Eastern Catholics, are we really Catholic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Friar_David_O.Carm
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
GregoryPalamas said:
But then we did not divide over the lust of a king. At least the West recognizes the Eucharist of the East and both East and West, for the most part, recognize the Apostolic Succession of the other. We don’t intentionally dis the Scriptures as authoritative as the Anglicans do. We don’t intentionally ordain sodomites as you do.
Click to expand...
Whoa, easy there.
 
ByzCath said:
I do not understand why the Orthodox keep coming up in a thread on Eastern Catholicism.
Click to expand...
I don’t want the thread to get off topic, but neither do I want oneGODoneCHURCH going around thinking the Orthodox are Arians.

Blessings,
Peter.
 
jimmy said:
I think that most of them, if not all, would recognize the procession through the Son. For example, Zizioulas mentioned in the article I linked in a discussion we had a while back that the procession could even be said to be from the Son but not in a personal sense.
Click to expand...
The “not in a personal sense” is precisely the problem. The Church Fathers, and the Union of Brest, do not speak of anything other than the personal sense; they certainly don’t speak of a distinction between personal procession and “energetic manifestation”, except when they speak of the worldly energetic sending versus the eternal personal procession (both of which are attributed to the Son in some way).

That is why, as a Catholic, I am wary of modern Eastern Orthodox accounts that stray from what our Eastern traditions held firm to in entering the Catholic Communion. Clearly there are Orthodox perspectives, such as that of Brest, that are fully compatible with the Latin teaching, and I think that Catholics should uphold those, especially since the founders of our various reunions did.

Peace and God bless!
 
Ghosty said:
That is why, as a Catholic, I am wary of modern Eastern Orthodox accounts that stray from what our Eastern traditions held firm to in entering the Catholic Communion.
Click to expand...
Sadly, the divide over the Filioque issue remains formidable.
 
GregoryPalamas said:
I allowed myself to respond in such a way as to continue to carry the thread off topic. I apologize.

CDL
Click to expand...
It’s not you, nor anyone in particular, I think. I am no better. It’s the whole atmosphere here, it seems toxic.

And it seems to permeate almost every running thread, at least that’s my impression.

Too bad.
 
Hesychios said:
It’s not you, nor anyone in particular, I think. I am no better. It’s the whole atmosphere here, it seems toxic.

And it seems to permeate almost every running thread, at least that’s my impression.

Too bad.
Click to expand...
I do see what you mean, but it’s bigger than CAF I think I may start a topic on the effects of original sin when I’ve a chance to do so or perhaps you would wish to and I’ll contribute.

CDL
 
ByzCath said:
No we are not. Please do not speak for me.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry if you are not. I am and so is Father Loya and so are most Eastern Catholics I know.

BTW I thought you sent me a pm stating that you were ignoring my posts.

CDL
 
I have to agree with David. I don’t think we can be “Orthodox in communion with Rome” unless Rome is Orthodox too.
 
GregoryPalamas said:
I’m sorry if you are not. I am and so is Father Loya and so are most Eastern Catholics I know.

BTW I thought you sent me a pm stating that you were ignoring my posts.

CDL
Click to expand...
Orthodox in Communion with Rome? Is this equivalent to being called a “Catholic”? If so, what is the rationale behind not using this language which can, and probably has been taken, as something non-Catholic?

I don’t know, maybe I’m just crazy, but when I hear

**Let your ‘Yes’ mean ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No’ mean ‘No.’ Anything more is from the evil one.

**I take away, with many other things, that our language should be clear and an attempt should be made to clear up any obfuscations that may result from language.
 
Peter_J said:
I have to agree with David. I don’t think we can be “Orthodox in communion with Rome” unless Rome is Orthodox too.
Click to expand...
Rome is Orthodox.

BTW Since Brother David is reading my posts I wish him to know that I continue to pray for him during his 8 day guided retreat.

CDL
 
Chaldean_Rite said:
Orthodox in Communion with Rome? Is this equivalent to being called a “Catholic”? If so, what is the rationale behind not using this language which can, and probably has been taken, as something non-Catholic?

I don’t know, maybe I’m just crazy, but when I hear

Let your ‘Yes’ mean ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No’ mean ‘No.’ Anything more is from the evil one.

I take away, with many other things, that our language should be clear and an attempt should be made to clear up any obfuscations that may result from language.
Click to expand...
The Chaldean Rite (or is it a sui iuris Church…we’ve got to clear up that language, don’t you know) has a different history than do many of the other Eastern Catholic Churches.

Let me state it clearly, “Most Eastern Catholic know and our history shows it that we are Orthodox in Communion with Rome”. If the Chaldean Rite or is it a Church or a …? is not Orthodox in communion with Rome well that’s another matter.

I remember talking with your bishop from Detroit and he wore different vestments, indicated a different history, and presided over a somewhat different liturgy that do the Byzantine Ruthenians. Chaldeans may be Eastern Catholics who are not Orthodox in Communion with Rome but most Eastern Catholics are.

That’s yes meaning yes and no meaning no.

CDL
 
Chaldean_Rite said:
Orthodox in Communion with Rome? Is this equivalent to being called a “Catholic”? If so, what is the rationale behind not using this language which can, and probably has been taken, as something non-Catholic?
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t say that. How can it be “Orthodox in communion with Rome” be taken as something non-Catholic?
 
Peter_J said:
I wouldn’t say that. How can it be “Orthodox in communion with Rome” be taken as something non-Catholic?
Click to expand...
Because if somone asks you “what religion are you”, you are not going to say “Orthodox in communion with Rome”, that just doesn’t make sense since its not a religion per se. You will, “I am a ___ Catholic…”
 
Chaldean,

Am I correct to assume then that your group has never been Orthodox? Am I correct then that your group does not consider itself to be a Church but simply a Rite? I don’t know the answer to the first question and I’m surprised that if you do not consider yourself to be a Church that you are only a rite. Still could you clarify this for us?

CDL
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top