Eastern Catholics, are we really Catholic?

[dessert]

The Eastern Catholic Churches have their own Canon Law, which is distinct from the Canon Law for the Latin Rite. And I think the selection process of bishops for the Eastern churches are a little bit different than selection of bishops in the west.

But they are still in communion with Rome.

So were the eastern churches very strongly orthodox before they moved tooward Rome (western)? And then they seperated from Orthodox?
How does the orthodox feel about this? I was away from the latin for a long time but find it fascinating that the eastern has come a long way towards unity, and think it is incredible for them.

 

[yeshua]

That’s your assertion…and you’re entitled to you own opinion.

It’s not a matter of opinion, it is cultural heritage. Whether or not others practice this in the diaspora is their choice. This is why Maronites when interviewed or referenced are often simply called “Maronites” with no reference to the Catholic side of things simply because Maronites when discussing themselves assume the “Catholic” role in their title; and they use their own history and interactions to back it up.

If your presentation is universally acceptable, I doubt.

If “Maronite” is synonymous with “Catholic”, then I can say that I am also a Maronite–I am a Filipino Maronite. Is it acceptable? No. Maronite refers to Catholics who are linked to Maron. Although, I am a Catholic, I cannot be called Maronite because I am not linked to Maron.

No, “Maronite” is not synonymous with “Catholic,” that is absurd and so is your insistence on that being my opinion. I said the term “Maronite” is synonymous with our identity as Catholics:

…Since we are a “unique breed” so to speak, growing around countless other Christian denominations, **our own identification as “Maronite” became synonymous with our identity as “Catholics.” **Thus a Maronite back in Lebanon has no need to assert Maronite Catholic for that is a redundant statement, and you will get confused looks from Muslims and Melkites alike…

“Maronite” as a title used to self-identify as the decedents of the follows of Mar Maroun of the 5th century slowly became historically redefined to assert their Catholicity in that title. Authoritatively, as far as Maronites will be concerned, we have 15-16th century Maronite historians in their attempt at nation building saying Maronites have always been in communion with Rome, have always been “Catholic,” they are just the followers of one of those pious 5th century Western Syriac Catholics. This and alongside living around the plurality that is the Levant, the way Maronites identify is of no surprise to me.

So again I say NO, this is not a matter of interchanging Maronite and Catholic, one doesn’t replace the other, the title “Maronite” simply assumes their Catholicity, and this is how they traditionally identify.

However, I fully agree…in Lebanon, claiming to be a Maronite is claiming to be a Catholic. But, that’s only in Lebanon.

Granted, in the diaspora, the United States specifically, there is a qualification of “Catholic” after “Maronite” for a variety of historical and practical reasons that I do understand. However, my identity doesn’t shift simply because I leave Batroun for New York City, just a little more explanation is required for inquirers. It is the choice and opinion of the *Maronites in the diaspora *to change the way they identify.

Peace and God Bless.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

No surprise there. I note, however, that bobzills statement was in response to this:

Or, Peter, it could have been in response to this portion that you did not quote:

As Eastern Catholic, you must be subject to the provisions of 1990 Code of Canon Law of Oriental Churches.

Canon 43 reads:
*The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore, in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise. *

If you cannot and will not accept this provision, then you are less Catholic.

Which of course is difficult for non-Catholics to accept - it is a key and distinctive aspect of being Catholic or non-Catholic.

I can’t think of anything really comparable to that in “the other direction”.

“The other direction” for an Eastern Catholic who is in unia is to leave unia. This has happened in enough instances in the past and happens often enough on case-by-case situations among cradle Greek Catholics and Latins who transition into the Greek Catholic Churches and then profess Orthodoxy.

But when Bob notes:

Looking at the implications of the discussion, I can only observe that it is no wonder the Orthodox are wary of any reunion with Catholics.

I can say in all honesty that for as much as some Orthodox are wary of Rome and find the measures taken for unia unpalatable, from inside the unia, I look outward and see things in the melee of American jurisdictionalism that doesn’t make leaving the unia appealing to me in the least. Maybe it comes down to “the devel you know.”

Now before anyone jumps all over me for sounding over-sensitive or exagerrating a point I have to say, with all due respect, (in anticipation of such objections) “Balderdash”.

A certain subset on here (and you know who you are) take great pains to always paint the situation of unia in the most negative light, with a desire to revisit the darkest episodes and use the most pejorative words possible. It is neither helpful nor welcome. All it does is engender feelings of ill will, polemics and tension.

I don’t think it would be entirely inaccurate to describe a child as being “under the rule” “the subject of” “under the authority of” or “ruled over” by his parents, but honestly who talks like that save someone writing a “Mommy Dearest” tell all? Who?

So folks who want to make inroads in arguing for revisiting ecclesiology or re-investigating petrine ministry or unia do very well to tone down and back peddle on all the “Gee, don’t you wish you were as independent as we were, you poor slaves of Rome” and try a little charity, respect and sensitivity. The constant contradistinction of how much better it is for non-Catholic parishes to - under trusteeship - pull up stakes and shop for a new bishop when consensus has been reached that they have displeasure with their bishop, or the unfettered freedom of a non-Catholic hierarch to rule without deference to any directives that we have because of our unia… It accomplishes little more than looking snarky and is poor form.

 

[Peter_J]

Dear ASimpleSinner,

Thank you for your honesty.

-Peter.

 

[anthony022071]

As long as you mean his patriarchal authority over the Western Church and his spiritual authority over the whole church East and West we are in agreement. The pope wears many hats that are applicable in different settings.

 

[anthony022071]

You mean that Roman Pontiff like Pope Leo, who posted the creed without Filioque on the doors of St. Peter’s out of zeal “for the Orthodox Faith?”

 

[bobzills]

That was Pope Leo 3. He agreed with the doctrine of the filioque,but didn’t want to upset the Eastern churches by including it into the creed. .

The problem is that the four marks of the Catholic Church are one, holy, catholic and apostolic. Now how can the Catholic Church be one in doctrine, if in the Eastern Catholic Churches the creed reads one way, and in the RCC it reads another with reference to the filioque?

 

[anthony022071]

The problem is that the four marks of the Catholic Church are one, holy, catholic and apostolic. Now how can the Catholic Church be one in doctrine, if in the Eastern Catholic Churches the creed reads one way, and in the RCC it reads another with reference to the filioque?

As long as the Eastern churches accept the doctrine of the filioque,then it need not be of much concern that they don’t recite it in the creed. In the early centuries of the Church,there were several creeds in use.

 

[bobzills]

As long as the Eastern churches accept the doctrine of the filioque,then it’s alright. In the early centuries of the Church,there were several creeds in use.

What if they say that they accept the doctrine as it is stated in their creed?

 

[GregoryPalamas]

I find it rather offensive for Roman Catholics to speak of the Eastern Catholics relationship with the Pope as if we are somehow illegitimate when we are as a group more faithful to him than many if not most Roman Catholics. If the Pope is pleased with us how do you have the right to question us?

CDL

 

[Holly3278]

It is my opinion that Eastern Catholics are just as Catholic as Roman Catholics. I used to have a friend who is an Eastern Catholic but him and I are not on speaking terms right now unfortunately.

 

[Formosus]

As long as the Eastern churches accept the doctrine of the filioque,then it need not be of much concern that they don’t recite it in the creed. In the early centuries of the Church,there were several creeds in use.

The filioque though is problematic to greek theology. I do not really see the latin theology of “double procession” as necessarily that important for the Eastern Churches which beleive the samethings as the Latin but express them in different theological formulations and terms. A good example of this is the difference between Original sin in the eas and in the west. Asking eastern churches to abandon their theologies is not what the Catholic Church teaches.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

What if they say that they accept the doctrine as it is stated in their creed?

I find it hard to believe this isn’t intended just to be provacative.

These same things get brought up time and time again with folks outside the debate and discussion seemingly intent on exploiting the disagreement in a fashion that is either expedient for dissension or polemic.

 

[Peter_J]

I find it rather offensive for Roman Catholics to speak of the Eastern Catholics relationship with the Pope as if we are somehow illegitimate when we are as a group more faithful to him than many if not most Roman Catholics. If the Pope is pleased with us how do you have the right to question us?

CDL

I, too, wasn’t too thrilled to see the diatribes on this thread against Eastern Catholics. It occurs to me that some posters ought to be reminded to treat Eastern Catholics like guests. (Although to be fair, if our places were reversed – that is, if this were a Latin Catholic sub-forum on an Eastern Catholic website – I don’t doubt that there would be a need to occasionally remind posters to treat the Latin Catholics like guests.)

It is my opinion that Eastern Catholics are just as Catholic as Roman Catholics.

Hear hear!

 

[ASimpleSinner]

It occurs to me that some posters ought to be reminded to treat Eastern Catholics like guests.

I don’t follow.

We are guests?

I am not a guest. I am a Catholic.

 

[Catherine_Grant]

Note from Moderator:
Eastern Catholics are not guests on Catholic Answers Forums.

There is an expectation here at CAF that we all should behave with civility and charity. The Eastern Catholicism forum’s focus is to provide a community for Eastern Catholics and to help Latin Catholics better appreciate the Church’s Eastern heritage. Non-Catholics are welcome to participate but must be respectful of the faith of the Catholics participating on the board.

As the moderation staff cannot possibly read through the thousands of threads hosted at the Catholic Answers Forums, moderators depend on participants to inform them through the post report feature when there is a bad post or thread that requires moderation. We are grateful for the interest and concern of participants who contribute to making the Catholic Answers Forums a safe, charitable, and pleasant “home” on the Internet where Catholics and non-Catholics may gather.

Problems with inappropriate content should be reported via the “Report Post” feature. Just click the http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cak/report.gif image in the problematic post and fill out the form. Ideally the complaint should cite the specific rule that has been transgressed. For reference, forum rules are posted here.

It should also be noted that Catholics are NOT given preference because of their religious affiliation. In fact, Catholics are often held to a higher standard. As our Lord cautioned, “To whom much is given, of him will much be required” (Luke 12:48). Here at CAF, we believe that the truth will take care of itself. Our job is to reveal it as charitably as we can.

 

[Peter_J]

My sincerest apologies to anyone who was offended by comment that “some posters ought to be reminded to treat Eastern Catholics like guests”. I did not mean any slight against Eastern Catholic posters; just the opposite in fact.

Basically what I meant to say was that many of the posts on this thread have been offensive and inhospitable towards Eastern Catholics.

In the future I shall make a greater effort to say what I mean.

Sincerely,
Peter.

P.S. Likewise, when I said

Although to be fair, if our places were reversed – that is, if this were a Latin Catholic sub-forum on an Eastern Catholic website – I don’t doubt that there would be a need to occasionally remind posters to treat the Latin Catholics like guests.

what I meant to say is that in that situation, Eastern Catholics should make a particular effort to be charitable and hospitable toward Latin Catholics, not that Latin Catholics would be “just guests” on such a forum.

 

[bobzills]

I find it hard to believe this isn’t intended just to be provacative…

The question concerns the interpetation of the mark of the Church as being “one”. How to explain to a non-Catholic that the Church is one in belief, when one group says that the Holy Spirirt proceeds from the Father (period) and the other group says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son? And not only that, but that there are some Easterners who insist that the filioque is flat out wrong.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

The question concerns the interpetation of the mark of the Church as being “one”. How to explain to a non-Catholic that the Church is one in belief, when one group says that the Holy Spirirt proceeds from the Father (period) and the other group says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son? And not only that, but that there are some Easterners who insist that the filioque is flat out wrong.

Easy. Latin makes no or little distinction between proceeds and sents. Greek does. Let it rest. The Church does.

CDL

 

[Hesychios]

Isa Almisry;3693191:

You mean that Roman Pontiff like Pope Leo, who posted the creed without Filioque on the doors of St. Peter’s out of zeal “for the Orthodox Faith?”

That was Pope Leo 3. He agreed with the doctrine of the filioque,but didn’t want to upset the Eastern churches by including it into the creed. It was not yet a defined doctrine anyway.

This is certainly debatable.

I know what the claims are, they are repeated often enough by Latin Catholics.

But the **fact **is he opposed it virulently, the rest is opinion and it quite looks like spin, unless you can come up with a quote personally from him explaining his position.

Haec Leo Posui Amore Et Cautela Orthodoxae Fidei

Isa Almisry;3693191:

The Fathers of the Ecumenical Council picked a word from scripture that explicitely states, quoting the Son, that the HS procedes from the Father.

And the Western Church has never denied that doctrine.

Never is a very strong word. We know that the western Catholic church does not deny it now, but it looks for all the world like a reversal in position.

You have to prove a negative, which is literally impossible. Will you concede the point if I find one example of the Latin Catholic church teaching double-procession?

I just want to know whether this is an avenue worth pursuing.

The Council of Constantinople 1 was also a regional council. It only became regarded as ecumenical when it’s dogmatic decrees were taken up by the West,after the Council of Chalcedon.

All councils are ecumenical after acceptance by the church at large. Rome is not distinguished from Armenia nor Egypt in this regard.

The pope has authority over a council. Even the bishops of Chalcedon recognized that.

Not so, but if you would like to post your proofs they will prove to be just a futile and useless now as ever.