I am in communion with Rome not union with Rome. I may have stated this in previous posts, we have the Code of Canon Law of Eastern Catholic Churches and as long as the Pope of Rome does not step on the toes of our particular Churches this is what we have to go by. It’s not a perfect communion.
steve-b:
I am in communion with Rome not union with Rome.
please explain
I don’t see that condition mentioned in the area of law under Supreme Authority of the Church
I’m not sure what you want me to say here. Eastern Catholic Churches are in full communion with Rome.
Again,steve-b:
I’m not sure what you want me to say here. Eastern Catholic Churches are in full communion with Rome.
ZP
From the New Oxford American Dictionary:
The Ruthenian Church and my parish, unfortunately, is still somewhat latinized. Mainly with parishioners who have ran away from the Ordinary Form of the Mass and want a more reverent liturgy. Sure, they are part of the community and practice the liturgical cycle but believe in most things Latin such as the Immaculate Conception and Purgatory. Most have no idea what a prayer rope is but they don’t miss the Rosary before Matins. Have been in contact with the Eparchy of Newton for a possible Melkite mission.
Yes! Wouldn’t you agree? How many people on this forum bash the Ordinary Form, condemn VII and complain about the supreme leader Francis Pope of Rome? (I personally think he’s great and is one of our best chances of communion with the Orthodox)
First off, highly unlikely since the Pope is the bishop of Rome, which is a Latin diocese. Secondly, that’s laughable! You would give up your Latin traditions (rosary, stations of the cross, lectio Divini, The angelus, your liturgical Latin feast days, the divine mercy Chaplet and a ton more) all for an Eastern Pope because he said so?
On the other thread? I responded some time ago.
They recite the Filioque?!?!
Canon law, is clear. If one accepts it they are in communion. If they don’t then they are NOT.steve-b:
From the New Oxford American Dictionary:
Funny, it seems they don’t even recognize the Eastern Catholic Churches.
- A relationship of recognition and acceptance between Christian churches or denominations, or between individual Christians or Christian communities and a church (signifies by a willingness to give or receive the Eucharist): the Eastern Churches are not in communion with Rome.
The Ruthenian Church and my parish, unfortunately, is still somewhat latinized. Mainly with parishioners who have ran away from the Ordinary Form of the Mass and want a more reverent liturgy. Sure, they are part of the community and practice the liturgical cycle but believe in most things Latin such as the Immaculate Conception and Purgatory. Most have no idea what a prayer rope is but they don’t miss the Rosary before Matins. Have been in contact with the Eparchy of Newton for a possible Melkite mission.
ZP
Did Rome mandate this?
These latinizations happened mainly during the 18th and 19th centuries. Many immigrants that came to the U.S. during this fine had no bishops so they were under the authority of the Latin bishops. Some latinizations were imposed by Latin bishops, some, unfortunately, were self induced in order to look more “Catholic.” This stopped with Pope Leo XIII and since Vatican II the Eastern Catholic Churches have been called to return to their ancient ecclesiastical heritage.
Why would the Holy Spirit wish to change an ancient apostolic Churches traditions?
I have nothing against the rosary. It’s a beautiful prayer. We Byzantines though have our own traditional prayers to the Theotokos. And Latin devotions, which are fine as private devotions, should not be part of the Liturgical practice of the East.
It is analogous to RC who object to the Rosary before Mass being replaced with Liturgy of the Hours before mass. I don’t call it “perfectly” analogous as the Liturgy of the Hours is part of the public liturgy of both East and West, while the Rosary is a private devotion.
:+1:t3:
You’re right. I apologize. It’s hard for me to believe thought that a particular Church, in the case the Latin Church, would willingly give up all their traditions for an Eastern Pope.
It’s fine that the Latin Church recites the Filioque but the Eastern Churches are called by Rome to return to their ancient liturgical and ecclesiastical heritage and if they are reciting the Filioque in their Creed they are going against Rome. It’s just not the tradition of the East.
I don’t mean to be polemical when I ask this, but what do we Orthodox lack?
There was a Catholic Church at that time, up until 1053. Then in 1054, the Roman Church split off from the Catholic Church and formed the Roman Catholic Church. The Church that was left was the Orthodox Catholic Church to distinguish it from the unorthodox Roman Church which split off citing reasons such as the Orthodox Catholic Church allowed married priests and would not agree to change the ancient creed. Also mentioned in the papal bull provoking the split was the fact that the Orthodox Catholic priests wore beards and used leavened bread.
I suspect that this is not going to be accepted by the Orthodox Churches because i doubt that they would hand over to the Roman Pope the authority to change their liturgy as is implied by accepting universal and supreme jurisdiction over their Church. There are even Roman Catholics today who do not like the changes in the Roman liturgy from the Tridentine Mass to the Mass said today.
Who taught you that ?steve-b:
There was a Catholic Church at that time, up until 1053. Then in 1054, the Roman Church split off from the Catholic Church and formed the Roman Catholic Church.
Splitting from Peter is NOT orthodox it is unorthodox to do that by definition and by definition it is schism theologically.