What are the different types of catholic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter meridith
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
WOW! I’ll have to take the baby step approach. 😃 Up until about three or four years ago, I didn’t know about anything outside of Roman Catholicism. For me there was the Roman Church and the rest were either Protestants or churches that broke with the Great Schism. About ten years ago, I began attending what is now called the Extraordinary Form (First as a SSPX chapel without really knowing/understanding ANY of the issues regarding that order, then with the FSSP since.) On a trip down to San Diego, CA several (7) years ago, my wife and I were looking for a traditional Latin Mass, and found a small chapel with a dominican father. Were were two of three in attendance at the Mass. Prior to the mass, father asked us if we would prefer the Byzantine liturgy, since he had a dispensation to use it. At that time, I thought that ANY eastern liturgies belonged to churches that were in schism, so I was perplexed, and we requested the Latin, and left it at that. That led me to later start trying to figure out how this priest would be able to say a “Greek Orthodox” mass (which is what I thought he meant. Come to find out there’s a lot more to catholicism than Rome, Trent and Vatican II! However, I still didn’t really get any solid info until a few years ago, reading a book called “My Catholic Faith” from my church’s bookstore. (It’s a catechism designed for youth/teens but very helpful to me anyway :)) In it, it had a brief section on the Eastern Catholic rites. I’ve seen a couple interesting documentaries about an old Ethiopian Catholic Church (I think it’s St. George’s?) which is hewn out of solid rock and completley underground. The age of the church was listed at well before the schism, but they were still refering to it as Catholic. I guess I’ve attained bits and pieces here and there. Baby steps…baby steps…👍
 
I grew up in a house where the multiplicity of rites was a known quantity. Mom and Dad almost switched to the Ukrainian Catholic Church in '68.

Dad’s from Wyandotte, MI (A suburb of Detroit)… attended OLMC. Just a couple miles away is a Ruthenian parish, and in greater Detroit, you have Romans (lots), Ruthenians, Ukrainians, Chaldeans, Melkites, Maronites, Romanians. So he grew up seeing that there were other Catholics in Union…

I first really became aware about 7th grade, when I found a big photo-book “The Rites of the Catholic Church”… mostly B&W, but some color. So we went and EXPERIENCED it when I asked. Since we don’t live in Detroit, but I’ve grown up in Anchorage, that meant only one Eastern Parish: St. Nicholas of Myra. I knew the pastor; he went to many of the Roman Diocesan Functions. But seeing him doing this diferent liturgy was stunning. I was hooked. No other expression of the faith has felt right since. The Current pastor at St. Nick’s has known me since I was about 7… when my dad entered the deacon training program.

When I travel, I visit other rites as I’m able. The majority of EC parishes will be quite pleased to have a visitor, especially if you try to follow along. (Heck, the Russian Orthodox outside the big city do, too…)
 
Is there a good online resource of EC locations? I don’t know if there are any in my nearby area.
 
Aramis. A further question. On the Byzcath.org website, the Creed doesn’t have the addition of the “Filoque.” Is there a reason for this - that is, are the Eastern Catholics dispensed from having to alter the Creed, inserting the words “and the Son”? Or is there another reason?
 
I looked on Byzcath.org and found a listing for a Ruthenian Church in Stockton, but is says it is suppressed. Why would that be?
There is no valid Ruthenian catholic priest for that parish.

Keeping to about 50 miles…

St. Philip The Apostle
3866 65TH St
Sacramento, CA, 95820-2033
(eparchy-of-van-nuys.org/Dir-Parishes.htm)

St. Thomas Assyrian Chaldean Catholic Church
2901 N. Berkley Ave. , Turlock , CA 95382
Phone (209) 668-4500, Fax (209) 668-2762

St. Matthew’s Church
3005 6th Street, Ceres, CA 95307
Phone (209) 541-1660; Fax (209) 541-3952
kaldu.org/2_st_peter_diocese/churches/

This one’s about 90 miles…
Our Lady of Lebanon
600 El Camino Real
P.O.Box 896
Millbrae, CA 94030
parishesonline.com/scripts/hostedsites/Org.asp?ID=18324
 
Aramis. A further question. On the Byzcath.org website, the Creed doesn’t have the addition of the “Filoque.” Is there a reason for this - that is, are the Eastern Catholics dispensed from having to alter the Creed, inserting the words “and the Son”? Or is there another reason?
Not dispensed… forbidden to include it!

Since Vatican II, the filioque has been removed from the various Eastern Catholic Churches’ creed, per papal instruction.

No hard and fast timeline was put down; the Ruthenians removed it in the 1990’s.
 
Not dispensed… forbidden to include it!

Since Vatican II, the filioque has been removed from the various Eastern Catholic Churches’ creed, per papal instruction.

No hard and fast timeline was put down; the Ruthenians removed it in the 1990’s.
Huh - is there a particular reason for this?
 
Huh - is there a particular reason for this?
The reason is that the original greek Creed translates the line to be almost literally “And in the Holy Spirit, which has its origin in the Father.” Adding “and the son” would be heresy.

The Latin creed, however, is almost literally “And in the Holy Spirit, who flows out via the Father.” Adding “and the son” merely narrows via from “from and/or through” to “through”.

Further, it simply is in violation of the traditions to do so.
 
The reason is that the original greek Creed translates the line to be almost literally “And in the Holy Spirit, which has its origin in the Father.” Adding “and the son” would be heresy.

The Latin creed, however, is almost literally “And in the Holy Spirit, who flows out via the Father.” Adding “and the son” merely narrows via from “from and/or through” to “through”.

Further, it simply is in violation of the traditions to do so.
Cool - thanks

As a side question, how is the concept of the Holy Spirit having an “origin in the Father” explained?
 
Cool - thanks

As a side question, how is the concept of the Holy Spirit having an “origin in the Father” explained?
John 15:26
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

Will that do?
 
Not dispensed… forbidden to include it!

Since Vatican II, the filioque has been removed from the various Eastern Catholic Churches’ creed, per papal instruction.
Not exactly. Well, maybe for the Byzantine East, but certainly not for the Orient. It’s more like there was a recommendation that it could be removed. Unfortunately, there was/is no “requirement” that it actually be removed. It’s definitely not “forbidden.”
 
John 15:26
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

Will that do?
So it has to do with an origin of “place” or “location” rather than an origin in “time”, correct? Or am I misunderstanding?
 
So it has to do with an origin of “place” or “location” rather than an origin in “time”, correct? Or am I misunderstanding?
Since the origin of the Spirit and the Son are before time… it doesn’t matter, so long as we remember that Jesus can send forth the Spirit, and the Father is the source of the Godhead.
 
Dear brother Michael

I believe brother Aramis is referring only to those particular Orthodox who use the term “Orthodox Catholic” ONLY in response to Eastern and Oriental Catholics who refer to themselves as “Orthodox in communion with Rome.” I know you have been here long enough to realize that way back when there was a debate about the use of the designations, several EO in this Forum changed their “religion” designation from merely “Orthodox” or “Eastern Orthodox” to “Catholic Orthodox” or changed it to add the word “Catholic” to their designation. The fact of the matter is, it is not common for Orthodox in everyday language to refer to themselves as “Catholic Orthodox” or “Orthodox Catholic,” but merely as “Orthodox.”

Personally, I’ve ALWAYS referred to myself as an “Orthodox in communion with Rome.” I think it is more common among those who have translated from Orthodoxy to Catholicism, who keep and retain their particular spiritualities and theologies while being in the Catholic communion, or among those who have a heightened sense of their unique Eastern or Oriental roots, though being cradle Catholics…

Blessings,
Marduk
I agree Marduk. We are “Orthodox Christians who re-established Communion with Rome”.

U-C
 
We are “Orthodox Christians who re-established Communion with Rome”.

U-C
For the original participants of the Unions of Uzhorod and Brest I have no doubt for that to be true. I appreciate the sentiment, it is a grand ideal!

I once thought of myself as Orthodox in communion with Rome, along with my many friends and co-worshipers. However it became fairly obvious that the relationship was much more than merely communion with the See at Rome.

It really is not the same as the first millennium relationship between the churches, principally because it requires acknowledgment of and submission to Papal Universal Jurisdiction and control. It also requires acquiescence to unique Latin understandings of theology, even if these teachings are not expressed in the other Sui Iuris churches. Perhaps this was not quite clear before 1870AD and confusion over this then would be understandable, but in the few decades afterward there can be no mistake about it.
So, then, if anyone says…
  • that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church,
  • and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world;
  • or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power;
  • or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful:
Let him be anathema.
Council of 1870
I think that perhaps 90% or more of the Catholics who read and post at CAF would agree with the above.

This dogmatic pronouncement anathematizes all who share an Orthodox understanding of the relationship and authority of the bishop of Rome in a reconciled Catholic-Orthodox church.

There is a distinct difference between being an Eastern Catholic, and being an Orthodox Catholic in communion with Rome. There is no middle ground.

So today I see the effort as laudable, but incorrrect. It needs to be readdressed if there are ever in the future to be Orthodox churches in communion with the bishop of Rome or (in other words) the bishop of Rome in communion with the Orthodox churches and people.

Pax et Bonum,
 
For the original participants of the Unions of Uzhorod and Brest I have no doubt for that to be true. I appreciate the sentiment, it is a grand ideal!

I once thought of myself as Orthodox in communion with Rome, along with my many friends and co-worshipers. However it became fairly obvious that the relationship was much more than merely communion with the See at Rome.

It really is not the same as the first millennium relationship between the churches, principally because it requires acknowledgment of and submission to Papal Universal Jurisdiction and control. It also requires acquiescence to unique Latin understandings of theology, even if these teachings are not expressed in the other Sui Iuris churches. Perhaps this was not quite clear before 1870AD and confusion over this then would be understandable, but in the few decades afterward there can be no mistake about it.

I think that perhaps 90% or more of the Catholics who read and post at CAF would agree with the above.

This dogmatic pronouncement anathematizes all who share an Orthodox understanding of the relationship and authority of the bishop of Rome in a reconciled Catholic-Orthodox church.

There is a distinct difference between being an Eastern Catholic, and being an Orthodox Catholic in communion with Rome. There is no middle ground.

So today I see the effort as laudable, but incorrrect. It needs to be readdressed if there are ever in the future to be Orthodox churches in communion with the bishop of Rome or (in other words) the bishop of Rome in communion with the Orthodox churches and people.

Pax et Bonum,
So, then, if anyone says…
  • that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church,
  • and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world;
  • or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power;
  • or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful:
Let him be anathema.
Council of 1870
Jesus Christ gave St. Peter, the Rock, the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, not everyone else, the above is simply a result of that. This may be hard for your to understand, but this is the truth, peace be with you.
 
We’re getting some thread drift, which is a normal occurrence. Will you please work to tie posts in to the original topic, which I’ve copied below, so we don’t get too far afield? Thank you for the help!

May God Bless You Abundantly,
Catherine Grant
Eastern Catholicism Moderator
Good Afternoon,
What is a Maronite Catholic? Orthodox Catholic? Byaznatine Catholic? Any other catholic not Roman thats under the Pope? Area there any of these churches in the Kansas City Metro area?
Thank You:):confused:
 
…the above is simply a result of that. This may be hard for your to understand, but this is the truth…
I know that this is no surprise to you but I am not the only person who disagrees with your interpretation.

I personally know of many Eastern Catholics who do disagree, would you call them cafeteria Catholics?
…peace be with you.
And also with you! 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top