Eastern Catholics, are we really Catholic?

[natsclem]

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

I can’t think of anything really comparable to that in “the other direction”. (I’ve never heard an Eastern Orthodox speaking of “assessing whether Western Rite Orthodox are really Orthodox”.)

God bless,
Peter.

If Bro. David did not post with a heading…“Eastern Catholics, are we really Catholic?” no one, I think, would be doing the assessment. we are just “wasting” time to participate… wasting time since we do not expect that the Eastern Catholics who, some, claims to have their own set of Catholic beliefs, to embrace what Roman Catholics would normally accept as Catholic. Nevertheless, I, we, participate because WE CARE. right?

 

[natsclem]

You are mislead.

Start yet another thread on the Filioque–and you will receive very informative responses from Eastern Catholics and Orthodox.

Or search prior threads.

I apologize for contributing to the hi-jacking of this thread.

You’re Orthodox. For you, the judgment of the council is supreme. For us, Catholics, including Easterns, the Pope is the ultimate judge of Catholic Faith. The declarations of the ecumenical councils are subject to his confirmation. This was also the faith of the great Eastern Fathers.

The title of the thread is “Eastern Catholics, are we really Catholic?” Specific issues must be openly discussed to have a better understanding of the question. I am just honestly presenting my view on what I understand as Catholic view about the issue on Filioque. I presented biblical text because that should be our ground of accessing the Catholicity of anyone’s view on the issue.

The discussion of this specific issue is necessary because there still persist among Eastern Catholics that notion that because they are Eastern they are entitled to their own version of Catholicity.

 

[Mickey]

The discussion of this specific issue is necessary because there still persist among Eastern Catholics that notion that because they are Eastern they are entitled to their own version of Catholicity.

Fine. I know where I stand as an Orthodox Christian on the Filioque. I will let you hash it out with your Eastern Catholic brethren.

Peace

 

[GregoryPalamas]

What do you mean?

Catholicity is not defined by devotion to the Supreme Magisterium of the Catholic Church but to the Truth–the Catholic Faith.

There is only One Lord, One Faith. There are no Faith for the Easterns and another Faith for the Westerns.

The reality is that we are like individuals in different distances and angles from the same light. So, we view the same light also differently–some find it so bright; some, so dim; some, blazingly radiant. To those who view it blindingly radiant may refuse to even to take a glance.

Let’s see. The pope interprets our understanding as proper and acceptable. Some Roman Catholics do not. Hmmmm… Who’s more Catholic? Hmmm… who’s interpretation shall we accept?

 

[natsclem]

Let’s see. The pope interprets our understanding as proper and acceptable. Some Roman Catholics do not. Hmmmm… Who’s more Catholic? Hmmm… who’s interpretation shall we accept?

For the sake of academic discussion…can you be more specific on this: “The pope interprets our understanding as proper and acceptable”?

Can you cite sources/documents in which the Pope specifically declares certain differences of yours (Eastern/Byzantine Catholics) proper and acceptable?

If you answer this…you doing me a great favor. In my entire life, I have never met a Byzantine Catholic or any Eastern Catholic. I do not know the beauty of your Liturgy. I want to have a better understanding of Eastern Catholics. I hope in near future, some of you launch a mission here in the Philippines. So that you can enrich us too.

Thank you in advance.

 

[Hesychios]

I hope in near future, some of you launch a mission here in the Philippines. So that you can enrich us too.

I am not exactly clear on all of the details of the policy, but I am pretty sure the church technically does not allow the Byzantines to establish an outreach mission in a country like the Philippines on their own. It might be regarded as poaching upon the Latin church there because the population is overwhelmingly Catholic already.

The exception might be if some eastern Catholics migrate into the nation. The first step would be for them to appeal for a parish of their own to the local ordinary, who would be the local Latin church bishop. His obligation is to provide the sacraments to all Catholics, so of course they would be expected to attend the local Latin parishes until the need is deemed great enough to bear the expense of a separate community.

The local Ordinary of each diocesan area has to make the decision whether he can spare a priest (among other things) to serve this community, and the bar may be higher in Manilla than it is in London.

Ultimately, it is up to Rome to erect new eparchies outside of home territories of non-Latin churches, by removing these mission parishes from obedience to the local Ordinaries and assigning a bishop to them. The most recent examples I can think of include the Eparchy of St Thomas in Chicago for the Syro-malabar church. I know there are others but my memory is failing me.

If you are interested in this process I would suggest that you look for a possible mission to Melkites, Syro-Malabars or Maronites in your area (possibly the Ukrainians), they are most likely (in my opinion) to have established expatriate communities in big cities around the world.The rest of the eastern Catholic communities would be too few and spread out to be able to clamor for the attention, and also may not have the independent hierachies with home bases which can lobby sympathetic pressure in local chanceries. (You could actually assist them in establishing such a mission if you know your way around the local diocese.)

Orthodox do not labor under the same kind of constraints, so you will find a few small Orthodox communities in the Phillipines. I am sure that does not suit your purpose, but it illustrates the difference in how the two church groups operate.

Michael

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Orthodox do not labor under the same kind of constraints, so you will find a few small Orthodox communities in the Phillipines. I am sure that does not suit your purpose, but it illustrates the difference in how the two church groups operate.

It does, at least speak to a difference in concepts of authority in administration.

As I understand it, the Ecumenical Patriarch had several GO parishes in the Phillipines under his jurisdiction, and in the past few months the Antiochians have also set up shop in the Phillipines with the reception of whole congregations of non-Catholic, non-Protestant folks who professed Orthodoxy… I have not seen stories of a “turf dispute” on this matter, but am left to wonder how it would be handled were there one.

Similarly I am reminded of a group of defrocked Antiochian Orthodox convert clergy who simply started over with new parishes and got re-ordained to the clerical state by a bishop of the Jerusalem Patriarchate…

 

[Mickey]

Similarly I am reminded of a group of defrocked Antiochian Orthodox convert clergy who simply started over with new parishes and got re-ordained to the clerical state by a bishop of the Jerusalem Patriarchate…

Oh boy, here we go… :nope:

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Oh boy, here we go… :nope:

Not hardly Mickey - we don’t have to go anywhere with it.

Read the post and recognize the point that it makes. When it comes to the casual observation about the differences in “how we operate”, it is worth recognizing those differences stem from our understanding of wherein authority resides.

There is no “here we go” to it. It is not an invitation to re-hash accusations and counter accusations, it is an invitation to better consider what the real differences are here.

 

[Catherine_Grant]

Note from Moderator:
The topic of this thread is if there is a diversity of expression of theology, spirituality, or discipline between or within the Eastern Catholic churches.

Please start a new thread in the Non-Catholic Religions forum to discuss the historical controversies of Orthodox parishes in the Philippines.

 

[bobzills]

With reference to the question are Eastern Catholics really Catholic, I would say yes, Eastern Catholics are really Catholic. However, it does seem like there may be some serious differences between the Eastern Catholics and the Roman Catholics.
From reading CAF, my impression is that the following are some of the differences between EC and RC, but of course, I stand corrected since I may be wrong on some of these:

1. Eastern Catholics do not generally subscribe to the filioque, at least the Latin theology on it. In any case, it does not appear in their creed.
2. Eastern Catholics use icons, not statues.
3. In Eastern Catholicsim, Mary is generally depicted with Her Son in her arms, in RC, she may be depicted alone.
4. If you break the fast or abstinence, but are trying your best to keep the fast, it is not a sin in EC.
5. In Eastern Catholicism, it is the priest who marries the couple.
6. Eastern Catholicism does not use baptism by sprinkling.
7. Under EC, an infant receives, baptism, Eucharist and Chrismation all at the same ceremony.
8. The EC use leavened bread.
9. The EC do not allow liturgical dancing nor do they allow Halloween Masses, Monkey Masses, clown Masses, Dracula Masses, balloon Masses, cowboy Masses, puppet Masses, Chinese dragon Masses, etc. However, these type of Masses and liturgical dancing is found in the RC Church.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

bob,

I wish to thank you for this objective list of differences. Instead of criticising fellow Catholics you have simply noted the great variety among Catholics. You are a gentleman and a scholar.

CDL

 

[Hesychios]

bob,

I wish to thank you for this objective list of differences. Instead of criticising fellow Catholics you have simply noted the great variety among Catholics. You are a gentleman and a scholar.

CDL

I agree, Bob is impartial and thoughtful.

Michael

 

[Mickey]

we don’t have to go anywhere with it.

Thank you Joseph.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Thank you

I use my screen name on here, you know that.

Respect that Mickey.

 

[anthony022071]

But the continuing problem and the one that persists today is the suspicion bolstered by years of submissive behavior by Eastern Catholics is the real concern that Rome or at least many of her bishops don’t take Rome seriously when it says that it is alright not to use the “filioque”.

 

[jimmy]

It’s alright for the Eastern churches not to use the filioque in the creed. But the problem is that Eastern Catholics are inclined to deny the doctrine as well,saying that it is not a part of their tradition. Regional theological traditions do not trump the teaching authority and doctrines of Rome. And anyway,the belief that the Spirit proceeds (proienai) from the Father and the Son is indeed found in the writings of Eastern church fathers.

And the Calvinist doctrine of predestination can be found in Latin theology. Just because the filioque can be found in some theologians of the east doesn’t mean it is consistent with eastern tradition. The fact is that it is not consistent with eastern tradition.

The fact that the filioque is not said any more in Eastern Catholic parishes means that the theology behind it is not accepted.

Anyone can figure that one out. There’s no dichotomy between proceed and sent with the filioque. If the Spirit is sent from the Son,who has all that the Father has from eternity,then the Spirit does,in fact,proceed from the Son. The Latin word procedit means simply to go forth (from any source whatever),not specifically procession from a single,ultimate cause. The meaning of the word ekporeusis is not a stumbling block for Catholic theology as it is for Eastern Orthodox theology.

The Holy Spirit has also recieved all that the Father has and consequently He proceeds from Himself. Oh, the insanity.

Yes, ekporeusis is a stumbling block for Catholic theology in the same way as it is for the EO. The fact is that the council of Constantinople used the word in the creed to express the Spirit’s origin from the Father. For the west to add the filioque is to make the Son a source of the Spirit and it destroys the monarchy of the Father. In recent decades Rome has said that the Greeks shouldn’t use the filioque in the creed because it contradicts the theology of the fathers when the Greek word ekporeusis is used. But ultimately Latin theology does not make a distinction between the procession from the Father and that from the Son. The procession from the Son is in an equal sense as that from the Father. This is nothing other than a duel procession and it basically means ditheism to the Greeks.

 

[byzgirl]

GregoryPalamas;3699501:

It’s alright for the Eastern churches not to use the filioque in the creed. But the problem is that Eastern Catholics are inclined to deny the doctrine as well,saying that it is not a part of their tradition. Regional theological traditions do not trump the teaching authority and doctrines of Rome. And anyway,the belief that the Spirit proceeds (proienai) from the Father and the Son is indeed found in the writings of Eastern church fathers.

sorry to jump in here, but you say ‘inclined’? So what doctrines have they, in fact, denied?

**

The Eastern churches have a different way of expressing themselves, and emphasis…but not doctrinal differences that deserve suspicion. This sort of thing reminds me of Protestants (and how they are, basically, speaking of almost the exact same concepts as the Catholic–only using different language and terms to desribe it–while not really having the profound differences that they deem (or would like to maintain).**

Anyone can figure that one out. There’s no dichotomy between sent and proceed with the filioque. If the Spirit is sent from the Son,then the Spirit does,in fact,proceed from the Son. The Latin word procedit means simply to go forth (from any source whatever),not specifically procession from a single,ultimate cause. The meaning of the word ekporeusis is not a stumbling block for Catholic theology as it is for Eastern Orthodox theology.

IF the Pope gave them permission, and encouragement to restore and preserve their Eastern traditions and customs, who are any of us to be suspicious and allege that they have any ‘inclinations’ toward doctrinal and dogmatic heresy?

 

[anthony022071]

The Holy Spirit has also recieved all that the Father has and consequently He proceeds fromm Himself. Oh, the insanity.

The Holy Spirit has what he has from the Father and the Son.
He is the Spirit “of the Father” and “of Christ”,as Paul said.

“For He, as as been said, gives to the Spirit, and whatever the Spirit hath, He hath from the Word.” Athanasius, Against the Arians, III:24 (A.D. 362).

"Even if the Holy Spirit is third in diginity and order, why need he be third also in nature? For that he is second to the Son, having his being from him and receiving from him and announcing to us and being completely dependent on him, pious tradition recounts; Basil, Against Eunomius, 3

“The Spirit is God, from the Father and the Son.” Epiphanius, The Man Well-Anchored, 9 (A.D. 374).

“Since the Holy Spirit when he is in us effects our being conformed to God, and He actually proceeds from Father and Son, it is abundantly clear that He is of the divine essence, in it in essence and proceeding from it.” Cyril of Alexandria, Treasury of the Holy Trinity, Thesis 34 (A.D. 425).

“Believe most firmly, and never doubt, that the same Holy Spirit, the One Spirit of the Father and the Son, proceeds from the Father and the Son. That He proceeds also from the Son is supported by the teaching both of Prophets and Apostles.” Fulgence of Ruspe (North Africa), Rule of Faith, 11 (A.D. 447).

“…the Holy Living Spirit, the Holy Living Paraclete, Who proceeds from the Father and the Son.” Council of Seleucia (410) (Lamy, “Concilium Seleucia”, Louvain, 1868).

 

[GregoryPalamas]

GregoryPalamas;3699501:

It’s alright for the Eastern churches not to use the filioque in the creed. But the problem is that Eastern Catholics are inclined to deny the doctrine as well,saying that it is not a part of their tradition. Regional theological traditions do not trump the teaching authority and doctrines of Rome. And anyway,the belief that the Spirit proceeds (proienai) from the Father and the Son is indeed found in the writings of Eastern church fathers.

Anyone can figure that one out. There’s no dichotomy between proceed and sent with the filioque. If the Spirit is sent from the Son,who has all that the Father has from eternity,then the Spirit does,in fact,proceed from the Son. The Latin word procedit means simply to go forth (from any source whatever),not specifically procession from a single,ultimate cause. The meaning of the word ekporeusis is not a stumbling block for Catholic theology as it is for Eastern Orthodox theology.

Then it goes back to something I said earlier. If you wish to consider us non-Catholic that is your prerogative I suppose. I doubt that there are any Eastern Catholics who care one way or the other. If Rome says, “go away” then we have little choice. We will go away.

CDL