Eastern Rite and Latin Rite Saints

[5Loaves]

What is the problem with referring to them as the Orthodox Churches? By doing so, you are politely calling them by their name, not acknowledging the extent to which they are or are not orthodox, as determined by you, just as when the Orthodox refer to us as Catholics (something I’ve not known Orthodox to refuse to do), by doing so, they are not acknowledging any degree to which they actually believe us to be truly catholic. Also, the hierarchy of the Catholic Church has no problem with calling them Orthodox, so why should the laity?

Amen, and amen.

 

[shestelle]

Interesting "thread "! Whenever the East and West at put at odds, whether in Religion, or otherwise, separation is created! What we need “today” is Unity not separation! Lety’s pray the Holy Spirit during these last days of the PENTACOST novena: "Come Holy Spirit fill the hearts of the faithful with your Holy Love, the Gifts that you bestow, that we, together, may foster and nurture the “Fruit” of the Holy Spirit! One is Holy, One is Lord, Jesus Christ, to the Glory of God the Father! Amen!

Whether known or unknown, the Saints of God are “one in Him” and not at odds with oneanother! Jesus said, "Love one another, as I have loved you . . . !

shestelle

 

[Peter_J]

Thank you for saying that, shestelle. I’d like to add this side note: not only are there, among Catholics, some Eastern as well as some Western, but likewise there are, among Orthodox, some Western as well as some Eastern.

I hope it doesn’t seem like I’m going off-topic, but my point is that Orthodox thinking (about Orthodoxy) is not all that different from Catholic thinking (about Catholicism). Indeed, at least one WRO (Western-Rite Orthodox) I know likes to quote [their] St. John Maximovitch who said “Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be Eastern.”

 

[wynd]

Oh my. This is an interesting can of worms where I sit on Wikipedia. The article on the Eastern Orthodox Church of course states in the opening sentence that it is officially known as the Orthodox Catholic Church. Well, just about everyone you can think of takes issue with that name, Orthodox and Catholic alike. The Orthodox don’t like being called Catholic

We don’t mind being called Catholic, as long as it’s understood that we aren’t in communion with Rome. We really, definitively consider ourselves the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, but I would say we avoid the name “Catholic” nowadays to avoid confusion with the Roman Catholic church.

Food for thought: My old parish has a sign out front that says “St. Nicholas Orthodox Catholic Church.”

 

[Peter_J]

We don’t mind being called Catholic, as long as it’s understood that we aren’t in communion with Rome. We really, definitively consider ourselves the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, but I would say we avoid the name “Catholic” nowadays to avoid confusion with the Roman Catholic church.

That’s for the best, in my opinion. Likewise, if I tell someone “I’m not Orthodox, I’m Catholic” I trust that he/she won’t think I mean “I’m not orthodox”.

 

[Seraphignatius]

What is the problem with referring to them as the Orthodox Churches?

Words have meaning. When they use the title of Orthodoxy they are making a claim, when I use the title of Orthodoxy in reference to them I am both muddling the meaning of the word and assenting to their claim; which I don’t believe. I will do neither.

By doing so, you are politely calling them by their name, not acknowledging the extent to which they are or are not orthodox, as determined by you,

Not so. Not remotely. Besides the canons of multiple councils and the proclamations of the Popes, even the Greek Fathers give testimony to the truths concerning Peter and his successors; which they deny.

just as when the Orthodox refer to us as Catholics (something I’ve not known Orthodox to refuse to do), by doing so, they are not acknowledging any degree to which they actually believe us to be truly catholic.

If they think we aren’t I shouldn’t like them to say we are, but insofar as I am aware they don’t dispute it. I had thought each side acknowledged the other to have three of the four marks. Holiness by the sacraments, catholicity by extending through the earth and accepting all men, and apostolicity by virtue of succession.

Also, the hierarchy of the Catholic Church has no problem with calling them Orthodox, so why should the laity?

The heirarchy has not laid on me any obligation in the matter.

 

[Peter_J]

Words have meaning.

Certainly. But I believe what Ryan wants you to understand is that there are conventions. CAF is a good example: here the word “Catholic” (with a capital C and without other qualifiers) means those of us in communion with Rome, exclusively. (If “catholic” in the sense that includes Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, etc is meant, then the “c” is lower case.) Anglicans certainly call themselves “Catholic” (with a capital C and without other qualifiers) on their blogs and forums (see here for example) but on CAF they follow the aforementioned convention regardless of their personal beliefs.

Anyhow, perhaps the more important thing is that we know what we’re talking about. You may or may not believe that, which is fine, but either way I think you should start your own discussion (about not referring to the Orthodox as “the Orthodox”, or whatever message you want to get out) rather than using this thread.

 

[Peter_J]

If they think we aren’t I shouldn’t like them to say we are, but insofar as I am aware they don’t dispute it. I had thought each side acknowledged the other to have three of the four marks. Holiness by the sacraments, catholicity by extending through the earth and accepting all men, and apostolicity by virtue of succession.

Does your lack of awareness of something mean that it isn’t?

 

[Seraphignatius]

Certainly. But I believe what Ryan wants you to understand is that there are conventions. CAF is a good example: here the word “Catholic” (with a capital C and without other qualifiers) means those of us in communion with Rome, exclusively. (If “catholic” in the sense that includes Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, etc is meant, then the “c” is lower case.) Anglicans certainly call themselves “Catholic” (with a capital C and without other qualifiers) on their blogs and forums (see here for example) but on CAF they follow the aforementioned convention regardless of their personal beliefs.

I can see how that would be important for the sake of clarity, but I’m not talking about calling the Catholic Church big O Orthodox, simply that as a matter of conscience I do not support using that title for other churches.

Anyhow, perhaps the more important thing is that we know what we’re talking about. You may or may not believe that, which is fine, but either way I think you should start your own discussion (about not referring to the Orthodox as “the Orthodox”, or whatever message you want to get out) rather than using this thread.

I considered not responding to requests for clarification since the matter of what term I would use was settled, and it took me a day or two to make up my mind, but I was specifically asked here, so I responded. I don’t see any need to make a new thread nor to take up more of this one on the subject.

Does your lack of awareness of something mean that it isn’t?

I did preface that statement with my opinion on the matter if they did object. (That I don’t want them to call us that if they believe we aren’t.) Do you have reason to believe they object?

Back on topic though, I’m glad there seems to be a consensus on the status of Constantine for the rest of the church, but does anyone have any documentation with official information on the subject?

 

[adawgj]

Yes in particular St. Marron and St. Ephrem are my two favorites.

 

[shestelle]

Peter Jericho,

I’m intreaged by the quote from the Balamand Statement that was on your replies.

Could you expound on particular statement, please!
So if “psssing over the other” concerning Catholic Church and Eastern Church,
what do you think is implied in this particular statement?
thank you!

Shestelle

“Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Eastern, no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other”

• the Balamand Statement

 

[Peter_J]

Peter Jericho,

I’m intreaged by the quote from the Balamand Statement that was on your replies.

Could you expound on particular statement, please!
So if “psssing over the other” concerning Catholic Church and Eastern Church,
what do you think is implied in this particular statement?
thank you!

Shestelle

“Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Eastern, no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other”

• the Balamand Statement

Well, the way I see it, the door is still open – that is to say, if someone wants to switch from Orthodoxy to Catholicism, we aren’t going to say “No you can’t do that.” It’s just that we longer try to get anyone to do so.

 

[Seraphignatius]

Well, the way I see it, the door is still open – that is to say, if someone wants to switch from Orthodoxy to Catholicism, we aren’t going to say “No you can’t do that.” It’s just that we longer try to get anyone to do so.

Lord have mercy! What was Cardinal Kaspar thinking?

 

[Seraphignatius]

Well, the way I see it, the door is still open – that is to say, if someone wants to switch from Orthodoxy to Catholicism, we aren’t going to say “No you can’t do that.” It’s just that we longer try to get anyone to do so.

Fortunately, it would seem the Balamand Commission spoke only for those present and has no authority over anyone else, much less the church at large, so the Great Commission is still in effect.

 

[shestelle]

Well, the way I see it, the door is still open – that is to say, if someone wants to switch from Orthodoxy to Catholicism, we aren’t going to say “No you can’t do that.” It’s just that we longer try to get anyone to do so.

Why would the Orthodox Peoples want to switch to Catholicism when they are already Catholic in the true sense of the Word?
Anyhow, we do see that Pope Francis is meeting with Patriarch Bartholomew! As in the past Popes and Patriarchs have met. And, theologians have looked a lot at what divides us! Maybe it is TIME to examine what UNITES us!

As I understand it, it is so often human error that causes divisions, schisms, hericies, etc.
and forgetting to look to God, Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit and the Holy Scriptures in relationship to “cultural traditions” that cause misunderstandings and rifts in the Holy Garment of the CHURCH, as God sees it!

Remembering the Gospel of John 17: Christ Jesus’ Great prayer for Unity! that they may be One as we are One . . . . . . etc.

Lord Jesus Christ have mercy upon us all!

 

[Peter_J]

Fortunately, it would seem the Balamand Commission spoke only for those present and has no authority over anyone else, much less the church at large, so the Great Commission is still in effect.

Well, there is no question that there are many Orthodox who dislike (at least) the Balamand Statement, although I don’t know if I would say fortunately.

 

[Peter_J]

Why would the Orthodox Peoples want to switch to Catholicism when they are already Catholic in the true sense of the Word?

I can’t really speak to why they do, since I haven’t (I mean I’ve stayed in the church that I was baptized in as a baby); but it’s not necessarily surprising that some do, if you consider that there are Catholics who go Anglican, Anglicans who go Orthodox, Catholic who go Orthodox, Orthodox who go Anglican, Lutherans who go etc etc etc. (Then again, some of that is because of Anglicanism going liberal in the last 5 decades … but even before that there were always people switching from one to another.)

 

[Peter_J]

Fortunately, it would seem the Balamand Commission spoke only for those present and has no authority over anyone else, much less the church at large, so the Great Commission is still in effect.

Well, there is no question that there are many Orthodox who dislike (at least) the Balamand Statement, although I don’t know if I would say fortunately.

P.S. Oddly enough, today I started reading Catholic-Orthodox Relations in Post-Communist Europe: Ghosts from the Past and Challenges for the Future. It’s rather lenghthy, but I just want to cite one portion, the part concerning the assessment of the Balamand Statement by the Pope of Rome (at the time) John Paul II:

Only a few days after the Balamand meeting ended, Metropolitan Jeremias of France headed a delegation from the Ecumenical Patriarchate to Rome to participate in the celebration of the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul. In his speech to his Orthodox guests, Pope John Paul II called Balamand a “new step” that “should help all the local Orthodox Churches and all the local Catholic Churches, both Latin and Oriental, which live together in a single region, to continue their commitment to the dialogue of charity and to begin or to pursue relations of cooperation in the area of their pastoral activity.” And in the message he sent to the Ecumenical Patriarch on the occasion of the feast of St. Andrew the following November, the Pope wrote that during the past year “we were able to make progress in resolving the problems that had prevented our theological dialogue from going forward. In this way the conditions were fulfilled for moving ahead more rapidly with the theological discussions already begun. In fact, it is precisely by intensifying the theological dialogue that the still necessary clarifications can be made. The Catholic Church is entirely willing to do all she can to facilitate our common journey, in obedience to the will of the Lord and for the good of the Church.” Although couched in highly diplomatic language, the well-connected Irénikon commented that this was the equivalent of an explicit approval of Balamand.

(It also discusses the negative assessments of Balamand from some Orthodox – and possibly the assessments from traditionalist Catholics, I haven’t finished reading it yet.)

 

[Seraphignatius]

That doesn’t sound like an explicit approval. That is a lot of words to say almost nothing; it sounds like he was hopeful that the Balamand Statement would facilitate further dialogue which might bear good fruit. That is far from giving it authority to prohibit evangelization and apologetics between Catholics and NFACs. Even his statement that “the church is willing to do all she can, in obediance to the will of the Lord” suggests to me that he had similar reservations to my own; which it would have been undiplomatic to state explicitly.

Edit: threw in a smiley because when I read the post it sounded more terse than I meant for it to.

 

[Aramis]

From what I’ve heard its that the Church has the right to say who is in Heaven but does not have the right to say who is not.

The church has only revealed one being for certain to be in Hell - the devil.
For all others, there is still hope.