Eastern Catholics defending Orthodoxy vs Roman Catholics

  • Thread starter Thread starter OraProNobis333
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
AlNg said:
Oh yeah? Then why is it used by St. Thomas Aquinas? I thought he was a theologian of some sort?
Click to expand...
Was it used? I should refresh my memory. Anyhow, in current age terminology grave sin doesn’t mean mortal sin. It’s a sin that has potential to be mortal.
 
Montrose said:
grave sin = mortal sin
Click to expand...
Isn’t there a difference in culpability?

Rather, doesn’t grave sin mean there is grave matter and mortal sin says something is grave matter and also sinner is culpable to the point it is mortal sin?
 
Last edited:
I see. Am I confusing grave matter with grave sin then? Thank you for correction.
 
Getting back to the original question about the statement of Pope Francis that it is a grave sin for Catholics to proselytize the Orthodox, from the discussion it is looks like there are Catholics who disagree with the Pope. So does that mean then that the Roman Catholic Church is split into two separate groups:
  1. We have those Catholics who agree with Pope Francis and believe that it is grave matter and can be a grave sin for Catholics to proselytize the Orthodox.
  2. We have Catholics, as we see on this thread, who believe that Pope Francis was wrong, and that the right thing is for Catholics to proselytize the Orthodox, so it would not be a sin to do so.
    So does that mean then that the Catholic church is not united on this issue. As you know the marks of the true Church are that it be ONE, holy, catholic and apostolic. But is the Church one and united on this issue of whether or not it is grave matter and therefore can be a grave sin to proselytize the Orthodox, or is it divided into two diametrically opposed groups on this issue: One saying it is grave matter; the other saying it is something that should be done and is not wrong to do so.
 
Last edited:
I believe Pope Francis was right. In fact, we shouldn’t proselytize anyone. Proselytism is coercive and disruptive. It is used by cults and sects that have little to offer in terms of Truth.

The Church’s mission is to evangelize the world. To that end, evangelizing the Eastern Orthodox is the right thing to do. For that matter, we should evangelize Jews, Hindus, atheists, Wiccans, Protestants, and Ancient Church of the East adherents.

To put it succinctly, everyone should be evangelized – even Catholics. Evangelization is announcing the good news. Do you know someone who does not deserve to hear the Gospel?
 
The Schism was more complicated than you are making it. It was not really about the Filioque. That was one of a number of things the eastern patriarch listed in his numerous complaints against Rome. It was really about politics, and more about politics within the eastern empire than in the west. Prior to that schism there had already been others. The church in the east was already divided. The Church in the west had been, but had reunified itself.

The excommunications were mutual. It was not only the Pope who issued one, and he was dead by the time it reached Constantinople. It wasn’t the first time, either. Both the Pope and the Patriarch had done it in the past, but it didn’t result in permanent schism.
AlNg said:
i thought that the Roman Pope could remain but that he, together with all the Roman bishops and clergy, would have to convert to Orthodoxy, i.e., the faith of the whole church, east and west as it was before the split The two churches ,
Click to expand...
Depends on who you talk to. Most EO I have spoken to do not believe the Pope has any legitimacy at all, nor do Catholic bishops or priests.

I don’t know why the vastly larger Roman Catholic Church should “convert to Orthodoxy”. The Orthodox churches are much smaller and the great majority of them are Russians, or are at least technically. The EO claims all Russians are Orthodox and culturally I think most are.

Orthodoxy is also territorial and largely ethnic. Latin Catholicism is neither. One of the reasons for the schism was the Patriarch of Constantinople’s insistence that Latin churches within his territory change to Greek.
 
Are you aware of what the Catholic Church means by “proselytism” within the modern Ecumenical movement?
 
The term proselytism originated in the context of Judaism, in which the term proselyte referred to someone who, coming from the gentiles, had passed into the Chosen People. So too, in the Christian context, the term proselytism was often used as a synonym for missionary activity. More recently, however, the term has taken on a negative connotation, to mean the promotion of a religion by using means, and for motives, contrary to the spirit of the Gospel; that is, which do not safeguard the freedom and dignity of the human person. It is in this sense that the term proselytism is understood in the context of the ecumenical movement: cf. The Joint Working Group between the Catholic Church and the World Council of Churches, “The Challenge of Proselytism and the Calling to Common Witness” (1995).
(Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on some Aspects of Evangelization, Footnote 49, 2007, my emphasis)
Click to expand...
So it is norm understood to be a synonym for “missionary activity”, “evangelization”, or even, “attempts to convert” per se.
 
Interesting that you would say that. To the EO (or some of them at least) Protestantism is just a subcategory of Latin Catholicism. Catholics would not agree with that.

But you are right in saying Latin Christianity spread Christianity throughout the world.
 
Ridgerunner said:
To the EO (or some of them at least) Protestantism is just a subcategory of Latin Catholicism. Catholics would not agree with that.
Click to expand...
Protestants initially were Latins who left the Latin Church, ergo ex-Latins. Zwingli and Luther were Latin priests. In fact the Anglican, Lutheran, and even Methodist liturgies are basically based off the Latin liturgy right?
 
Last edited:
Sure. But they should not presently be considered part of the Latin Church.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Sure. But they should not presently be considered part of the Latin Church.
Click to expand...
well yea, that’s why they are ex-Latins. but their past - it eventually leads back to the Latin Church. They are a spin-off of the Western Church (even if schismatic)
 
Last edited:
AlNg said:
Why do Catholics have a Pope if what he teaches is wrong?
40.png
OrbisNonSufficit:
If Church has been wrong, let us run as fast as we can from Catholicism and pitty those who remain.
Click to expand...
The Orthodox Church will welcome you and other Roman Catholics who believe that Pope Francis is wrong.
Click to expand...
The Pope is infallible only under the exact conditions laid down by Vatican I (1869-70). If ALL of those conditions are not met then the charism of papal infallibility (which is a negative charism) doesn’t come into play. Example: If he says it’s going to snow today and it doesn’t, then obviously he’s wrong, yet he’s still Pope.

Re his comment on proselytism: I don’t know his mind & heart but my best guess is that he probably doesn’t know that the Church has previously defined this because as Pope Benedict observed, Vatican II was seen as a new starting point and everything pre-VII was ignored. If you look at the new catechetical document it has lots of references to VII, the teachings of PF, Scripture but very few from Tradition or the Fathers & Doctors of the Church. Now if you look at any papal document prior to VII (e.g. Mortalium Animos), it’s chock full of references from Scripture, the writings of the Fathers & Doctors of the Church and prior papal documents.

The Catholic Church is undergoing Her own passion like Her Divine Spouse. She will be crucified, die and experience the resurrection too.

The late Archbishop Fulton Sheen once wrote a book called Characters of the Passion. It gives a good look at St. Peter, Pilate, and the others who were involved with the Passion and Death of Our Lord.

Another book that I highly recommend is The Keys of This Blood by the late Malachi Martin (out of print but available online). The chapter “The Judas Complex” is alone worth the price of the book.

To paraphrase Bl. Mother Teresa: We’re called to be faithful not successful.
 
OrbisNonSufficit said:
If that is how word “proselytize” is being used then it’s a whole different story. Indeed, if what is meant is that we shouldn’t force Latin definitions upon East at large or that we shouldn’t try to take away identity of Eastern Churches then by all means.
Click to expand...
but you see, history has latinized many of the EC churches. if you take a look at my own SyroMalabar Church- the laity are latinized. Other than the Divine Liturgy (Holy Qurbana), the average laity is fully Latin- in terms of their theology and spirituality. None of the laity have any clue about the liturgy of the hours of the East Syriac tradition. We are supposed to start Ramsha (evening prayers) at 6pm- however at my local parish they do the rosary 6-7 before the evening Qurbana at 7pm.

Vatican II has freed up many of the EC churches. We are free to go more oriental and look into our own spirituality and traditions. But our own clergy haven’t done much yet so far.

These complications have only happened after being in communion with Rome. An identity crisis - with varying degrees - many ECs go through with I’m sure.
 
Alexandria2020 said:
These complications have only happened after being in communion with Rome. An identity crisis - with varying degrees - many ECs go through with I’m sure.
Click to expand...
That’s the sad reality of Schism. From standpoint of Catholic Church, they can’t just receive entire body of believers into Church without examining their beliefs and whether they are or aren’t heretical. At the same time, people outside Clergy (secular powers being prime example) were always uncomfortable with diversity of Rites- from 5th century until today. Combine those two and you get Latinization- easiest way to evade heresies… which also results into virtually killing traditional patrimony of Eastern Catholics … but that is sadly something secular powers rarely cared about.

Today I watched Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro discussing Judaistic local emphasis vs Christianity and her universalism. Ben made interesting points where he said that other than fundamentals, one can not apply entire law system universally- something Latinizations do. So basically, system of Rites and local autonomy while having common authoritative center and focal point which solves important disputes is ideal scenario.

And lastly… if indeed Latinizations are so rampant in your country, if they have become embedded in hearts of both laity and clergy, then one must consider that perhaps culture of your people has changed. Perhaps this latinization is simply evolution of Syro Malabar Church. If people reject changing back to older form of the Rite, perhaps new one is meant to stay. I am saying this with utmost respect for Syro Malabar traditions of course… but in history, many Rites experienced this.

Latin Rite had to change when people no longer held it as their patrimony- this was done during 9th to 11th century through mixing it with Gallican Rite. Greek (later Byzantine) Rite changed and mixed with Syriac traditions despite originally being very close to Latin Rite. Rites of Spain got superseded by Latin Rites, and Gallican Rites died out after Roman Rite adopted some of their practices and basically replaced French local customs. It is unfortunate to lose those Rites on one hand but on the other hand, it is standard way how Church progresses. Now the real question is which scenario is this… are people rightfully advancing their own Rite by adapting some Latin elements? Or is their patrimony being destroyed to conform some false ideas of unity?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top