dollars, which is a mortal sin, No? Let us suppose that you stole a piece of blank paper from someone when he was not looking and it was without his permission. This was worth about one cent. This would be a venial sin, No?
Now let us reduce this by one cent in the first case, and increase by one cent in the second case:
Theft of $999.99 mortal sin
Theft of $0.02 venial sin.
Again
Theft of $999.98 mortal sin
Theft of $0.03 venial sin.
Continuing on you come to a point where there is only a one cent difference between a mortal sin and a venial sin. Suppose for example, that point is $75.00
Theft of $75.00 mortal sin
Theft of $74.99 venial sin.
Assuming this sin is unrepented, Is it reasonable to say that in one case God will punish you with eternal fire in hell and that in the other case you will go to a temporary punishment. After all, the difference in the two punishments is eternal, which is rather large, but the difference in the two sins is only one cent.
A
AlNg
Guest
Can you help us out on this?
Do you agree or not that
Theft of $1000 from a student of modest means making about $1000 per month part time work is a mortal sin?
Theft of $0.05 from him is a venial sin?
I
Isaac14
Guest
Again I say good grief. I HAVE NOT said that the West’s distinction of mortal and venial sin is wrong. I have also not said that the Orthodox do not believe there is such a thing as mortal sin. What I have said and am trying to say is that we have do not have a formally declared list of what is or isn’t "mortal sin” nor do we make a formal distinction that impacts what should or shouldn’t be confessed and when.
We can both rightly condemn “fuzzy ecumenism”, but that is not the same as being willing to understand that the various rites; Latin, Byzantine, Coptic, Ethiopian, Armenian, syriac, etc., etc., etc., can live out the one Truth (i.e. Christ) in the ways that on the surface may appear contradictory but when examined closely with an open mind are revealed to be the same Truth. That is certainly not easy to do - at least not for me.
B
babochka
Guest
I am reminded of the Union of Brest. "Since there is a quarrel between the Romans and Greeks about the procession of the Holy Spirit, which greatly impede unity really for no other reason than that we do not wish to understand one another."
Last edited:
Z
ziapueblo
Guest
Interesting because the current Bishop Nicholas Samra and Vatican II say otherwise.
I’ll let you read the document but he speaks about one Latinization after another.
So it seems that the current Bishop of the Eparchy of Newton would say that there is an “Eastern truth” to the faith and you now what, it’s ok to say that because Vatican II says, and I’ll quote it again, that the Eastern Churches are called “to preserve their legitimate liturgical rite and their established way of life.”
The Latin Church is just one Church of 24 and the Latin rite is just one expression of the faith. What does Catholic mean again? Oh yeah, universal. So we share the same faith even though we have different expressions of that faith. We Eastern Catholics are tired of Latin’s telling us what we believe or are to believe. If you can’t handle what Vatican II says about the Eastern Churches, I don’t know what to tell ya! Catholic is more than the Latin Church.
ZP
Unfortunately, in my experience, the only truth in the Catholic faith, that some Latin Catholics would have you believe, is that the western expression of the faith is the only true expression of the faith. From Bishop Nicholas Samra’s presentation on Eastern Catholicism in the Middle East: “The Vatican document calls the Churches “to preserve their legitimate liturgical rite and their established way of life.” This is still lacking due to excessive Latinization, theologically as well as liturgically. There is more to dressing up Eastern Catholics in Orthodox clothes and calling them legitimate to their proper traditions (my favorite quote). I cannot speak for all the Churches but I can speak for mine – the Greek Melkite. After Vatican II, our Synod returned in 1968 to the practice of communicating newly baptized and chrismated children, but you will still see First Communion ceremonies at age 7 throughout the Patriarchate. They may now call them “Solemn Communion” but let us not be fooled.”
I’ll let you read the document but he speaks about one Latinization after another.
So it seems that the current Bishop of the Eparchy of Newton would say that there is an “Eastern truth” to the faith and you now what, it’s ok to say that because Vatican II says, and I’ll quote it again, that the Eastern Churches are called “to preserve their legitimate liturgical rite and their established way of life.”
The Latin Church is just one Church of 24 and the Latin rite is just one expression of the faith. What does Catholic mean again? Oh yeah, universal. So we share the same faith even though we have different expressions of that faith. We Eastern Catholics are tired of Latin’s telling us what we believe or are to believe. If you can’t handle what Vatican II says about the Eastern Churches, I don’t know what to tell ya! Catholic is more than the Latin Church.
ZP
S
steve-b
Guest
that’s NOT how you presented it before. I even highlighted your examplesteve-b:
Can you help us out on this?
Do you agree or not that
Theft of $1000 from a student of modest means making about $1000 per month part time work is a mortal sin?
Theft of $0.05 from him is a venial sin?
When you wrote
Theft of $75.00 mortal sin
Theft of $74.99 venial sin.
S
steve-b
Guest
Liturgy was NOT Bp Elya’s point.Interesting because the current Bishop Nicholas Samra and Vatican II say otherwise.
steve-b:
Unfortunately, in my experience, the only truth in the Catholic faith, that some Latin Catholics would have you believe, is that the western expression of the faith is the only true expression of the faith. From Bishop Nicholas Samra’s presentation on Eastern Catholicism in the Middle East: “The Vatican document calls the Churches “to preserve their legitimate liturgical rite and their established way of life.” This is still lacking due to excessive Latinization, theologically as well as liturgically. There is more to dressing up Eastern Catholics in Orthodox clothes and calling them legitimate to their proper traditions (my favorite quote). I cannot speak for all the Churches but I can speak for mine – the Greek Melkite. After Vatican II, our Synod returned in 1968 to the practice of communicating newly baptized and chrismated children, but you will still see First Communion ceremonies at age 7 throughout the Patriarchate. They may now call them “Solemn Communion” but let us not be fooled.”
I’ll let you read the document but he speaks about one Latinization after another.
So it seems that the current Bishop of the Eparchy of Newton would say that there is an “Eastern truth” to the faith and you now what, it’s ok to say that because Vatican II says, and I’ll quote it again, that the Eastern Churches are called “to preserve their legitimate liturgical rite and their established way of life.”
The Latin Church is just one Church of 24 and the Latin rite is just one expression of the faith. What does Catholic mean again? Oh yeah, universal. So we share the same faith even though we have different expressions of that faith. We Eastern Catholics are tired of Latin’s telling us what we believe or are to believe. If you can’t handle what Vatican II says about the Eastern Churches, I don’t know what to tell ya! Catholic is more than the Latin Church.
ZP
S
steve-b
Guest
You didn’t open the link to see the point Bp Elya was making.steve-b:
Again I say good grief. I HAVE NOT said that the West’s distinction of mortal and venial sin is wrong. I have also not said that the Orthodox do not believe there is such a thing as mortal sin. What I have said and am trying to say is that we have do not have a formally declared list of what is or isn’t "mortal sin” nor do we make a formal distinction that impacts what should or shouldn’t be confessed and when.
We can both rightly condemn “fuzzy ecumenism”, but that is not the same as being willing to understand that the various rites; Latin, Byzantine, Coptic, Ethiopian, Armenian, syriac, etc., etc., etc., can live out the one Truth (i.e. Christ) in the ways that on the surface may appear contradictory but when examined closely with an open mind are revealed to be the same Truth. That is certainly not easy to do - at least not for me.
B
babochka
Guest
A Rite is not confined to its liturgy. The Eastern Code of Canons defines “rite” in this manner: “A rite is the liturgical, theological, spiritual and disciplinary patrimony, culture and circumstances of history of a distinct people, by which its own manner of living the faith is manifested in each Church sui iuris.”ziapueblo:
Liturgy was NOT Bp Elya’s point.Interesting because the current Bishop Nicholas Samra and Vatican II say otherwise.
steve-b:
Unfortunately, in my experience, the only truth in the Catholic faith, that some Latin Catholics would have you believe, is that the western expression of the faith is the only true expression of the faith. From Bishop Nicholas Samra’s presentation on Eastern Catholicism in the Middle East: “The Vatican document calls the Churches “to preserve their legitimate liturgical rite and their established way of life.” This is still lacking due to excessive Latinization, theologically as well as liturgically. There is more to dressing up Eastern Catholics in Orthodox clothes and calling them legitimate to their proper traditions (my favorite quote). I cannot speak for all the Churches but I can speak for mine – the Greek Melkite. After Vatican II, our Synod returned in 1968 to the practice of communicating newly baptized and chrismated children, but you will still see First Communion ceremonies at age 7 throughout the Patriarchate. They may now call them “Solemn Communion” but let us not be fooled.”
I’ll let you read the document but he speaks about one Latinization after another.
So it seems that the current Bishop of the Eparchy of Newton would say that there is an “Eastern truth” to the faith and you now what, it’s ok to say that because Vatican II says, and I’ll quote it again, that the Eastern Churches are called “to preserve their legitimate liturgical rite and their established way of life.”
The Latin Church is just one Church of 24 and the Latin rite is just one expression of the faith. What does Catholic mean again? Oh yeah, universal. So we share the same faith even though we have different expressions of that faith. We Eastern Catholics are tired of Latin’s telling us what we believe or are to believe. If you can’t handle what Vatican II says about the Eastern Churches, I don’t know what to tell ya! Catholic is more than the Latin Church.
ZP
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
BEAUTIFULLY EXPRESSED!
As a priest of Rome, I am very proud of what you have written.
We are in a totally different place today that when Pope Saint Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras first met to begin the healing of East and West.
Thank God we live in this moment in history – and, for us who are Catholic, in the post-Vatican II Church.
I
Isaac14
Guest
And ziapueblo pointed that Bp. Elya’s successor seems to have a different opinion. Is Bp. Samra wrong?
- Status