What can Eastern Catholics reject / accept in terms of faith?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Magicsilence
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
On a side note, it’s nice to see some of the regular Eastern Catholics back. 🙂

You’ve been missed, I take it things are swell over at ByzCath?

(done derailing, continue the dialogue)

Peace and God Bless.
 
HailMary,
Please read the articles I posted.
We have to agree to disagree.
 
No he doesn’t. As LakaYa has said already, he is a Melkite. The CCC does not explain his theology. That is why there is the Light For Life Catechism written by the bishops of the Ruthenian, Ukranian and Melkite and etc bishops. It is the catechism of the Byzantine tradition.
Click to expand...
Spot on!
 
yeshua said:
On a side note, it’s nice to see some of the regular Eastern Catholics back. 🙂

You’ve been missed, I take it things are swell over at ByzCath?

(done derailing, continue the dialogue)

Peace and God Bless.
Click to expand...
yeshua, it is very nice to see some of our other posters returning. I think I might have convinced LakaYa to come and post in a discussion we were having.😃
 
Uhhh, you guys might want to read what Scripture and Tradition have to say about this.

Deep down, you know there is a difference between murder, adultery, and stealing verses selfishness, impatience, making rash judgments, speaking unkindly, etc.

Who’s willing to admit that?

ewtn.com/expert/answers/mortal_versus_venial.htm

Doesn’t matter if you don’t use the language that the Catholic Church uses, the distinction is still there.
 
HailMary said:
you missed one key word: “during” Her Assumption.
👍
Click to expand...
She died during her assumption? :confused:

That would be awkward to depict on an icon. I’m thinking of popular UFO images with the limp body being sucked into the green light. 😛

Instead, we celebrate her Dormition, or falling asleep. It is so important that it is one of the strictest fasts in the east, lasting two weeks before the feast day. The term falling asleep is consistently used throughout the Bible to emphasize that a physical death is not the end, but the beginning of life everlasting. Every use of it refers to a physical death, just as it does with Mary’s. That’s why the icon of the Dormition has her lying on a funeral bier, being carried through the streets for her funeral, with all the apostles (minus Thomas) mourning her death.

In front of her funeral bier, we see an angel chopping off Jephonius’ hand. He was a Jewish priest who was trying to disrupt the funeral procession as they took Mary’s body to the Garden of Gethsemane to be buried. Jephonius repented and his hand was restored.

Behind, we see Mary’s soul, wrapped in a burial shroud, being “born” into eternal life and being received by Jesus into heaven.

Mary was buried in the Garden along with her parents, Saints Joachim and Anna, and with St. Joseph. St. Thomas, ever late, came three days later. He was so sad that he had missed her funeral that the other apostles opened the tomb to allow St. Thomas to say goodbye and to venerate her body. When they opened the tomb, she was not there and only a small piece of the burial shroud remained. Later that night, Mary appeared to them in her heavenly glory and told them, “Rejoice! I am with you always and will pray for you before God.” The apostles responded to her by saying, “Most-holy Mother of God, help us!” Some icons show Mary crowned in heaven to depict this scene as well.

http://content.answers.com/main/con...-Icon_03001_Uspenie_Presvyatoj_Bogorodicy.jpg
 
Woodstock said:
She died during her assumption? :confused:
Click to expand...
No, the original comment was that Mary was assumed alive by someone else, and I posted this.

and this next post I made was clearing up how LakaYaRabb assumed I said something I didn’t
Originally Posted by LakaYaRabb View Post
Uh, sorry. Mary died and so did Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...
He read it as if I suggested that Mary didn’t die I suppose.
 
jimmy said:
As LakaYa has said already, he is a Melkite. The CCC does not explain his theology.
Click to expand...
From the Code of canons of the Oriental Churches
A rite is the liturgical, theological, spiritual and disciplinary patrimony, culture and circumstances of history of a distinct people, by which its own manner of living the faith is manifested in each Church sui iuris.
Click to expand...
From the “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, solemly promulgated by His Holiness Pope Paul VI”
By divine Providence it has come about that various churches, established in various places by the apostles and their successors, have in the course of time coalesced into several groups, organically united, which, preserving the unity of faith and the unique divine constitution of the universal Church, enjoy their own discipline, their own liturgical usage, and their own theological and spiritual heritage.
Click to expand...
 
HailMary said:
Uhhh, you guys might want to read what Scripture and Tradition have to say about this.

Deep down, you know there is a difference between murder, adultery, and stealing verses selfishness, impatience, making rash judgments, speaking unkindly, etc.

Who’s willing to admit that?

ewtn.com/expert/answers/mortal_versus_venial.htm

Doesn’t matter if you don’t use the language that the Catholic Church uses, the distinction is still there.
Click to expand...
The distinction is an Augustinian distinction. It is not present in Syriac or Greek theology. We might say some sins are more serious than others but we don’t designate that one is mortal and another is venial. Ultimately they are all an offense against God.
 
jimmy said:
The distinction is an Augustinian distinction. It is not present in Syriac or Greek theology. We might say some sins are more serious than others but we don’t designate that one is mortal and another is venial.
Click to expand...
Like I said in my previous post:

Deep down, you know there is a difference between murder, adultery, and stealing verses selfishness, impatience, making rash judgments, speaking unkindly, etc.

Who’s willing to admit that?
jimmy said:
Ultimately they are all an offense against God.
Click to expand...
Well of course.
 
Magicsilence said:
Although I am still smarting from the swift execution of the old forum, Yeshua’s new thread raises the perennial question of what exactly an Eastern Catholic may reject / accept in terms of faith.

Can an Eastern Catholic reject papal infallibility? ‘Latin’ views on original sin? Status of Ecumenical Councils? Etc… and remain an Eastern Catholic?
No. Refer to the Canon of the Catholic Church. It is on the Vatican’s website.

On the flip side, can an Eastern Catholic accept all these things and remain an Eastern Catholic?
No, truth be told, if you don’t follow what your church calls you to follow then you are in rejection of that church’s beliefs. There are people who do and openly view papal infallibility as wrong disagree on original sin views etc… we call ourselves Eastern Orthodox.

What is it (if not the above issues) that can validly (and organically) divide the Church into groups? (Direct differences in liturgy aside). You can’t have it both ways. Surely you can pursue the different methods of spirituality, say the eastern orthodox notion of prayer+stillness versus the Latin version of meditation. But as far as rejecting Catholic Doctrine set forth as dogma and official teaching of the church… that means you reject the Catholic Church. Period. You can not participate in the sacraments of the church if you do not agree with the church’s teachings. This is especially true of receiving the Eucharist. As the Eucharist publically affirms our commitment to Christ and His Church’s teachings, the Eucharist also unites us to each person who recieves the Eucharist in our Church throughout the world. You can not pick and choose what you wish to believe, even though you may celebrate a different Liturgy or prayer practices. So while the Latins may pray one way (stations, etc… Latin rite mass) and say the Byzantine Catholics may pray the Liturgy of St. John and use a prayer rope… that does not give them the right to pick and choose what parts of the official teachings of the church teaches. Period. Any attempt at justifying otherwise is just that, human justification for denial of your church’s teachings.

Peace and God Bless!
Click to expand...
 
I read that to say post-schism dogmas are not binding outside the Church(es) which convened the local councils. So Eastern Catholics, like the Orthodox, would not be held to them.
Click to expand...
Remember, however, that the Eastern Churches participated in Vatican I and II and ratified their decisions, which included most of the “controversial” matters being brought up here. Those two Councils were not “local Councils of the Latin Church” by any stretch of the imagination, and they were not viewed as such by those who attended them.
Yes, but a latinizaed one. Ironically, de-latinization is championed by the Roman Church.
Click to expand...
Say what you will, but Papal Infallibility is not a “Latin” theological perspective. It is covered by the documents of Vatican II which all Churches ratified, including the Melkite Church.

While its execution is certainly subject different approaches, the teaching itself is quite solidly affirmed by our joint-Catholic Councils.

Peace and God bless!
 
jimmy said:
The distinction is an Augustinian distinction. It is not present in Syriac or Greek theology. We might say some sins are more serious than others but we don’t designate that one is mortal and another is venial. Ultimately they are all an offense against God.
Click to expand...
That’s a good point. The soul can become just as shipwrecked by many small sins as it would in committing one serious sin. And from my experience of the Eastern tradition as an Orthodox Christian, there is much focus on repentance and none on the cataloguing of sins. I’m glad to know that there is a strong Eastern Catholic emphasis on this fact also.

God bless,

Adam
 
HailMary said:
It never said that she was physically alive during the Assumption. Nobody knows and It was not very clear that is why the Holy Father phrased it:
Click to expand...
Its generally believed in the west that Mary did die first.

Though we think this assumption occured in Jerusalem where the Church of the assumption/dormition is, in recent years there has been increased devotion to Mary of Ephesus (though on the merrit of a vision by, I believe, Anne Emerich which is not church endorced) where their is a house attributed to have been built for Blessed Mary by St. John where there is also an empty tomb for Mary on the grounds. This site is also near a known ruin of a Church pastored by John. Its also quite interesting how the Apostles came to that area.

This site not far from Istanbul also attracts pilgrims from Islam as well.

As the vision goes (from memory), Mary was layed to rest (after death at around 90 years of age) and when Andrew came to pay his respects and was led to the tomb by John it was found empty.

Sorry I don’t have more info on the Jerusalem site and the Church of the dormition atm but I believe the conclusion is the same.

Peace.
 
HailMary said:
Uhhh, you guys might want to read what Scripture and Tradition have to say about this.

Deep down, you know there is a difference between murder, adultery, and stealing verses selfishness, impatience, making rash judgments, speaking unkindly, etc.

Who’s willing to admit that?

ewtn.com/expert/answers/mortal_versus_venial.htm

Doesn’t matter if you don’t use the language that the Catholic Church uses, the distinction is still there.
Click to expand...
Hello Hailmary, all sin hurts God that is the point I think that is the trying to be made.
 
First of all, I know quite well that it is not defined whether or not Mary died. I was just expressing my opinion that she did in fact die. Therefore, I reject the notion that she didn’t die. You are open to believe either way, though.

Second of all, when I say I tend to agree with the Orthodox on issues more so than the Latins, I mean that I think like the Orthodox when Rome is silent. So, I can believe like the Orthodox that Mary died when Rome does not say either way. I can use Eastern thoughts and expressions when it is proper, OK? That does not mean that I should be Orthodox rather the under Rome, as Rome now has two lungs to breathe with…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius:cool:
 
40.png
mgy100:
Can an Eastern Catholic reject papal infallibility? ‘Latin’ views on original sin? Status of Ecumenical Councils? Etc… and remain an Eastern Catholic?
No. Refer to the Canon of the Catholic Church. It is on the Vatican’s website.
Click to expand...

  1. *]It would be helpful if you didn’t reply inside the quote tags. That makes it impossible to quote you without manual insertion.
    *]Which canon are you referring to?
    *]Eastern Catholics follow their own canon law.
    On the flip side, can an Eastern Catholic accept all these things and remain an Eastern Catholic?
    No, truth be told, if you don’t follow what your church calls you to follow then you are in rejection of that church’s beliefs. There are people who do and openly view papal infallibility as wrong disagree on original sin views etc… we call ourselves Eastern Orthodox.
    Click to expand...
    There are others who openly do not agree with papal infallibility, who disagree on original sin, and who view communion with Rome favorably who call themselves Eastern Catholic. Other titles sometimes applied include Orthodox in Communion with Rome and Supporter of the Zoghby Initiative. Having these beliefs does not necessitate conversion.
    What is it (if not the above issues) that can validly (and organically) divide the Church into groups? (Direct differences in liturgy aside). You can’t have it both ways. Surely you can pursue the different methods of spirituality, say the eastern orthodox notion of prayer+stillness versus the Latin version of meditation. But as far as rejecting Catholic Doctrine set forth as dogma and official teaching of the church… that means you reject the Catholic Church. Period.
    Click to expand...
    Does having no need for something and not using it equate to rejection in your mind?
    You can not participate in the sacraments of the church if you do not agree with the church’s teachings. This is especially true of receiving the Eucharist. As the Eucharist publically affirms our commitment to Christ and His Church’s teachings, the Eucharist also unites us to each person who recieves the Eucharist in our Church throughout the world.
    Click to expand...
    Having these beliefs does not bar one from receiving the Eucharist, otherwise the Orthodox would not be able to receive.
    You can not pick and choose what you wish to believe, even though you may celebrate a different Liturgy or prayer practices.
    Click to expand...
    So you think different liturgical and spiritual practices are OK, but different theology is not allowed? How do you explain the many documents, such as the code of canon law, which include theology on the list of differences between rites?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top