non-Roman Rite Catholics

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dandelion_Wine
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Dandelion_Wine

Guest
I have what may be a stupid question.

I was contemplating the 'ole apologetics statement about there being 30,000+ different denominations/non-denominations.

Within the Catholic Church we have several different Rites all loyal to Rome. I know there are different practices, but are there any different doctrines per se?
 
I have what may be a stupid question.

I was contemplating the 'ole apologetics statement about there being 30,000+ different denominations/non-denominations.

Within the Catholic Church we have several different Rites all loyal to Rome. I know there are different practices, but are there any different doctrines per se?
In a word no.
The different “doctrines” are really just different ways of looking at the same truth. That is what may apear contradictory is in fact complimentary.
Look at it like this. When you look down the barrel of a scope you find two lines, one vertical one horizontal. The Church of the West looks at the horizontal line and makes coment based on it. The Church of the east looks at the horizontal line and makes coments based on it. Using either line and the edge of the scope one could find be the location of the center point of the scope. Using both sets you can find the center of the scope with ease.
Does this make sense to you?
 
I have what may be a stupid question.

I was contemplating the 'ole apologetics statement about there being 30,000+ different denominations/non-denominations.

Within the Catholic Church we have several different Rites all loyal to Rome. I know there are different practices, but are there any different doctrines per se?
There are 22 Eastern Rite Catholic Churches. Their Divine Liturgy differs from ours which we commonly call the Mass.

The term is derived from the late-Latin word missa (dismissal), a word used in the concluding formula of Mass in Latin: “Ite, missa est” (“Go; it is the dismissal”).

The beliefs of the Eastern Rites are essentially the same as the Latin and are called expression.

If Catholicism is understood as the Roman Catholic Church understands it, identification of beliefs is relatively easy, though preferred expressions of the beliefs vary, especially between the Latin Church, the Eastern Catholic Churches of Greek tradition, and the other Eastern Catholic Churches. Liturgical and canonical practices vary between all these particular Churches constituting the Roman Catholic Church
 
Ideally, all 22 sui juris churches believe as Rome does and accept her proclamations. In reality, though, some bishops and laypersons within those churches do not accept certain expressions like the Immaculate Conception and Papal Infallibility. There is an ongoing question as to how much Latin theology the Eastern churches must accept to be “Catholic.” In the past, some unions pronounced what was to be expected, but were broad enough to raise these questions. Some churches have in the past gone as far as accept Latin traditions such as the Rosary and Stations of the Cross. So there is an issue today of what Easterners must accept…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius:cool:
 
I have what may be a stupid question.

I was contemplating the 'ole apologetics statement about there being 30,000+ different denominations/non-denominations.

Within the Catholic Church we have several different Rites all loyal to Rome. I know there are different practices, but are there any different doctrines per se?
That’s not a stupid question DW, there are no stupid questions when asked sincerely.
No, there are no different doctrines. The Catholic Churches, ie the church of Antioch, the church of Ephesis, the Church of Ruthenia, the Byzantine and Maronite churches, etc, all hold the same Catholic Faith and have ever since the days of the Apostles who founded them.
 
Within the Catholic Church we have several different Rites all loyal to Rome. I know there are different practices, but are there any different doctrines per se?
These links may help you:

Code of Canons:
27, 28

This page gives a good explanation:
Origin and Identity


Basically: Same deposit of Faith expressed in distinct yet complementary theologies.

God bless,

Rony
 
I have what may be a stupid question.

I was contemplating the 'ole apologetics statement about there being 30,000+ different denominations/non-denominations.

Within the Catholic Church we have several different Rites all loyal to Rome. I know there are different practices, but are there any different doctrines per se?
The problem is that some of these groups do profess a different faith. Some of them explicitly reject the filioque, the immaculate conception, purgatory, papal infallibility, etc in favor of Eastern Orthodox ideas. Its very problematic but the Vatican does not seem willing to act on the matter.
 
I have what may be a stupid question.

I was contemplating the 'ole apologetics statement about there being 30,000+ different denominations/non-denominations.

Within the Catholic Church we have several different Rites all loyal to Rome. I know there are different practices, but are there any different doctrines per se?
Well, we used to call them “eastern rites” but it’s better to call them eastern churches that have their proper traditions and patrimony, and in many instances they are very ancient and of apostolic origin.

No, your question is not a stupid one; the forum is here to ask questions and learn. While I have had my differences with many posters, we should still show them the respect of acknowledging their history as churches whose apostolic and patristic traditions must be respected, not just ‘rites.’
 
The problem is that some of these groups do profess a different faith. Some of them explicitly reject the filioque, the immaculate conception, purgatory, papal infallibility, etc in favor of Eastern Orthodox ideas. Its very problematic but the Vatican does not seem willing to act on the matter.
That’s because there is nothing to act on. The Catholic Church is a communion of Sui Juris Churches. The Byzantine, Malabar, Maronite and other Catholic Churches have their own Canons. All of these Churches in Communion form the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The Filioque is a matter required only in the latin rite. There is no reason why the should have to say the filioque. As far as the Immaculate Conception is concerned, Eastern Christian theology does not have the concept of the stain on the soul, so there is no conflict. All of the Apostolic Churches, and the Hebrew faithful have always prayed for the souls dearly departed to be purified. Just because the Latin rite delves so much deeper into these mysteries does no imply that the Theology of the Eastern Churches has to.
 
The problem is that some of these groups do profess a different faith. Some of them explicitly reject the filioque, the immaculate conception, purgatory, papal infallibility, etc in favor of Eastern Orthodox ideas. Its very problematic but the Vatican does not seem willing to act on the matter.
It is not different faith from where Rome started out though. As such the bridge between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism is for the West to cross and the East to meet them on. In that way the Unia can be seen by the Orthodox as helping to restore their brother to them.
BTW Rome encourages such keeping of their Traditions.
 
It is not different faith from where Rome started out though. As such the bridge between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism is for the West to cross and the East to meet them on. In that way the Unia can be seen by the Orthodox as helping to restore their brother to them.
BTW Rome encourages such keeping of their Traditions.
Still, your triumphalist “must return to Mother East” language only causes antagonism and worsens the divisions. If it is your goal to make the separation worse, keep it up.
 
The problem is that some of these groups do profess a different faith. Some of them explicitly reject the filioque, the immaculate conception, purgatory, papal infallibility, etc in favor of Eastern Orthodox ideas.
I think you go much too far here, E&W. Can you produce some documentation to support your claim that some of these “groups” “explicitly” “reject” these ideas?
 
Some of the prior posts have been misleading.

There is a difference between doctrine and the required subset of doctrine, called dogma.

The dogma is universally required.

The other doctrines are not, and each church sui iuris may have differing doctrines. That very few do differ is important.

Double precession is not dogmatic, but transmission through the Son is.

Purgatory is dogmatic; purgatorial fire is roman doctrine (and almost exclusively so). I’m not required to believe in purgatorial fire, just that there is a place or state that most go to after death if found not yet ready for heaven and not condemned to hell for all eternity.
 
Some of the prior posts have been misleading.

There is a difference between doctrine and the required subset of doctrine, called dogma.

The dogma is universally required.

The other doctrines are not, and each church sui iuris may have differing doctrines. That very few do differ is important.

Double precession is not dogmatic, but transmission through the Son is.

Purgatory is dogmatic; purgatorial fire is roman doctrine (and almost exclusively so). I’m not required to believe in purgatorial fire, just that there is a place or state that most go to after death if found not yet ready for heaven and not condemned to hell for all eternity.
Thanks, Aramis, ths is very helpful.
 
Some of the prior posts have been misleading.

There is a difference between doctrine and the required subset of doctrine, called dogma.

The dogma is universally required.

The other doctrines are not, and each church sui iuris may have differing doctrines. That very few do differ is important.

Double precession is not dogmatic, but transmission through the Son is.

Purgatory is dogmatic; purgatorial fire is roman doctrine (and almost exclusively so). I’m not required to believe in purgatorial fire, just that there is a place or state that most go to after death if found not yet ready for heaven and not condemned to hell for all eternity.
A little silly, though, when you consider Purgatory either is literally a fire or it isn’t. I think at the Council of Florence, Rome really tried to push the idea that it is…Now it seems one doesn’t have to accept that idea…🤷

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius:cool:
 
Still, your triumphalist “must return to Mother East” language only causes antagonism and worsens the divisions. If it is your goal to make the separation worse, keep it up.
It is not only that Rome has left the East. She has left heself in these inovations. As Orthodox we want Rome to come back to her right mind.
 
It is not only that Rome has left the East. She has left heself in these inovations. As Orthodox we want Rome to come back to her right mind.
Come back to her right mind? Wow, that is really inappropriate.

Why cant we talk about the Eastern Catholic role in reunification? Why cant we be positive?
 
Well, that’s not much different than what many Catholics think the Orthodox need to do…in opposite, of course.
You missed the second point:Why cant we talk about the Eastern Catholic role in reunification? Why cant we be positive?
 
You missed the second point:Why cant we talk about the Eastern Catholic role in reunification? Why cant we be positive?
We can, but the Eastern Catholic role is one of struggling. We are neither fully Catholic in Rome’s eyes, nor Orthodox in the eyes of the East. Both sides pull the Eastern Catholics trying to get them on their side. It is quite disheartening at times…On top of that, certain Latinizations have caused many Eastern Catholic communities to have an have identity crisis. On the opposite end, though, their are some like myself who are so Eastern that with the exception of the Pope, vvery little is different.

By the way: Welcome to CAF! I hope you enjoy it here…👍

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius:cool:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top