Eastern Catholics, are we really Catholic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Friar_David_O.Carm
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ungcsertez said:
Every photo of Bishop Elko dressed in vestments or ā€œchoirā€ dress (with matiya) I ever saw, gloves were part of the attire. Iā€™ll have upload those for exhibit A.

U-C
Click to expand...
Okā€¦

And then after we are obsessing about a bishop removed from the Metropolia 41 years ago who has now been dead for 18 yearsā€¦

We could get on to the little matter of the original thread - what differing and distinctive theologies do you feel need to be better addressed?

When you write
" I believe there there are differences which never seem to be written down. I think these should have at least be listed in the Code of Canon Law for the Eastern and Oriental Particular Churches. "
Click to expand...
What did you have in mind?

When you write:
There are distictions concerning dogma in the Eastern and Oriental Particular Churches and they must be defended.
Click to expand...
Ok, what are they?

When you write:
There are differences that go beyond liturgical form and rubrics. They need to be taught and not simply be brushed aside as ā€œschismaticā€ teachings.
Click to expand...
Fair enough - what did you have in mind and how is are the ECF texts in use today not doing the job?

Can we move past ++Elkoā€™s gloves from 43 years ago or books in basements and address these?
 
I found a picture of my brothers ā€œFirst Communionā€ in 1962. Bishop Elko is in the center of the picture with his red slippers on! :eek: . I kid you not. Although the picture is black and white, my Father remembers the red slippers.
 
Eastern Catholics are Catholics, but there does seem to be a difference in beliefs between the Roman and the Eastern Catholics. I am not sure how serious these differences are, but Roman Catholics believe, that for the most part, these differences can be reconciled by appeal to considerations and studies of differences which may arise from varying cultural, historical, and philosophical frameworks. However, Eastern Orthodox Christians generally seem to believe that the differences between East and Weat are more serious than the Latin Church is willing to admit.
 
etnick said:
I found a picture of my brothers ā€œFirst Communionā€ in 1962. Bishop Elko is in the center of the picture with his red slippers on! :eek: . I kid you not. Although the picture is black and white, my Father remembers the red slippers.
Click to expand...
Well that is really great for you - glad you have family photos. Feel free to scan them in and share them - it will be a hit among people who curl their toes and giggle about such thingsā€¦ It will make its way around the net until the Parousia.

Anyone have anything to address the OP?
 
bobzills said:
Eastern Catholics are Catholics, but there does seem to be a difference in beliefs between the Roman and the Eastern Catholics. I am not sure how serious these differences are, but Roman Catholics believe, that for the most part, these differences can be reconciled by appeal to considerations and studies of differences which may arise from varying cultural, historical, and philosophical frameworks. However, Eastern Orthodox Christians generally seem to believe that the differences between East and Weat are more serious than the Latin Church is willing to admit.
Click to expand...
Yes good point.
 
Ungcsertez said:
How would our prayers in our Divine Liturgy be any different from those of a Orthodox Divine Liturgy?

Iā€™ve been told by many Roman Catholics that Eastern Catholics must believe in the Filoque clause or we are ā€œschismaticsā€.

U-C
Click to expand...
Accept and believe ā€œFilioqueā€ in the way the Church of Rome understands it not the way the Eastern Churches understand it. The Filioque procession of the Holy Spirit (HS) is differently understood. In the East, the word for procession (proceed) used in the Constantinopolitan Creed was the Greek word ekporeutai (para tou Patros ekporeutai)which connotes procession of the HS from a single source, principal, or causeā€“in this case, the Father. In the West, the word used was the Latin procedit (qui a Patre procedit)which does not imply what the Greek word implies. The perfect equivalent of procedit is the Greek word proienai, which was used by St. Epiphanius of Salamis (374 AD) & in the Council of Seleucia (in the Antiochian patriarchate, 410 AD). The West always believe that both the Son and the HS derive their eternal existence from the same, one cause, the Father. The word procedit does not have that specific meaning but a more generic one allowing the expression of ā€œwho proceeds from the Father and the Sonā€ possible without making the Son an another principal source of the HSā€™s eternal existence.
 
LakaYaRabb said:
The only qalm that I might have is this:

Whatever two persons of the Trinity share, all three must share.

When making distinctions, only those disticntions belong to the Person which they are proper. Those, is the Father and the Son both share in being Principles for the Procession of the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit would also be a Principle.

This creates an obvious confusion because then the Holy Spirit would be a Principle for being His Own Principle.

While I understand the idea that the Father is the Principle, the explanation of From the Prinicple, but through the Son as expressed in Latin Theology lends itself to the idea that the Son is on some way indirect also joined with the Holy Spiritā€™s Procession in the sense that because the Holy Spirit is from the Priniciple (the Father) and through the Son, the Son is also working as the Priniciple.
Click to expand...
It would also of great help if we return to the biblical texts.

If the Father and the Son are one as the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father (John 10:30&38), it is correct to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son not separately but in their oneness. That oneness cannot be divided so the procession of the HS necessarily comes from that onenessā€“of the Father and the Son. We cannot say that the ā€œHoly Spirit proceeds from the Father without the Sonā€ without losing orthodoxy.

In this verse: ā€œBut when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me. ā€ (John 15:26 - New King James Bible), Jesus probably did not add ā€œand Meā€ because he already mentioned earlier that he is the Truth (John 14:6). If Jesus is the Truth then the HS is His Spiritā€“the Spirit of Truth. In John 15:26, Jesus is trying to say that the Counselor (Helper) is also the Spirit of Truth (Jesus is the Truth) that proceeds from the Father making the HS also the Spirit of the Father as that can be read in Matthew 10:20.

Finally in John 20:22, the Holy Spirit clearly proceeds from the Sonā€“"ā€¦And with that he breathed on them and said, ā€œReceive the Holy Spirit.ā€

Therefore, the Father and the Son are the one inseparable principle of the Holy Spirit, He (HS) being the Spirit of both the Father and the Son.

I donā€™t see any reason why many Eastern Orthodox find ā€œFilioqueā€ too difficult to accept. The only reason I find reasonable is that they do not want to accept Petrine Ministry exercised by the Roman Pontiff as being supremeā€¦
 
natsclem said:
It would also of great help if we return to the biblical texts.

If the Father and the Son are one as the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father (John 10:30&38), it is correct to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son not separately but in their oneness. That oneness cannot be divided so the procession of the HS necessarily comes from that onenessā€“of the Father and the Son. We cannot say that the ā€œHoly Spirit proceeds from the Father without the Sonā€ without losing orthodoxy.

In this verse: ā€œBut when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me. ā€ (John 15:26 - New King James Bible), Jesus probably did not add ā€œand Meā€ because he already mentioned earlier that he is the Truth (John 14:6). If Jesus is the Truth then the HS is His Spiritā€“the Spirit of Truth. In John 15:26, Jesus is trying to say that the Counselor (Helper) is also the Spirit of Truth (Jesus is the Truth) that proceeds from the Father making the HS also the Spirit of the Father as that can be read in Matthew 10:20.

Finally in John 20:22, the Holy Spirit clearly proceeds from the Sonā€“"ā€¦And with that he breathed on them and said, ā€œReceive the Holy Spirit.ā€

Therefore, the Father and the Son are the one inseparable principle of the Holy Spirit, He (HS) being the Spirit of both the Father and the Son.

I donā€™t see any reason why many Eastern Orthodox find ā€œFilioqueā€ too difficult to accept. The only reason I find reasonable is that they do not want to accept Petrine Ministry exercised by the Roman Pontiff as being supremeā€¦
Click to expand...
The Eastern Orthodox do not accept this resoning. According to the Eastern Orthodox teaching, the Father and the Son are two Divine Persons.
 
natsclem said:
Therefore, the Father and the Son are the one inseparable principle of the Holy Spirit, He (HS) being the Spirit of both the Father and the Son.QUOTE]

That completely diminishes the Person of the Holy Spirit- the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and is the third Person of the Trinity. We object to the filioque for plenty of sound theological reasons, not just out of some sort of resentment for the Bishop of Rome.
Click to expand...
 
As an Eastern Catholic I find the Roman Catholics are Catholics with a ā€œfunnyā€ liturgy. I guess that they are still Catholic, though.šŸ˜‰

CDL
 
bobzills said:
The Eastern Orthodox do not accept this resoning. According to the Eastern Orthodox teaching, the Father and the Son are two Divine Persons.
Click to expand...
I did not say They are not. I am presenting the biblical texts in support of ā€œfilioqueā€ not expounding the personalities of the Father and the Sonā€“anyhow, in the biblical texts that I presented, nothing says that the Father is the Son or that the Son is the Father. The oneness of the Father and the Son is defined in this sense: the Father is IN the Son as the Son is** IN** the Father. They are one in Divine Nature but two distinct Persons.
 
natsclem said:
I did not say They are not. I am presenting the biblical texts in support of ā€œfilioqueā€ not expounding the personalities of the Father and the Sonā€“anyhow, in the biblical texts that I presented, nothing says that the Father is the Son or that the Son is the Father. The oneness of the Father and the Son is defined in this sense: the Father is IN the Son as the Son is** IN** the Father. They are one in Divine Nature but two distinct Persons.
Click to expand...
Being two distinct Persons, the Orthodox might say something like the procession is from the Person of the Father, but not from the Person of the Son if that is the correct phraseology to use , I donā€™t know about that.
 
bobzills said:
Being two distinct Persons, the Orthodox might say something like the procession is from the Person of the Father, but not from the Person of the Son if that is the correct phraseology to use , I donā€™t know about that.
Click to expand...
Works for me! šŸ‘ šŸ˜‰
 
bobzills said:
Being two distinct Persons, the Orthodox might say something like the procession is from the Person of the Father, but not from the Person of the Son if that is the correct phraseology to use , I donā€™t know about that.
Click to expand...
Can we get back on track with this thread or maybe it has run its course.

This thread is not about the filoque nor is it out the Eastern Orthodox.

It is about Eastern Catholics and why some Eastern Catholics seem to see themselves as something other than Catholic.
 
ByzCath said:
We, as Catholics, are bound to believe in the Immaculate Conception. Eastern Catholics have always believed that Mary was born sinless and stayed such, just look at the prayers of the Divine Liturgy. This is just one of those dogmas that is expressed in a manner that is different.
Click to expand...
Ok, what is that different manner? If the dogma rests upon Thomistic and Augustinian theology regarding original sin and insists that Mary was conceived sinlessly and the East holds that original sin is not passed down physically but is a mystery and that Maryā€™s sinlessness is necessary but also a mystery how are these views the same? Iā€™m asking this not so much as a challenge but as a serious academic question. I teach theology at a Roman Catholic University. How do I teach that these two understandings are different but not different?

I agree with your understanding of the filioque.

I donā€™t know how to respond to your original question except to say Iā€™m sad that our Eastern Catholic Churches offer so few opportunities for young men. I donā€™t see how our patrimony will survive long enough to get our mission accomplished if we donā€™t have enough monasteries to attract our young men.

CDL
 
GregoryPalamas said:
Ok, what is that different manner? If the dogma rests upon Thomistic and Augustinian theology regarding original sin and insists that Mary was conceived sinlessly and the East holds that original sin is not passed down physically but is a mystery and that Maryā€™s sinlessness is necessary but also a mystery how are these views the same? Iā€™m asking this not so much as a challenge but as a serious academic question. I teach theology at a Roman Catholic University. How do I teach that these two understandings are different but not different?
Click to expand...
First, I do not see the Thomistic and Augustinian views of original sin as being dogmatic in themselves. So this is how we view the sinlessness of Mary as being different. This is why the West needed the dogma released as it was, we did not need it yet we still believe that Mary was born sinless and lived in a sinless life.
I donā€™t know how to respond to your original question except to say Iā€™m sad that our Eastern Catholic Churches offer so few opportunities for young men. I donā€™t see how our patrimony will survive long enough to get our mission accomplished if we donā€™t have enough monasteries to attract our young men.
Click to expand...
We do have some monasteries but that does not cut it for me. I feel called to a common life but also an active life. We need to explore that more. It seems that Eastern Christianity lost that active part sometime in our history as there was a time of monasteries in urban centers with an active component to them.

But again, that is not what this thread is about. It is about some Eastern Catholics who feel that they are not really Catholic. I can not tell you how many feel I am a traitor because I have chosen to join a Latin Religious Order never mind that I have not changed Churches, I am still a Byzantine Ruthenian Catholic and I can supply the letter from the Oriental Congregation in Rome granting me approval to attend this novitiate to prove it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top