What is the Traditional Catholic opinion on the Eastern Catholics?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rush_Catholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I see Eastern Catholic Churches as essential rites of the Church with beautiful, ancient traditions that ought to be conserved. Beautiful, ancient liturgies that should be celebrated without any latinizations. They are beautiful enough in their own right without western injections.

But, of course, Eastern Catholics must believe in the same things we Latin Rites believe in- the Faith is one. To not believe in the infallibility of the Pope, the Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, etc., is heresy.

So the Faith is the same, but it is expressed differently, in different liturgies.

Traditionalists in general though split into two camps in regards to ECs- some, usually the more extreme trads, see it as the more latinized the Eastern Churches are, the better. They probably wouldn’t object to the Divine Liturgy in Latin, or even Eastern priests saying the TLM, want kneeling for communion in Eastern Churches, etc. Others want the most authentic Eastern liturgies possible.
 
JMJ
Going to TLM, and having a best friend a member of Maronite Rite, personally I love the differences. I strongly feel that the Catholic Church isn’t nor should it be one size fits all.
I respect that some rites don’t kneel as they see this as a sign of repentance. So be it. They stand out of respect. Cool. That is their culture, rubrics, rite.
The Latin should stay in the Latin Rite and let them be.
We are one body, one holy Catholic Church.
 
Love the Ukranian DL and want to attend a Coptic DL sometime.
 
I’ve been quite impressed with most of the Eastern Catholics I’ve met in person. However I can’t say the same for some of the puritans I’ve encountered online, who believe that anything that can be considered a Latinization, is toxic and must be eliminated. The proper way to be Orthodox in all things is to join the Orthodox Church, and in this regard I think most of Orthodoxy agrees.
 
Eastern Catholics ARE Traditional Catholics!!!
:rolleyes:

I was baptized and confirmed in the Latin Church and worshiped very regularly in an Eastern Catholic Church a year ago (until I moved) and I can say that they love the Pope more, have more kids, and follow the ancient teachings more than most Latin Catholics of the Ordinary Form. (You know, the 70% of Catholics who don’t believe in the Sacramental presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist.)
 
Volodymyr_988 said:
Eastern Catholics ARE Traditional Catholics!!!
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Amen to that. I have good friends who are of the Maronite Rite. If my recollection is correct, the Maronite Rite Mass is the oldest form of the Mass in the Church.

I’d say that qualifies as traditional. 🎉
 
Seamus_L said:
I’ve been quite impressed with most of the Eastern Catholics I’ve met in person. However I can’t say the same for some of the puritans I’ve encountered online, who believe that anything that can be considered a Latinization, is toxic and must be eliminated. The proper way to be Orthodox in all things is to join the Orthodox Church, and in this regard I think most of Orthodoxy agrees.
Click to expand...
So we are “puritans” when we wish to return to our true Catholic Traditions, so what would you call those Latin Catholic who wish to return to the pre-vatican II stuff?
 
I love authentic Eastern Catholicism (and not the strange Latinized version of it that existed in many places before recently) but what I do not love is when Eastern “Catholics” deny dogmas such as Original Sin, the Immaculate Conception, Papal Infallibility, etc.
 
JuanCarlos said:
But, of course, Eastern Catholics must believe in the same things we Latin Rites believe in- the Faith is one. To not believe in the infallibility of the Pope, the Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, etc., is heresy.
Click to expand...
It makes me laugh when I read things like this comming from a “traditional” Catholic. Comments like these are at the core of why we are a divided church today. First we split over Christiology then over a Thological mater as to the nature of the Holy Spirit. And that, the Filioque, not even inserted by Rome. It was allowed by the church and used to reinforce the nature of the Trinity as agreed to at Nicaea to the Arians in southern Spain. No body cared. To this day if you are a Roman Catholic and are in an NO mass in the greek vernacular you will not here the Filioque in the creed. Its a point of transliteration that has been used by politiaclly minded people to keep the churches divided. No one contests that among the Patriarchs of the church the Bishop of Rome has primacy. Political jurisdiction is another matter. From apostolic times people follow their bishop and so forth to one of the agreed to Patriachal Sees. What we as Roman Catholics believe is our business. Our bishops dictate our faith. At no time have any of our synods declared heretical any part of the Orthodox faith. What they have unfortunatly done is allowed themselves to be blinded by a 1000 year old argument over political sovreignty and not included all of the Patriarchates in the our recent councils. Why don’t Orthodox beleive in the Immaculate Conception or Purgatory or Papal Infallibility? Itself a modern contruct to limit the synodal model of dogmatic proclemation Even now it is closely overwatched by the Magisterium.

The reason they don’t accept these articles of our Roman faith is simple. They were not there to vote.

There will never be a reunited Church. Until some brave Pope calls for a Council that will include the entire Church. The ramifications are frightening, especially to the Vatican. It has to be willing to agree with what is decided and be willing to accept that the one Catholic and Apostolic Chirch does not need to be run from one office.

:grouphug:
 
DixitDominus said:
I love authentic Eastern Catholicism (and not the strange Latinized version of it that existed in many places before recently) but what I do not love is when Eastern “Catholics” deny dogmas such as Original Sin, the Immaculate Conception, Papal Infallibility, etc.
Click to expand...
I agree, but have some pity on the poor EC’s - IMHO, the problem is they’re kind of in between - not quite “Roman” Catholics and not quite Eastern “Orthodox” - now that can be a good thing, in that they’re kind of like a “bridge” between East and West. But it can also be bad, in that it may lead to confusion about what ECs are really supposed to believe and what they’re really supposed to do.

(Just the humble opinion of someone who’s only been in the Byzantine Catholic Church for a few years - I could definitely be wrong! :rolleyes: )
 
P.S.

Purgatory from an Eastern perspective:

Re: Purgatory.
Purgatory, as a place of fire, where the stains of sins are burned away, it a Roman Theologumenon… (Theological Construct.)

The Dogmatic purgatory is not defined nearly that tightly, merely a place or state of continuing refinement and struggle to attain heaven, for those not condemned to eternal hell, nor yet admitted to heaven.

The posthumous theosis of the byzantines in general, the stations of the Russo-Byzantines, the Roman Purgatory… all can fall within that construction
Aramis
Alaskan, Catholic. Born Roman Rite, then soundly Ruthenianized.

And Thank you Aramis for the insight.
 
ByzCath
Code: 
                       Your worship services, in there most Latinized days, were still reverantly conducted, unlike what a large pct of us endured and still endure in the RC Church. That more than anything else is what we're opposed to. 

                      Are the Eastern Catholic Churches still really so Latinized ? A trip through cyberspace to the many parishes that now have websites would certainly seem to say no, yet it seems to be quite a popular topic on various online forums nowdays. And while the many EC's I've spoken with have indicated they certainly wouldn't want to see statues replace icons in there church, many have also said they have no problem whatsoever with a statue or two, or iconic stations of the cross, something the "everything from the west must go" crowd still has a big problem with. And often times, many of these people I referred to as Puritans, are the same people who say things like "If my church ever closes I'll join the Orthodox Church" or "I've thought about Doxing several times". When I hear people talk like this I seriously have to wonder how Catholic they really are. They're certainly not cut from the same cloth as the people in Ukraine or Ruthenia who chose death over conversion to the Orthodox Church.
 
Speaking as an Eastern Christian (member of a Melkite Parish, to be precise), I feel the best thing we can do for the sake of Holy Tradition is to be ourselves as authentically as possible.

This, I believe, will accomplish more for reconcilation of the Eastern and Western Churches than all the theological conferences will ever do.

In fact, if you read Abp. Joseph Tawil’s pastoral letter, COURAGE TO BE OURSELVES, it says exactly what I believe in this matter.
 
Traditionalists in general though split into two camps in regards to ECs- some, usually the more extreme trads, see it as the more latinized the Eastern Churches are, the better.
Which goes DIRECTLY against many statements by popes, who have repeatedly said that the Eastern Liturgies are to be preserved in their integrity.

As Pius IX (of all people!) said to the Russian Catholics: “nec plus, nec minus, nec altera–add nothing, omit nothing, change nothing.”
 
I’m all for Eastern Catholics restoring there traditions, but I truly believe that can be done without the wholesale elimination of beloved devotions that just happened to have originated in the Latin Church. Do a search on how many Eastern Churches have the name Immaculate Conception or even Sacred Heart. But to some, this is all wrong because it isn’t Orthodox approved. Then there’s Papal Infallibility, purgatory, as well as the Immaculate Conception. These are things a great many Eastern Catholics already believe in, but the Orthodox in Communion types want them to stop believing in them anyway. If they real want to follow the Orthodox they should adopt there positions on Our Lady of Fatima and St Josaphat as well.
 
All public Latin Devotions need to go away where they are used in place of an Eastern Catholic one.

Such as Stations of the Cross during Great Lent. That needs to be removed and the Liturgy of the Presanctified (and the Akathist hymn in the Melkite Church) needs to come back.

No more Saturday Evening Divine Liturgy, instead Saturday Great Vespers needs to be restored.

No rosary before the Divine Liturgy, restore Orthos (also known as Matins).

Latin Devotions are find, especially in private usage, but they have no place when they are taking the place of something that is part of the tradition.
 
ByzCath said:
All public Latin Devotions need to go away where they are used in place of an Eastern Catholic one.

Such as Stations of the Cross during Great Lent. That needs to be removed and the Liturgy of the Presanctified (and the Akathist hymn in the Melkite Church) needs to come back.

No more Saturday Evening Divine Liturgy, instead Saturday Great Vespers needs to be restored.

No rosary before the Divine Liturgy, restore Orthos (also known as Matins).

Latin Devotions are find, especially in private usage, but they have no place when they are taking the place of something that is part of the tradition.
Click to expand...
I’ve had arguments about this with bishops. Of course I lost, but never mind that.

I’m not and never have been a fan of practices imported from the Latin Church (including Benediction, and I’m sure I’m going to slammed from East and West both on that one), and I have no use whatsoever for “anticipated” liturgies at all, so yes, I agree in general. At the same time, though, let me defend a couple of them, at least to a point.

The Way of the Cross is certainly of Latin origin, but it does have certain Oriental aspects to it. It’s well accepted among the Chaldeans and Maronites precisely because it fits well with the culture and ethnic traditions. As long as it does not replace the authentic liturgical tradition, I have no problem with it. Even for those of the Byzantine tradition, I don’t see any harm in doing it, provided it supplements (rather than supplants) the traditional forms.

The Rosary is another. Provided it is not publicly done in place of Orthos (actually I think that’s the equivalent of Lauds), again as a supplementary devotion I see no harm. Here, though, I will grant that it is properly a private, non-liturgical, devotion, and should remain so, both East and West.
 
I consider myself a “traditional Catholic”, and would prefer to have the TLM more available. There is nothing wrong with the NO, the problem comes with innovations that depart from “Read the Black, Do the Red”. No more. No less.
I have attended the Eucharistic Celebration in Ruthenian, Greek, and Maronite Catholic Churches. They are different from the Western or Latin Rite(s), in ruberics and languages, but not in the essentials of faith. On my occasional visits to Eastern Rite Churches, I have always been made welcome by the clergy and people there.
The proper celebration of the NO can be just as pious and uplifting, regardless of the language, in Latin-which is still okay, in English, Spanish, German, or any other language on Earth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top