eastern Catholics

[athanasius]

I just realized that the Eastern Catholic rites(Byzantine, Maronite, Melkite etc) are not properly represented here in the Catholic forum.They seem to be ignored. There are 22 eastern rites of the Catholic Church in union with the Holy Father that are NOT ROMAN Catholics. They need to be represented.

Here are a just a few of thier websites from just 3 of the other eastern Catholic churches:

http://www.byzcath.org/

http://www.melkite.org/

http://www.stmaron.org/

 

[Quiddity]

It's been noted before by me. The problem is how to go about it. Where do we put them? If they are in union with us, then they must be part of our forum (Roman Catholic). For they share our faith. But that would mean that we would have to change the title from "Roman Catholic" to simply "Catholic Church". And the problem with that is that both Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox consider themselves to be the Catholic Church. Although I disagree with them, we decided to leave it as is until we could come to some kind of agreement.

 

[jimbob]

Catholic
-Roman Catholic
-Eastern Orthodox
- Oriental Orthodox

???

btw Victor. Are you running that MI forum? i got a new comp, and I don't have the link anymore.

 

[Quiddity]

Hey Jim!!! :hug:
Long time no see.

Catholic
-Roman Catholic
-Eastern Orthodox
- Oriental Orthodox

???

Eastern Orthodox seperated from us a couple hundred years before the reformation. They have a legitimate Apostolic lineage, but are not in union with Rome (Pope). You can pretty much count our disagreements with them with one hand. Essentailly both Eastern Orthodox nor Oriental Orthodox are not in union with us. You can read up more about them in their perscribed forums.

btw Victor. Are you running that MI forum? i got a new comp, and I don't have the link anymore.

It still exists, I just don't manage it anymore. It got bombarded by spammers and just didn't have the time and know-how to stop it. So I let it go.

 

[athanasius]

It's been noted before by me. The problem is how to go about it. Where do we put them? If they are in union with us, then they must be part of our forum (Roman Catholic). For they share our faith. But that would mean that we would have to change the title from "Roman Catholic" to simply "Catholic Church". And the problem with that is that both Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox consider themselves to be the Catholic Church. Although I disagree with them, we decided to leave it as is until we could come to some kind of agreement.

Maybe we could have a forum called:

"Eastern Catholics in union with Rome."

Because they are not Roman Catholics and they not Orthodox, but they are eastern rite Catholics in communion with our Holy father, the magisterium. and that One Holy Catholic and aposotlic Church Christ founded.

 

[James the Persian]

Maybe we could have a forum called:

"Eastern Catholics in union with Rome."

Because they are not Roman Catholics and they not Orthodox, but they are eastern rite Catholics in communion with our Holy father, the magisterium. and that One Holy Catholic and aposotlic Church Christ founded.

As far as we are concerned, they are RCs, whatever rite they use, just as western rite Orthodox Catholics (yes, I put that in to make my point - we consider ourselves to be Catholic too) are considered to be Eastern Orthodox by you (a term we do not use in reference to ourselves). If you were to do as suggested should I create a forum called 'Western Orthodox Catholics in communion with Constantinople'? It's madness (and ecclesiologically dodgy). It's also completely unnecessary. There are no eastern rite RCs here and no western rite Orthodox. When there are some, maybe we should consider what to do about them, but for now at least, the different rites should remain within their faith.

In actual fact, I would suggest that they should never be separated out. We have different forums for different faiths not different styles of Liturgy. Unless you're trying to say that your eastern rites have a diferent faith to you (arguably true in some cases) you are, in my opinion, reading far too much into the name. To outsiders your Church whatever rite you use is Roman Catholic. That is how we non-RCs identify you, accurate or not (and I know Uniates who would certainly call themselves Roman Catholic, by the way). In the same way the heterodox describe us as Eastern Orthodox and that is not accurate or a term we ourselves use. I wish we could all find better titles for these fora, so that none of us were lumbered with ones we disagree with, but I've yet to see a decent suggestion. Just calling yourselves Catholic is not an option, though.

Victor and I discussed this at length before making the changes that got us to where we are now and I honestly think it's the best compromise we could make. I'm willing to consider suggestions, though. Maybe someone can think of terms that the two of us missed?

James

 

[lombas]

Greek Catholic priests, for example, are allowed to be married.

 

[James the Persian]

Greek Catholic priests, for example, are allowed to be married.

And? That's discipline, not dogma and it's not even unique to the eastern rites. There are Latin rite priests who are married, also. Married Anglican priests who swim the Tiber are often allowed to serve as priests despite their marital status. What you point out is a differnce in custom, not faith, and one which existed even before the Great Schism (though Rome didn't force the issue of celibacy until some time afterwards).

James

 

[lombas]

That is because the Anglican church is recognized by Rome and so are it's priests.

For a married protestant to "swim the Tiber", as you so nicely put it, is a lot harder.

 

[James the Persian]

That is because the Anglican church is recognized by Rome and so are it's priests.

For a married protestant to "swim the Tiber", as you so nicely put it, is a lot harder.

But then the marriage is a side issue. As I said, clerical celibacy is a discipline and as such may be relaxed. You are correct as to Rome's recognition of Anglican orders (and they recognise ours in the same way so it is technically possible, however unlikely, for one of our western rite priests to convert to the RCC and serve a Latin rite parish even though married). In the case of non-Anglican Protestants, the reason they are not generally accepted as priests is because the RCC does not recognise the Apostolic Succession of their former church, not because of their marital status. Converts from such churches would also find themselves laymen were they to become Orthodox (whereas OOs and RCs may be accepted as clergy) and we allow married clergy (though we have a similar discipline whjen it comes to the episcopate). As I said, marriage is a side issue.

James

 

[lombas]

Indeed.

What do you think the future of the eastern rite churches in the western world is? My understanding of it is that they are generally intertwined with the "national" culture of the people where their origins lay, and that it is quite hard to introduce it in a western world where people now have an option to choose their religion from a pallet of beliefs.

 

[athanasius]

Indeed.

What do you think the future of the eastern rite churches in the western world is? My understanding of it is that they are generally intertwined with the "national" culture of the people where their origins lay, and that it is quite hard to introduce it in a western world where people now have an option to choose their religion from a pallet of beliefs.

While the western catholicism(Roman rite) dominates in America, there are also several well established Eastern Catholic Churches and diocese(Or eparchery's in America. In st louis we have three different ones. The Maronites, The Byzantines, and the Ukranians I believe.(eastern catholic rites that are fully Catholic, not of the roman tradition but in union with Rome and the Pope). There are 22 eastern rites that belong to the Catholic church. I have been to a few byzantine Masses and they were great. Of coarse I also love a solemn Novas Ordo(Roman rite Latin or english Mass) too. For us Roman Catholics the Catholic church is the whole church and not just western(roman rite), but as JPII said we need to embrace both lungs of the church, from the eastern and western side to truly be Catholic. Same doctrines, same authority, different styles, different ways of explaining theology, different holy days, different calendar same Church.

I myself prefer western theology and believe it to be easier to understand. It is often said that the western church over explains things(Like the mystery of Eucharist). That may be true but I also believe that God developed for us the understadning of these things to be able to explain these things so people would know.

 

[athanasius]

That is because the Anglican church is recognized by Rome and so are it's priests.

For a married protestant to "swim the Tiber", as you so nicely put it, is a lot harder.

The anglican church is not offcially recognized as "Catholic" by the Roman Catholic church. We view their ordination to be invalid. We view them to be protestants, although with a very catholic flavor. For them to be recognized in the Catholic church as a valid "church", they must have a valid episcopate via valid ordination, and valid eucharist as the When they come over to us, they need to be properly ordained to be "actual" priest. We view thier priest as mere lay people with no authority to confect the eucharist or say mass or confessions. I hope that helps. I am a Catholic theology student and we have studied this at length.

 

[lombas]

The anglican church is not offcially recognized as "Catholic" by the Roman Catholic church. We view their ordination to be invalid. We view them to be protestants, although with a very catholic flavor. For them to be recognized in the Catholic church as a valid "church", they must have a valid episcopate via valid ordination, and valid eucharist as the When they come over to us, they need to be properly ordained to be "actual" priest. We view thier priest as mere lay people with no authority to confect the eucharist or say mass or confessions. I hope that helps. I am a Catholic theology student and we have studied this at length.

Lay people, but you do recognize the apostolic succession?

 

[Quiddity]

Lay people, but you do recognize the apostolic succession?

Yes we do....

 

[athanasius]

Lay people, but you do recognize the apostolic succession?

We believed that Anglicans invalidated thier ordination rite by changing the rite hundreds of years ago. It has since been fixed but by the time it got fixed no original bishops with valid ordination and succession was left. Therefore to us the epsicopal Priest are just layman.

There are a very small few epsicopal Priest that do have actually succession and ordination becuase they were ordained by Bishops of certain Orthodox churches who had valid ordination. Therefore those very tiny few are really priest and do hold a vlaid ordination. almost all of these are in europe and they are very very small in number. But the vast majority of them do not. and there fore we do not recognize them as valid priest or even valid Catholics. To be valid Catholic in our view you must be in union with the visible head of the Catholic church, the Pope. they are not. I hope that helps. I am sorry if this sounds harsh but its what we believe.

 

[Quiddity]

We believed that Anglicans invalidated thier ordination rite by changing the rite hundreds of years ago. It has since been fixed but by the time it got fixed no original bishops with valid ordination and succession was left. Therefore to us the epsicopal Priest are just layman.

There are a very small few epsicopal Priest that do have actually succession and ordination becuase they were ordained by Bishops of certain Orthodox churches who had valid ordination. Therefore those very tiny few are really priest and do hold a vlaid ordination. almost all of these are in europe and they are very very small in number. But the vast majority of them do not. and there fore we do not recognize them as valid priest or even valid Catholics. To be valid Catholic in our view you must be in union with the visible head of the Catholic church, the Pope. they are not. I hope that helps. I am sorry if this sounds harsh but its what we believe.

Excellent! ....:clap

 

[lombas]

We believed that Anglicans invalidated thier ordination rite by changing the rite hundreds of years ago. It has since been fixed but by the time it got fixed no original bishops with valid ordination and succession was left. Therefore to us the epsicopal Priest are just layman.

There are a very small few epsicopal Priest that do have actually succession and ordination becuase they were ordained by Bishops of certain Orthodox churches who had valid ordination. Therefore those very tiny few are really priest and do hold a vlaid ordination. almost all of these are in europe and they are very very small in number. But the vast majority of them do not. and there fore we do not recognize them as valid priest or even valid Catholics. To be valid Catholic in our view you must be in union with the visible head of the Catholic church, the Pope. they are not. I hope that helps. I am sorry if this sounds harsh but its what we believe.

I don't think it's harsh. Heck, I'm a cultural Catholic and attend an Anglican mass from time to time, but don't really belong to neither of them so it doesn't bother me at all.

What does strike me is the Unam Sanctam tone of your speech. It seems to ignore the "concilionist" side of the Catholic Church.

 

[athanasius]

I don't think it's harsh. Heck, I'm a cultural Catholic and attend an Anglican mass from time to time, but don't really belong to neither of them so it doesn't bother me at all.

What does strike me is the Unam Sanctam tone of your speech. It seems to ignore the "concilionist" side of the Catholic Church.

Hmmm, Not quite sure what you mean. Actually I am quite ecumenical. I am even a member of my Archdiocese Ecumenical ministry. I am also a Catholic theology student who is majoring in Catholic doctrinal theology, so I try to teach the true doctrines of the church with no punches pulled for accurate understadning. Its how my priest and teachers taught me and really it sems to be very helpful in the spiritual rhelm.
Peace to you my brother,

 

[lombas]

Hmmm, Not quite sure what you mean. Actually I am quite ecumenical. I am even a member of my Archdiocese Ecumenical ministry. I am also a Catholic theology student who is majoring in Catholic doctrinal theology, so I try to teach the true doctrines of the church with no punches pulled for accurate understadning. Its how my priest and teachers taught me and really it sems to be very helpful in the spiritual rhelm.
Peace to you my brother,

Sorry, I try to translate things from my language into English and then it all gets mixed up. What I was trying it to say that your expression of the acceptance of the pope as the "leader" (pardon the simplification) in the Catholic faith supports on, amongst others, the Unam Sanctam bull, which I am sure you know of, being a theology student and all. However, the Catholic Church itself has no long tradition of obliging its members to accept the pope as the one and true leader with an unfalsifiable speech (which in history we call "invented tradition"). Instead, the Catholic Church does have a long tradition of Ecumenical Councils, which has steadily declined over the past couple of centuries. Basing the membership requirements on accordance with the pope does not cover the whole package, that's what I wanted to say. Because the Anglican Church is a very good example of a denomination where the importance of "Ecumenical Councils" (or the variance thereof) is still prominent.

And peace to you too, in good faith.