F
- Status
F
fulloffaith
Guest
Alright, that tears it!!! You people are just downright contradicting yourselves and denying revealed dogma now, which, by the way, carries one past the realm of schism into that of outright heresy. I’m gone.
Good day and God bless.
J
jimmy
Guest
Hey, Rome accepts that we have our own theology, tradition, spirituality and liturgy. So it seems like you are the schismatic/heretic if you are going to call us heretics. Nothing in my post is contradictory. If you wish to remain ignorant regarding eastern Christianity that is your problem, but we will continue to follow the tradition of Christianity and not innovate on it.
Are you angry that we follow the fathers of the Church?
H
HailMary
Guest
Of course Eastern Rite have their own traditions/theology but they can NEVER contradict the teaching of the Church, hence EVERY eastern rite Church must submit to the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, the declarations of Trent, etc.
A
Apotheoun
Guest
As a Ruthenian Catholic I will not submit to the teachings of the local synods of the Latin Church, and if that offends anyone, so be it.
I find it interesting that the Roman Catholic representatives at the talks in Ravenna (including Cardinal Kasper) are willing to admit that the synods held by the Latin Church over the course of the second millennium are not ecumenical, while the Roman Catholic members of this forum are not willing to do so.
C
chrisb
Guest
So do most Eastern Catholics hold to some sort of ‘branch-theory’ with regards to the Church? Latin is half and Byzantine/Oriental is half?
I’m not sure I understand ‘what’ creates ‘unity’ between us?
H
HailMary
Guest
Nobody is asking you too, just universal Catholic dogma and Ecumenical Councils.
E
East_and_West
Guest
Where have I heard something like this before… hmmm… Oh yeah, “I will not serve”…
Anyway, if you believe that the Western Church is in error, and the Eastern Orthodox are right, why do you remain in communion with the west rather than joining up with the EOs? It would seem that the EO church would be the most logical choice for you.
C
chrisb
Guest
A very good friend of mine in the Mid-West started to inquire into Eastern Catholicism and found a lot of ‘discontent’ in their midst but not enough to ‘cut the cord’ with the Roman Pontiff.
I guess I would place them in a similar situation as many Arch-Conservatives who refuse to attend N.O. Parishes yet remain in Communion with Rome. They aren’t happy with the state of affairs but they ‘hope’ for healing in the Church. Amen.
Just guessing.
T
thedejongs
Guest
It’s a bit unfortunate that this thread is becoming so polemical. No one here, yet, has laid out why and how an Eastern Christian can (or would even want to try to) reject the infallible teachings of the RCC yet still somehow claim to be in communion with the RCC.
Despite the advances of the Joint Commission at Ravenna, folks here would do well to remember that the statement at Ravenna has neither been approved by the Vatican nor by the Moscow Patriarchate. Many EOs and RCs believe that it goes to far, and it is wise to recognize that it is not a binding document at all. The official pronouncements of the RCC at Vatican I carry far more weight than the statements of a Joint Commission.
For those who are attempting to frame the Ravenna statement as some sort of acknowledgment by the RCC that Trent and the Vatican Councils are local synods, please review the following quote:
“In the Roman Catholic Church, some of these councils held in the West were regarded as ecumenical. This situation, which obliged both sides of Christendom to convoke councils proper to each of them, favoured dissentions which contributed to mutual estrangement. The means which will allow the re-establishment of ecumenical consensus must be sought out.”
I do not see any such conclusion in the above statement but merely a recognition that there needs to be a means of re-establishing ecumenical consensus.
Keep your hats, on, please folks. I’d like to get satisfactoryanswers to the apparent contradictions I’ve put forward, rather than simply watching folks trade barbs. Remember that we’re all (hopefully) Christians, here, and have an obligation to act like it.
F
fulloffaith
Guest
Not at all. However, i could never help but think of your (plural) statements as exemplary, instances of doublethink. Please speak clearly about what it is that differentiates ECs from RCs besides liturgical practices.
Thank you.
Y
yeshua
Guest
thedejongs,
Your satisfactory answer will not come, for your conclusions are already made and drawn. Why further a conversation that will do nothing but alienate you from a good portion of the Eastern and Oriental posters here?
The fact is, half of the Latin Catholics who venture here have like you already made up their mind regarding what Eastern and Oriental Catholics should believe. The only satisfactory answer for you and the like will be complete and total submission to Latin theological constructs, which unfortunately for your polemic case is not what a majority of ECs or OCs practice. Visit the homelands of these people, where Bishops aren’t picked by Rome and churches aren’t born from the desires of Latin prelates, away from Latinized Eastern and Orientals who don’t even recognize their own traditions aren’t there own. See that this issue is far broader, older, and dynamic than can be simply contained in an attempt at a “satisfactory” answer to a newfound Latin Catholic observer.
My tolerance for this forum is becoming thin, nothing of this comes close to a dialogue about Eastern Traditions, more like a Tribunal of disasporic Eastern and Oriental Catholics and self-edifying Latin Catholic who find their opinions near the reverence of an Ecumenical Council.
Peace and God Bless.
T
thedejongs
Guest
Great observation and great request, but I suspect you’re going to get a full ear of all sorts of differences in the ways ECs articulate Christian theology. There will typically be a claim that the difference is in the expression but not the belief. The rub comes when you start pressing the specific issues-- such as Original Sin, the IC, Purgatory/Indulgences/Merits-- and you discover that some ECs will toe the line of the infallible statements of the RCC and that others will outright reject them in these areas, making “local synod” type arguments based on nothing authoritative. This is where the “exemplary doublespeak” shines through. Can we get at this doublespeak directly, please? Shall I lay out, again, why the “local council” argument is flawed or will someone do us the favor of explaining the argument (leaving the non-authoritative Ravenna out of it) and why it works? Further, even if the argument works, why someone who didn’t believe in things declared infallible by the RCC would want to be in communion with the RCC? There’s the self-contradiction, I think.
Jimmy- It’s great that you follow the fathers of the Church; it’s just that if you choose to do so in communion with the RCC, you can’t pick and choose which “fathers of the Church” you want to follow. From the RCC perspective, the Council of Nicea and the First Vatican Council and the Council of Trent enjoy equal status.
Cheers.
E
East_and_West
Guest
Prefering the TLM over the NO is one thing. Outright rejection of Catholic teaching is another.A very good friend of mine in the Mid-West started to inquire into Eastern Catholicism and found a lot of ‘discontent’ in their midst but not enough to ‘cut the cord’ with the Roman Pontiff.
I guess I would place them in a similar situation as many Arch-Conservatives who refuse to attend N.O. Parishes yet remain in Communion with Rome. They aren’t happy with the state of affairs but they ‘hope’ for healing in the Church. Amen.
Just guessing.
J
johnnykins
Guest
Admittedly I have not read all the posts in this thread. I do note some sloppy - if well meant - readings of documents, etc., that are very technical and precise. I certainly do not see in anything from Ravenna that Cardinal Kaspar or anyone else denies that the councils the west has declared “ecumenical” are anything but ecumenical. The documents do indicate that the 7 first councils hold a special place - especially in the nature of the ecumenicalness(Ok I made that word up - but you can tell what I mean). Presumably this is because they predate the schism. It seems to me it is a statement that we all lost something at the schism. Perhaps we each lost a"lung" to steal a phrase.
There also seems to be some angst over differing philosophies underlying the theology of the east and west. I had always thought that was exactly what JPII was trying to get at in the “both lungs” metaphor. God in His trancendency and immanency - in His nature - is revealed in glimpses and parts. No one or a limited number of expressions we may have on God are complete. Further all such expressions are limited by the limits of language, human abilities and cultural limitations. Thus expressions by Augustine - a saint inspired by the same Holy Spirit as the eastern fathers - just like the eastern fathers themselves when expressing theology comes with the same limitations - or perhaps important insights - that they do. That the eastern fathers and Augustine (or the scholastics if you want) express themselves differntly or with different emphasis does no more that express different truths on the same topic.
As I recall the canons of say VI - heresy is not the failure to accept the dogmatic decrees - it is the rejection of them. The Melkite Patriarch could, after the explanation of papal infallibility by Gasser, accept the decrees on the papacy - while not limiting the ancient rights and prerogatives of the Patriarchs and those particular churches. We owe him a debt a gratitude for that. Note, too while Pio IX called him “testa dura” that hard head expressed a caveat which accepted by Pio IX gives us the hook for unity (IMHO).
An eastern catholic that says I do not like the expression or underlying philosophy of this or that dogmatic expression, but within its context I do not reject it - is NOT in heresy. Having a preference for eastern philosophies and theological expression does not have to lead to heresy - indeed JPII was calling for the latins to look at the east and learn. Likewise the east can look west and learn. To be complementary is not to be exclusionary.
There also seems to be some angst over differing philosophies underlying the theology of the east and west. I had always thought that was exactly what JPII was trying to get at in the “both lungs” metaphor. God in His trancendency and immanency - in His nature - is revealed in glimpses and parts. No one or a limited number of expressions we may have on God are complete. Further all such expressions are limited by the limits of language, human abilities and cultural limitations. Thus expressions by Augustine - a saint inspired by the same Holy Spirit as the eastern fathers - just like the eastern fathers themselves when expressing theology comes with the same limitations - or perhaps important insights - that they do. That the eastern fathers and Augustine (or the scholastics if you want) express themselves differntly or with different emphasis does no more that express different truths on the same topic.
As I recall the canons of say VI - heresy is not the failure to accept the dogmatic decrees - it is the rejection of them. The Melkite Patriarch could, after the explanation of papal infallibility by Gasser, accept the decrees on the papacy - while not limiting the ancient rights and prerogatives of the Patriarchs and those particular churches. We owe him a debt a gratitude for that. Note, too while Pio IX called him “testa dura” that hard head expressed a caveat which accepted by Pio IX gives us the hook for unity (IMHO).
An eastern catholic that says I do not like the expression or underlying philosophy of this or that dogmatic expression, but within its context I do not reject it - is NOT in heresy. Having a preference for eastern philosophies and theological expression does not have to lead to heresy - indeed JPII was calling for the latins to look at the east and learn. Likewise the east can look west and learn. To be complementary is not to be exclusionary.
A
Apotheoun
Guest
I pity those who feel compelled to resort to ad hominem attacks.
God bless,
Todd
T
thedejongs
Guest
I’d appreciate it if the thread would stay on track and reason the issues out, rather than devolving into ad hominum statements or the answer that “it’s complicated.” If it helps any, I’ll confess that I’m EO
eek: ), converted from RC many years ago. Kinda’ puts the “newfound Latin Catholic observer” statement in a different light, but that’s OK-- I’ve been called lots worse.
E
East_and_West
Guest
I pity those (look at your post) who feel compelled to resort to ad hominem attacks. I also pity those who remain Catholic in commuion, but non-Catholic in their profession.
A
Apotheoun
Guest
Thankfully, you are not my Eparch.
E
East_and_West
Guest
Todd, i wonder. Why would a person remain in communion with a Church that he/she believes teachers error, when you could be in communion with the Eastern Orthodox who he/she believes do not teacher error?
- Status