This Eastern Catholic Forum area is not working

[gladius_veritatis]

As for the term "uniate," as I have said before, I do not mean this term disrespectfully. I use it because the Catholic Encyclopedia and most of the other works I've read from the 19th and early 20th centuries use it.]

 

At least in Slovakia(according to my parents) we (Greek Catholics)  use that word ourselves as a sign of respect of our Holy Union with the Apostolic See brought about by our patron, St. Josaphat.

 

I pointed out the ridiculousness of saying that "uniate" even has the possibility of being used disrespectfully by Catholics (causing one to think it indicates traitorous connotations - how?), as it means what it says - in union with the Holy See.  It did not do much good then, and I doubt it will now. 

 

Even though I am taken for an ignoramus/latin rite/insensitive/son of a motherless goat, mentioned in the same breath as Abp. Ireland, I will run the risk of saying:

 

St. Josaphat, pray for us.

 

Now, if we could just quit the "winey baby, poopey pants" number, and post something interesting about Eastern Catholicism to the edification of all, I would be most grateful.  Pax. 

[Immaculata001]

Very good summary, gladius_veritatis!  You have stated my position well and I make no appologies for it.

 

Again, I truly thank you for providing me with insight into the trad Catholic movement, which I, regretfully, was a member of since 1996. 

 

Like Archbishop John Ireland, I am sure you will foster good feelings among your Eastern Catholic brethren and promote the return of many Orthodox to the Catholic Church with your evenagelization skills.  NOT!

 

 

Pius1914,

 

I'm perplexed about what the appropriate evangelical attitude should be to the "Orthodox" ?  I know it's difficult to apprehend gladius polemic style, as it relates to this issue (although terribly provocative and hilarious, at times ), but he is bringing up a legitimate issue; it's just that those who've sympathized with the "Orthodox" aren't addressing it.

 

We're mostly in agreement about Eastern Rite Catholics ("uniate").  We're just not able to accept the legitimacy of Eastern "Orthodox," for theological reasons (I didn't want to bring up the excommunications and heresy, but gladius did). 

 

Granted, I think the negative reaction to the incorporation of Eastern prayers to Roman Catholicism was a bit off putting, to you.  But I'm confused as to how Latin Rites can accept the legitimacy of "Orthodox," without a theological premise.

[piusx1914]

 

Pius1914,

 

I'm perplexed about what the appropriate evangelical attitude should be to the "Orthodox" ?  I know it's difficult to apprehend gladius polemic style, as it relates to this issue (although terribly provocative and hilarious, at times ), but he is bringing up a legitimate issue; it's just that those who've sympathized with the "Orthodox" aren't addressing it.

 

We're mostly in agreement about Eastern Rite Catholics ("uniate").  We're just not able to accept the legitimacy of Eastern "Orthodox," for theological reasons (I didn't want to bring up the excommunications and heresy, but gladius did). 

 

Granted, I think the negative reaction to the incorporation of Eastern prayers to Roman Catholicism was a bit off putting, to you.  But I'm confused as to how Latin Rites can accept the legitimacy of "Orthodox," without a theological premise.

Immaculata,

 

Thanks for your reply.  I'm not suggesting anybody on this list become a sympathetic ecumenist to the Orthodox.  I believe the Catholic Church is the true Church of Christ. 

 

My evengelical attitude is this:  I know members of the Catholic Church CAN be saved. (Period).  What happens to Protestants, Orthodox, Jews and etc. is not my concern.  God can deal with them.

 

Rather than attempt to construct my own theological premise, I will let Cardinal Husar give his: http://www.cardinalrating.com/cardinal_43__article_73.htm

 

This is an interview with Cardinal Husar, head of the Ukrainian Catholic (Uniate) Church.  He goes MUCH FURTHER than I on some of these issues.  The last paragraph will probably give some members of this list a stroke, so make sure you are setting down.  The Cardinal says there is no difference in faith between Catholics and Orthodox (I'm not even going this far).  Unless you are a sede vacantist, you must recognize this man as the head of the Ukrainian Catholic Church who is in perfect communion with Benedict XVI, the current Pope.  THIS IS THE UNIATE POSITION.  In fact, there are many who believed Husar stood a cance in the last conclave of becomming pope.  See here: http://www.ukrweekly.com/Archive/2001/500117.shtml 

 

 

 

[Pat]

Great responses. This is why I'm wary of people switching to Eastern  rites. There always seems to be a tendency to convert to Orthodoxy  (many do in fact, ask Mark, Paul and Servus Iesu about "InnerPhyre").  People don't think that the Eastern rite is authentic, they think only  Orthodoxy is true Eastern Christianity. Piusx1914 summarizes it far  better than me: "Eastern Catholicism cannot be understood without a  consideration of Eastern Orthodoxy." So when you go to these Eastern  Churches, according to him you have to investigate this schismatic and  anti-Catholic sect. Clearly, something is amiss when one is forced to  do this.
 
 InnerPhyre wrote this about the Eastern Catholics,  and I've found that it's sometimes accurate (for example, in the  ByzCath forums one called the Council of Trent a "local Western  Council"). (Note that I am not against Eastern Catholic Churches and  their faithful--just accept everything that Holy Mother Church teaches,  including the primacy.)
 
 

I  get really confused by Eastern Catholics. So many of them are basically  Orthodox in "submission" to the Pope, but the funny thing is...they  don't really submit to him! They don't consider him infallible, they  view him as the first among equals, and above all, they want him to  stay out of the business of their respective churches. They don't  believe in the immaculate conception of the Theotokos. They don't  believe in purgatory. They don't define the Eucharist in terms of  transubstantiation. Essentially they seem to be Orthodox who are giving  lip service to the Pope....letting him believe that he has the power  that he claims to have...even tho the EC's don't believe he does. It's  extremely confusing. If you don't believe the teachings of the RCC and  you truly believe the teachings of the OC, why deny who you really are?  Why live a lie?

 
  In  theological spheres the Eastern Catholics are free to speculate, but in  dogma there is no freedom, and many fail to realize this. The Eastern  Catholics need to accept all defined dogmas, otherwise their  union with the Catholic Church is only external. I know drewmeister is  a good Catholic, but some people who have switched to the Eastern rites  go overboard, and are pretty much Orthodox in belief.
 
 The  Orthodox are liberals. They act conservative, but much of what they  believe they share with the liberals. E.g., compare the Byzantine  Patriarch's position with the Archbishop of Canturbury. "First among  equals" effectively means "visible body with no visible head". The  parish has a visible head, the diocese has a visible head, the  archdiocese has a visible head, the patriarchate has a visible head,  the universal Church has a visible head. The Orthodox are consistent  except for that last point. Some Orthodox theologions, for example  Afanassieff, freely admit this. I read an interesting essay by a Quaker  that essentially said only two propositions are entirely consistent:  either accept that all levels of the heirarchy have a visible head, or  reject all forms of heirarchy and recognize only Christ as your head.  Obviously she chose the latter, which leads to free inquiry, which  leads to uncertainty on matters of faith.
 
  edited to fix typo.

[piusx1914]

Great responses. This is why I'm wary of people switching to Eastern rites. There always seems to be a tendency to convert to Orthodoxy (many do in fact, ask Mark, Paul and Servus Iesu about "InnerPhyre"). People don't think that the Eastern rite is not authentic, they think only Orthodoxy is true Eastern Christianity.

 

Pat,

 

You are right, this happens often.  If you read Cardinal Husar's interview (link in my last post), you can see that the Eastern Catholics get it from both sides.  The Latins are mad at them and the Orthodox are mad at them at the same time.

 

I enjoyed your post, thank you.

[Pat]

I read this:
 

No. Our attitude practically is that between the Orthodox and  ourselves there are no differences in faith. Questions like purgatory,  the Immaculate Conception or the filioque are theological concepts, not faith.  And they of course are very different, but they are ultimately complementary.
 

 This is exactly what I'm talking about. It is a matter of faith,  because the Church is infallible. The Church can't dogmatize what's  really only a "theological concept", it must be the truth. He is not in  a position to say that these are only "theological concepts". Dogmas  are irreformable according to Vatican I.
 
 I agree with him  regarding the Latinizations of the liturgy. Those don't belong there.  But there is a difference between liturgy and faith, Orthodoxy is  heterodoxy because they deny several truths of the Catholic faith. You  can't have your cake and eat it too, you must either be Catholic or  Orthodox. You can't believe as an Orthodox while putting yourself under  Melkite jurisdiction without turning your faith into a contradiction.
 
  His response also contradicts Pope Pius XII's Mystici Corporis:
 

  It  follows that those are divided in faith or government cannot be living  in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one  Divine Spirit.

 
 By the way, I agree with your post  that he goes too far. As I said, as long as the Melkites accept all  dogmas, they're fine. This Cardinal is bordering on heresy.

[ArabCatholic]

"The Cardinal says there is no difference in faith between Catholics and Orthodox (I'm not even going this far)."

 

If the above is true (Agreeing with Piusx, it is Not) St. Josaphat, and St. Andrew Bobola are the two biggest idiots the world has ever seen. These two saints shed their blood in two of the most horrific martyrdom's in Church history. The witness they gave to the Church by their deaths, was that indeed the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church are NOT the same. Shame! Shame on Cardinal Hussar for even intimating such.

 

What seems funny(and sad) is that the Orthodox themselves would rebuke Cardinal Hussar's belief. Anyone who thinks the modernist crisis is not present in the Eastern rites is sadly mistaken, and Card. Hussar's regrettable statement bears this out.

[DominusTecum]

Many think that Cardinal Husar is a traitor to the west and that he has imbibed an Eastern Orthodox mentality. He is not infallible. I did not read the interview, and I do not know enough about the good Cardinal to make up my own mind, but this is what I have read.

[Pat]

I know some of what I said can be interpreted as me "bashing" the  Eastern Catholics, so I want to make this very clear. I have nothing  against Eastern Catholics. I have problems with all who selectively  believe Church teaching, and this is found in both East and West, and  probably much more in the West.
 
 I also generally disapprove  of switching to an Eastern rite, because experience and testimonials of  Orthodox converts shows that they often convert to Eastern Orthodoxy  afterward. They at least consider it. If one is strong in faith, I  suppose there's no problem with it.

[drewmeister2]

The Orthodox are liberals. They act conservative, but much of what they believe they share with the liberals. E.g., compare the Byzantine Patriarch's position with the Archbishop of Canturbury. "First among equals" effectively means "visible body with no visible head". The parish has a visible head, the diocese has a visible head, the archdiocese has a visible head, the patriarchate has a visible head, the universal Church has a visible head. The Orthodox are consistent except for that last point. Some Orthodox theologions, for example Afanassieff, freely admit this. I read an interesting essay by a Quaker that essentially said only two propositions are entirely consistent: either accept that all levels of the heirarchy have a visible head, or reject all forms of heirarchy and recognize only Christ as your head. Obviously she chose the latter, which leads to free inquiry, which leads to uncertainty on matters of faith.

edited to fix typo.

Good points.  But I will say though, the Orthodox aren't liberals when it comes to liturgy and spirituality.  Some of the Orthodox jurisdictions are still very strict about fasting and prayer life, and their liturgy is still ancient and whatnot (unlike the Novus Ordo).  The Russian Orthodox are particularly strict (and thus, the Russian Catholics tend to be very strict too).  The Greeks, however, are another story.  Many of them don't fast, and have lost a true sense of spirituality.  I guess you could say the Russian Orthodox are like the FSSP of Orthodoxy, as they are stricter than other Orthodox jurisdictions.