Eastern Catholics, are we really Catholic?

[Catherine_Grant]

Dear Ms. Grant,

With all deserved respect, it could be because you have access to information that the rest of us do not. Upon closing the thread in question, the moderator at the Traditional Catholicism Forum merely said, “This thread is closed.” Period. Nothing more than that, and certainly nothing along the lines of a reason why. There’s no way we could be expected to know, as can you, that it was closed because of a member’s complaint.

I have used the “red triangle” in a different Forum as recently as a month or so ago. My concern was neither acted upon, nor was it even acknowledged as being received. Kinda makes one wonder how effective it actually is.

I apologize for not using proper protocol in order to give you a chance to do your job. I’ve been around here nearly four years now, and I still haven’t figured out all the rules!

a pilgrim,

Each moderator is over the complaints from his or her own forum and moderator action can be discussed with that moderator or appealed to the administrator. I check the complaints almost every day at least once a day, usually more often. I almost never get any. If you have questions, comments, or concerns, I’m happy to receive your PMs and to accommodate as much as I can.

This forum’s focus is to provide a community for Eastern Catholics and to help Latin Catholics better appreciate the Church’s Eastern heritage. I’m here to make sure the forum rules are applied consistently, fairly, and appropriately to all within the Eastern Catholicism forum. I welcome post reports and PMs that seek to further that goal and I am happy to explain why I make the choices I do.

If you have any questions, comments, or concerns, please feel free to send me a private message.

May God Bless You Abundantly,
Catherine

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Catherine,

My comment was more in the line of humor and primarily over the fact that the other one was closed but not this one. In any event there really wasn’t anything troubling said in either. It’s just that this one seems to go on and on well after the original subject was exhausted. If I had clicked on the red marker it would not have been to complain but simply to note that the subject was exhausted. Should I have done that anyway?

CDL

 

[Catherine_Grant]

Generally speaking, this is what I would look for:

1. Is this a legitimate topic of conversation for our message boards? If not, I’ll remove the thread and write to the original poster.
2. Is this on the right forum? If not, I’ll move the thread to the correct forum, leaving a redirect in place or writing to the original poster.
3. Are the participants responding to each other charitably? If not, should I post a charity reminder in the thread? Are there any members I should counsel privately?
4. Is it only one person or a small group of people who are responding uncharitably? If so, should I counsel them privately and edit or delete their posts if necessary to allow the conversation to continue?
5. Is it only one person or a small group of people who do not want to discuss the topic? If so, should I counsel them privately on how to ignore the thread or start a new one?
6. Is more going on than I realize with a poster or topic? If so, should I write to them to ask for their (name removed by moderator)ut before making a decision? If so, should I remove the thread to keep the conversation from continuing while I work on it?
7. Has the conversation changed topics? If so, can the new topic be moved into its own thread? If so, do I need to remove the thread from the board to go through it and divide the conversations?
8. Has the conversation turned into bickering that has strayed so far from the original topic that the posters could not charitably return to the original topic? If so, should I close or remove the thread? Are there any members I should counsel privately?
9. Has the conversation turned abusive? If so, I will close or remove the thread and discipline violators.
10. Are any members violating the forum rules? If so, how egregious are the violations? What action needs to be taken on the thread and with the posters to ensure it will not happen again?

If this is a legitimate topic you are tired of reading, my advice would be to start a new thread that interests you and let this one die. If the conversation is no longer on-topic or charitable and needs to be redirected, closed or removed my advice would be to use the red triangle to report it. Does this answer your question?

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Yes, thank you. I doubt that any action is necessary.

CDL

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Great comment, there, Br. David! There IS no reason why any one of us should be defending the ‘Catholicity of Eastern Catholicism’!!! It’s certainly, as you say, a sign of ‘a sense of superiority’ (where none actually exists) in certain individual(s) which harbor such feelings and opinions (that have no basis). The title of this thread caught my attention for the same reason…it annoys me to find Catholics, united under the Papacy, second-guessing the Church and its inclusion of the Eastern Rites. If anyone is heretical, the Church makes that call.

I think we have enough ‘convincing’ Protestants that we are Christians, let alone convincing other Catholics we are Catholic!

Why create trouble where none exists?

Byzgirl

So why can’t we just get on together ? ​

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Are you telling me that you are permitted to disobey specific doctrines? Can you ignore directives and/or promulgations that come from Rome? I am confused.

7688 comments on CAF later, you are not the least bit confused, you are now baiting and mocking.

 

[natsclem]

Thank you for your assistance. You have read what I have posted and got exactly what I was trying to get across except. I have not changed rites. I am still a Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic, I am in formation with the Carmelites, a Latin Religious Order. Some Byzantine Catholics are upset with this decision of mine as they think I should be going for the Eparchial priesthood or joining one of our (few) monasteries.

And just to make thinks clear. I am the original poster of this thread.

Br. David,

Why Carmelites? Did you not consider joining any of the branches of Franciscan Order? Or, why not Dominicans? Or, why not Benedictines?

If you’ll join other religious orders, do you feel you’ll become less Eastern?

Or perhaps, in joining a Latin Rite order, you feel, you’ll be fully Catholic…because you doubt your being Catholic…?

 

[natsclem]

It’s not a matter of linguistic authority but one of culture. The fact is our cultural identity is based on being “Maronite” and how we define ourselves as a people. Since we are a “unique breed” so to speak, growing around countless other Christian denominations, our own identification as “Maronite” became synonymous with out 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.

Peace and God Bless.

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

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.

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

 

[natsclem]

We are not “under” Rome. Never have been, never will be. Please, use language with a bit more precision.

CDL

Yap, you are not under Rome but you are under the supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff with sui iuris status. That’s in 1990 Code of Canon Law for Oriental Churches, Canon 43.

 

[bobzills]

Yap, you are not under Rome but you are under the supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff with sui iuris status. That’s in 1990 Code of Canon Law for Oriental Churches, Canon 43.

And what does this mean - not under Rome, but under the supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff with sui iuris status?

 

[natsclem]

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. Unity will happen only if the various churches are respected. It will never happen if every Church is politically dominated by the West.

CDL

I sense something less in your understanding of being in communion with the Roman Pontiff.

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.

It is necessary that some specifics must be discussed in here in order to assess whether Eastern Catholics are really Catholics.

 

[bobzills]

I sense something less in your understanding of being in communion with the Roman Pontiff.

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.

It is necessary that some specifics must be discussed in here in order to assess whether Eastern Catholics are really Catholics.

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.

 

[Formosus]

Br. David,

Why Carmelites? Did you not consider joining any of the branches of Franciscan Order? Or, why not Dominicans? Or, why not Benedictines?

I don’t really want to answer for Br. David (as I am sure he is fully capable of doing so on his own) but usually one joins a certain religious order because that is where they feel God is calling them to. So the obvious answer is he didn’t join those others because thats not where he discerned God wanted him to be. On another note, the Carmelites , while a latin order, do have a slight eastern flavor to them since they were founded in the Holy Land during the Crusades , and then later migrated to western Europe.

As for your other comments (the maronite one in particular), if I called someone a Roman, then generally there is no need to add Catholic here in the west. If I called someone a Roman in eastern europe and the near east, then one would assume I am talking about an Orthodox Christian, and not a Catholic. To my understanding, Yeshua wasn’t saying that all Catholics should just call themselves Maronite. What he is saying is that being Maronite is being Catholic and there is no need to attach “Catholic” onto the end of it because there is no alternative type of Maronite. Catholicity and Maronite-ness are intrinsicly tied together just as to a traditional latin Catholic Roman-ness or Latinhood or whatever phrase you want to call it is intrinsicly tied to being Catholic.

Also, final word here, being under the Roman Pontiff, is not the samething as being under Rome. Being under the Roman Pontiff= Being under the Pope, whom is the universal shephard and first among equals. Being under Rome= being under the Bishop of Rome in his role as leader of the western church(patriarch even though he has dropped that title).

 

[natsclem]

And what does this mean - not under Rome, but under the supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff with sui iuris status?

For example, a Maronite is under the jurisdiction of the Maronite Patriarchate of Antioch. If he goes in a place in which the Chaldean Patriarch has jurisdiction, he is still under jurisdiction of the Maronite Patriarch/Bishop although he/she may enjoy the sacraments administered by Chaldean priests especially if there is no Maronite church/eparchy in that place. He cannot transfer to the jurisdiction of the Chaldean Patriarchate unless the Apostolic See gave consent (if there is no Maronite eparchy in the place); or, unless the bishops of both epachies consents to the transfer (if there is also a Maronite eparchy in the place).

But if this example is applied in Rome…in effect, that Maronite is under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome because the Bishop of Rome is the Supreme Pontiff.

However, the law that the Roman Pontiff will apply will be the Code of Canon Law for Oriental Churches (not for Latin Rite Churces)…in this sense, we can say…not under Rome but under the Roman Pontiff.

Very thin line…

 

[Claudius]

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. Unity will happen only if the various churches are respected. It will never happen if every Church is politically dominated by the West.

CDL

This is a very good way to describe the way the Pope exersises the duties given to him. It is concievable that an Eastern Catholic could be elected Pope and move the Holy See to the East again and be Patriarch of an Eastern Rite. He would then have to someone in charge of the Latin Rite who would not be Pope. It could happen. Yet, the Pope is for all of us. I would have no problem following the Pope even if the office changed rites. The important issue is that there is a Pope. The Church herself is free to organize other matters as well as we all can agree.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

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 oneness–of the Father and the Son. We cannot say that the “Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father without the Son” without losing orthodoxy.

In this verse: “But 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. ” (John 15:26 - New King James Bible), Jesus probably did not add “and Me” because he already mentioned earlier that he is the Truth (John 14:6). If Jesus is the Truth then the HS is His Spirit–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 Son–"…And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.”

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 don’t see any reason why many Eastern Orthodox find “Filioque” 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 supreme…

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?”

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

We find it difficult to accept that a local council off in the backwaters of the Visigoths trumps an Ecumenical Council held in the Empire’s capital, a council, btw, which, althought the smallest (only 150) had the highest number of canonized saints in attendence. The Fathers at New Rome have spoken. The case is closed.

 

[LRThunder]

Are you telling me that you are permitted to disobey specific doctrines? Can you ignore directives and/or promulgations that come from Rome? I am confused.

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.

 

[ERose]

The pope wears many hats that are applicable in different settings. Unity will happen only if the various churches are respected. It will never happen if every Church is politically dominated by the West.

CDL

Do you see the Pope attempting to “politically” dominate your rite?

 

[ASimpleSinner]

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.

Look both ways, Bob.

The feeling is sort of mutual. I am not terribly interested in the other direction.

 

[Peter_J]

bobzills;3692952:

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.

Look both ways, Bob.

The feeling is sort of mutual. I am not terribly interested in the other direction.

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

It is necessary that some specifics must be discussed in here in order to assess whether Eastern Catholics are really Catholics.

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.