Question on "traditional" Catholics

  • Thread starter Thread starter jesusmademe
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Actually the only church that still harbors “hate” against the Church of the East is the Coptic Orthodox church. Recent dialougues between the Church of the East, Catholic Church, and the Syriac Orthodox Church reveal that the christology of the Church of the East is not herticial. The OO believe the 2 natures of Jesus are united into 1. The EO and RC believe that the 2 natures are distinctive. The ACoE believe that the 2 natures are distincitive.


(written by HB Maran Mar Sakko, Chaldean Catholic Patriarch of Babylon)
 
Elvis_George said:
The OO believe the 2 natures of Jesus are united into 1. The EO and RC believe that the 2 natures are distinctive. The ACoE believe that the 2 natures are distinctive.
Click to expand...
I’m quite sure that divines with far greater erudition (and holiness) than I possess, have spilled vast amounts of ink over this, possibly even devoted their whole lives to the question, but is it possible that the OO simply come at the hypostatic union from a different perspective than the RC and EO? Put another way, are we all saying the same thing, asserting the same truth, from two different angles?

It seems to me that it is kind of petty to divide a whole portion of the apostolic Church from the rest of that Church over mysteries that are ultimately unknowable (at least in their entirety). I’m sure I’m making a sweeping generalization about Nestorianism that someone with greater knowledge could roast to a fine turn.
 
Last edited:
HomeschoolDad said:
but is it possible that the OO simply come at the hypostatic union from a different perspective than the RC and EO?
Click to expand...
Exactly that.

More than a millennium of talking past one another and criticizing and condemning each other for words inaccurately put into their mouths.

And then actual talks, and a joint statement to the effect of, “Uhm, err, never mind. We’ve been saying the same thing all along with other words, and the other guys aren’t heretics.”
 
HomeschoolDad said:
It seems to me that it is kind of petty to divide a whole portion of the apostolic Church from the rest of that Church over mysteries that are ultimately unknowable (at least in their entirety).
Click to expand...
St. Athanasius (whose feast was yesterday) went into exile 5 times combating Arianism, which denied the Divinity of Christ. The term the Arians used was homoiousios (similar substance) vs the Catholic term homoousios - same substance, i.e. the Son is of the same substance as the Father (consubtantialem Patri in the Creed). From a secular point of view, he fought all his life over one iota (the letter I in the Greek alphabet) and what that iota represented - the denial of the Divinity of Christ.
 
dochawk said:
40.png
HomeschoolDad:
but is it possible that the OO simply come at the hypostatic union from a different perspective than the RC and EO?
Click to expand...
Exactly that.

More than a millennium of talking past one another and criticizing and condemning each other for words inaccurately put into their mouths.

And then actual talks, and a joint statement to the effect of, “Uhm, err, never mind. We’ve been saying the same thing all along with other words, and the other guys aren’t heretics.”
Click to expand...
I wonder if it might be possible to speak similarly of the filioque question.

I have heard that, among other things, to say “and the Son” doesn’t come out right in Greek — I might know twenty words of Greek unaided, so I won’t make an utter jack-donkey of myself by speculating beyond that.

But then I’ve wondered if the Roman Church might say “okay, Greek brethren, filioque doesn’t sound right, we get that, so how about ex Patre per filium instead — “through the Son”? We don’t like double procession any more than you do. So might we all say ex Patre per filium — εκ του Πατρός δια του Υιού, and be done with the matter?”

Is it similar to how the terms “marriage debt”, and even IMHO “Sunday obligation”, just don’t sound quite right in English?

(A big “thank you” to Wikipedia for helping me out with that little snippet of Greek!)
 
He probably wouldn’t be a saint in the EO just as Alexis Toth is not a saint in the UGCC.
 
HomeschoolDad said:
I wonder if it might be possible to speak similarly of the filioque question.

I have heard that, among other things, to say “and the Son” doesn’t come out right in Greek — I might know twenty words of Greek unaided, so I won’t make an utter jack-donkey of myself by speculating beyond that.
Click to expand...
It is.

It’s largely a linguistic difference between latin and greek.

The greek verb is one of several “proceed” verbs in greek, and explicitly mean “proceeds in origin”. To someone familiar with greek, I can’t imagine that tacking a second object onto the same verb, even in another language (i.e., latin) , wouldn’t suggest the same original verb.

But that’s only one part of that conflict–the bigger problem is the unilateral modification of the creed after the definition at a council.

that said, per filium would deal with the theological issues as far as I understand.

And as for Sunday obligation, the best explanation I"ve seen is that from the eastern perspective, it isn’t a matter of “penalty of sin”, but rather that we’re obliged in the same way that we’re obliged to breathe–we just can’t live without it.
 
AlNg said:
How will that work in case of a reunion of EO and RC?
Click to expand...
we will be tolerant of our differences.

and as we all accept that we’re all part of the church, we won’t be fussing about how who ministered to whose folk . . .
 
AlNg said:
St. Josaphat is a controversial figure as some Eastern Orthodox do not view him as a saint.
Click to expand...
As much as St. Nicholas was because Arians rejected him…

I wouldn’t call a Saint controversial because those outside the Church do not accept him. By that logic almost any Saint in Orthodox or Catholic Church is “controversial”.
BroJames96 said:
While the reformist faction prefers to have the Eucharistic liturgy done just like the Ordinary form of the Latin Mass (“Novus Ordo”), and more or less be just like the Latin Church.
Click to expand...
Why don’t they just change to Latin Rite if that’s the case? … and let traditional faction actually uphold tradition of their venerable Church.
AlNg said:
How will that work in case of a reunion of EO and RC?
Click to expand...
Either we (both sides) re-evaluate those canonised solely for opposing other side (which St. Josaphat was not, but Mark of Ephesus might qualify here) or we just do as dochawk said. Sharing Saints was never a mark of universality of the Church anyway.

Imo the second option is more plausible in current approach Churches take.
 
Why did they Latinize?
I really disslike how those people treat the Latin traditions! They treat them as universal traditions rather than Latin traditions.
I also disslike when people Byzantize the Latin rite! For the OF people looked to the East but they shouldn’t have done it.
I haven’t heard about anyone looking for the Oriental rites. I distinguish between Eastern and Oriental.
 
Last edited:
I have attended an Indian Oriental rite Mass but it was weird. Probably Latinized as you said. When the Priest said Mass in the Latin rite it did not really feel weird.
I say Indian as I do not know what the correct name is. I think there are two different Oriental rites in India.
 
Last edited:
dochawk said:
And as for Sunday obligation, the best explanation I"ve seen is that from the eastern perspective, it isn’t a matter of “penalty of sin”, but rather that we’re obliged in the same way that we’re obliged to breathe–we just can’t live without it.
Click to expand...
I hear what you are saying, but that’s not the mentality in the West. To my eyes and ears, “Sunday obligation” comes across as the Church saying “all right, you little guttersnipe faithful, we don’t trust you to come to Mass every Sunday out of obedience to the Third Commandment, or out of the sheer love of Our Lord in the Holy Eucharist, so we’re going to hold it over your heads that the Church, through her God-given authority, binds you to get there each and every Sunday, or else you will go to hell!”. I know the Church doesn’t mean it that way, but that’s the way it comes across, at least through Anglo-Saxon Protestant goggles (and I own a pair of those goggles, because I was brought up in an Anglo-Saxon Protestant culture).

I discussed this a few months ago in another thread, to-wit:
40.png
Should I go to mass tomorrow/would it be a mortal sin for me to miss? Liturgy and Sacraments
In retrospect, you probably shouldn’t have gone to the party and the football game, but what’s done is done, I know you didn’t say “I’m going to go ahead and have a good time, even though I know it will only make me sicker, and I’ll end up not being able to go to Mass tomorrow”. Don’t beat yourself up over it. Stay home and get well. As I said, I dislike the term “obligation” — I would say “expectation” instead. If I were making the rules, it would go something like: “The Church, in keepin…
Click to expand...
and I said:

I dislike the term “obligation” — I would say “expectation” instead. If I were making the rules, it would go something like:

“The Church, in keeping with perennial Christian teaching, has an expectation that all of her faithful will devoutly assist at Holy Mass, each and every Sunday and Holy Day, at the very least. In many places, Mass is offered daily for the greater glory of God and the sanctification of souls, and the faithful are well-advised to attend it as well, at least on occasion. Frequent absence from Sunday Mass, without excuse, could rise to the level of grave sin. Keep in mind, too, that the Church has no power to derogate from the divine Commandment ‘remember thou the sabbath day, to keep it holy’.”

But I’m not the one “making the rules”, and that’s probably a good thing for everyone concerned, myself included.
 
OrbisNonSufficit said:
Why don’t they just change to Latin Rite if that’s the case? … and let traditional faction actually uphold tradition of their venerable Church.
Click to expand...
Exactly! What’s the point of being Syro Malabar and still “Incorparating” latinisations!
 
strange…Did u attend the Qurbana in the US? Strange. Celebating the Qurbana facing the people is an alien practice in America
 
do you know why it is Latinized? Is this because the Liturgists of the SyroMalabar was bad a practicing there own traditions?
 
We don’t even have an eparchy there so the priest could choose how to celebrate the Qurbana. The Syro Malabar church is very latinised because Archbishop Menezes wanted the Nasranis under his control and wanted us to be Latin. We were Chaldean Catholic at the time, but Menezes did not care and blocked many bishops from coming from the Middle East. He conveyed a Synod which infuriated the Archdeacon and the Nasranis left the Catholic church. After this, they ordained the Archdeacon Mar Thoma I as Malankara Metropolitan, but that was invalid so 60% returned to the RCC, including 4 out 5 of Mar Thoma I’s advisers. They formed the Syro Malabar church. After this, the Latin heirarchy took over our church and we were heavily latinised. The other faction become syriac orthodox and lost their east syriac traditions
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top