www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology A Question About Latinizations

[Bob,

Why do you insist on being rude here? I once wrote Bishop Tikhon on this very subject. A former Romanian Catholic (now OCA) insisted on calling us "Uniates" and said that Orthodoxy required him to do so. I asked Bishop Tikhon if that was required and got a firm "No."]

Of course it's not required and if you reread some of my posts you will see that I have gone out of my way not to use it when dealing with certain issues, or to distinguish my 'Catholicity' from yours. But it seems that every ident I come up with that reminds you of the reality of the fact that you are both part of the Roman Catholic Church and still under it's authority is insulting to you. You have been searching for an identity for over 400 years and still haven't come up with one. In just my life time you have gone from 'Greek Catholic', to either 'Byzantine Catholic' or Ukranian Catholic' (depending on the ethnic identity you wanted), to now 'Orthodox In Communion With Rome'. It seems that every twenty years are so you try and reinvent yourselves.

It has been discussed here many times, and even Alex had agreed that when the Union took place your average church goer had no idea his church had become part of the RCC by its incorporation into it. Because he based everything on what he saw and heard when he went to church. And he was fiercely and devoutly Orthodox in his identity. The Popes name was only commerated in the diocesan cathedrals. The local bishop was commerated in the village churches. Those that questioned why the Pope was being commerated were told that the Pope had BECOME ORTHODOX (which in itself shows they didn't consider the RCC Orthodox). It was a deceptive device then and it remains so now. If it was, and still is, so important for you all to be in comunion with the so called 'see of Peter' then you should be proud to proclaim that union. Not try and hide it by reinventing an identity every twenty or so years. If I was a member of your church and believed my Orthodoxy could only be complete within unity with the pope like the Administrator does, then I would have no problem being called either a 'Papal Catholic' or more precise an 'Eastern Rite Papal Catholic'. But I am forbidden to use either ident in place of the 'Uniate' id here.

Though I disagree with them, I have more respect with Roman Catholics like LatinTrad that come in here and not only understand what and who they are but defend it. They fully understand that to be 'in communion with the Pope' not only requires allegiance but belief in what he proclaims and upholds.

You all, on the other hand, complain that you get it from boths sides. Ever ask yourselves why? It's because you have loyality to neither church. Nor are you willing to follow the teachings fully of either side.

If you all are so insecure about what and who you are it's not my fault.

[I humbly agree with the Administrator that you have raised several good issues. Still, I have never really understood (1) what does it mean to be "Orthodox" in your book; (2) why the Eastern Catholic churches are not among those "who rightly glorify"; and (3) what we should do about it.]

For the answer to (1) read my previous post.

(2) Because as a sui juris church within the Roman fold you are required to accept (with the exception of the (Filioque) all the the RCC teaches, believes, and upholds. [Read the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches] some of which I will quote below [Marked (*)]. To be 'in communion with Rome' means to accept their leader as the ultimate authority over the church on earth and accept the doctrines he proclaims, protects, and upholds. Doctrines like the Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, Papal Infallibility, Papal Surpemacy, etc. must be accepted by you by that very communion you proclaim.

(*) CODE OF CANONS OF THE EASTERN CHURCHES: [Caps are mine to emphasize]

The Supreme Authority Of The Church -

Can 43: The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and PASTOR OF THE ENTIRE CHURCH ON EARTH. BY VIRTUE OF HIS OFFICE HE POSSESSES SUPREME, FULL, IMMEDIATE AND UNIVERASL POWER IN THE CHURCH WHICH HE IS ALWAAYS ABLE TO EXERCISE FREELY.

Can 45: By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only POSSESSES POWER OVER THE ENTIRE CHURCH BUT ALSO OBTAINS THE PRIMACY OF POWER OVER ALL THE EPARCHIES AND THEIR GROUPINGS. <SNIPE>

Can 46 (2): THE PARTICIPATION OF PATRIARCHS AND OF ALL THE OTHER HIERACHS WHO PRESIDE OVER CHURCHES SUI JURIS IN THE SYNOD OF BISHOPSIS REGULATED BY SPECIAL NORMS ESTABLISHED BY THE ROMAN PONTIFF HIMSELF.

Metropolitan Churches And Other Churches Sui Juris -

Can 155 (2): IT IS SOLELY FOR THE SUPREME AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH TO ERECT, MODIFY, AND SUPRESS METROPOLITAN CHURCHES sui juris AS WELL AS TO DEFINE THEIR TERRITORIAL BOUNDARIES.

The Patrairchal Chruches -

Can 57: The erection, restoration, modification and suppression of patriarchal Churches ARE RESERVED FOR THE SUPREME AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH (Note; The Pope)

(3) What you should do about it? If you follow the sister church analogy (which I don't because its like having two sisters without a mother), and believe both churches have valid sacraments and provide salvation as the RCC now teaches, then you should decide what things are most important to you and fully incorporate yourself into that church which provides them. It's a simple as that. I would rather see you as a devout RC like LatinTrad than a confused christian with an identity crisis!

[ I doubt you can find "Uniate" used on the OCA website.]

You are probably right. The only place I seem to see it used with any regularity is on Roman Catholic websites like the one that was recommended along with the one below -

https://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=1543

OrthoMan

Alice:

From my files, regarding Orthodoxy an 'Purgatory' -

In 'The Complete Book of Orthodoxy' by George W. Grube the following
sentence appears within the explaination of PURGATORY -

"If there is, any suffering in the after life, some Orthodox Catholic
theologians teach, it is of a purifying nature and not punitive."

I find this to be confusing because, isn't this exactly what the Roman
Catholic teaches in regards to Purgatory? Can someone explain this sentence
and its meaning from an Orthodox Catholic viewpoint?

Reply:

Out of the post I have read, it seems there is some confusion about this
issue. So, I will try to give the general differences between RC purgatory
and Orthodox understanding of the soul's purification in the next life.
There are similarities and differences.

First, one must stop and think what the word "punishment" really means. It
is essentially, a corrective measure that is used upon someone for their
ultimate benefit. Originally, the concept of "punishment" had a very
redemptive and healing aspect to it. However, as it tends to be used today
(at least in theological talk), it tends to refer to arbitrary dishing out
of misery, often to "pay back" some wrong or injustice. We see this in our
own laws, one can see a paying back and a hope of it bringing healing when
we send someone to jail. In strict law sense, however, I think the intent is
to ultimate reform the person, or at least keep them out of society so that
they do not harm others. Revenge is more the emotional side of it from the
victim's standpoint.

Due to the above, the concept of punishment has taken on more of a "paying
back" or retribution, and is then a word that people who focus on the
healing aspect like to stay away from. This probably comes from the concept
of satisfaction atonement, where the whole idea of Jesus dying on the cross
was to pay back to the Father a debt of sin that we could not. That is also
why the RC idea sounds so much like they are saying (to a Protestant) that
Christ's forgiveness wasn't good enough, since it didn't entirely pay the
debt, that we by suffering punishment still had something left to pay off
for our sins. Thus, while the RC held to some degree of the satisfaction
theory, and while that did predominate at certain times, they still had the
context of healing, even if it was buried at times and forgotten. The
understanding of "punishment" can be interpreted in either direction.
However, I would tend to stay away from it now if just because its common
connotation does not lend itself to really expressing the reality of what we
believe, and will automatically put forth a picture of God that is
incompatible with Orthodoxy's.

That said, Orthodoxy does understand a purifying to take place in the next
life, which St. Paul also speaks about (and RC uses to support Purgatory as
well), that all our works will be put through the fire, the stone, gold,
etc. will remain while all that is of hay, straw, etc. will be burned away.
Even if it is all burned away, however, if the foundation which has been
laid is Jesus Christ, that person will be saved as through the fire.

Since this is scripture, and the Fathers also speak about the purifying of
the soul in this life and the next, this is something we cannot just toss
aside. However, there are some significant differences between what I have
understood of the RC's concept and Orthodoxy's on this purifying in the next
life.

One of the biggest differences is when this purifying takes place, and the
purpose and reason of the purifying. RC teaches that one must be purified
*before* approaching God. Orthodoxy tends to teach that one is purified
*upon* approaching God.

First, one must understand the need for purification. Keep in mind that this
is a journey. Our movement is towards the likeness of God being instilled in
our life and a growing relationship with Him. The closer we move towards
God-likeness, it basically means the less of this temporal world that we
hold onto and the more of the Spirit that we have. (Read St. Seraphim of
Sarov on acquiring the Holy Spirit as an example of this.) Some folks have
attained to the angelic life in this life. My own patron saint, the Apostle
Timothy, disciple of St. Paul, was said to have been such a person.
Incidentally he was martyred for preaching against the pagan worship in
Ephesus, where he was a bishop of the Church. A mob came and beat him with
stones and clubs. Anyway, most of us will not get there in this life time.
We hold onto too much of this world's treasures. We don't go and "sell all
that we have" to follow Christ. Thus our sins build hay and straw structures
in our lives. We are forgiven for the sins through repentance and
confession, and the relationship to God is kept whole, but we still have
that straw hut over there that we have a hard time tearing down and building
it with something of the virtues. We struggle with that in many areas. We
wish to build things in our lives with our passions instead of the virtues.

Thus, what happens for many is they leave this life with some of our life
built out of gold, silver and other sturdy materials, but we also have some
of our life built out of the straw and hay. What we are doing on this
journey is working on tearing down the straw and hay structures and
replacing them with the stones of virtues.

The need is the same in either communion, that these areas of our life built
by the passions cannot remain in the presence of God. However, the solution
to how those are dealt with varies. RC says that they must be burned away
before entering God's presence. Therefore, there is a place, or time, or
some existence that one has that one goes through this fire and is purified
of these things. Naturally this is not going to be pleasant and does feel
like a "punishment" even though it is for our benefit. When I got punished
as a child for playing in the street, it was to protect my life, not to
cause me pain for the heck of it. Yet, the concept here is that God's
holiness cannot allow any impurity and will automatically be rejected.
Therefore, if one comes into God's presence with some impurity, the idea is
that person will be rejected except that the impurity is cleansed
beforehand.

In Orthodoxy, God is understood as an "All Consuming Fire" that we are
either lighted with or heated by. This fiery presence is in Orthodoxy what
purifies us. Upon coming to God, His very presence burns away all
impurities. All that remains will be the gold, silver and other virtues of
our life, and at that point we will be freed from all that once weighted us
down in this life, and freed to ascend in greater ways to God. For those who
have progressed far with eradicating the passions from their lives and have
attained a great God-likeness through the Spirit, there will be little to
burn away, if any, and their transition into God's presence will be fully
like the three holy Children in Daniel, who when the king threw them into
the furnace heated 7 times greater than normal, all experienced it as a
"dewy cool breeze" instead of a burning fire. There will be many, however,
that will experience this entry to God's presence with some pain and
suffering. Not due to God inflicting punishment on them, but due to the
reaction of bringing impurity into God's holiness. The two cannot mix. It is
like mixing two chemicals together that produce an explosion. Neither
chemical "caused" it to happen, it simply happened by bringing them
together. Thus it will be with the consequences of sin in our lives that we
have yet to clean out in this life, it will get cleaned out in the next for
us.

Therefore, there are two different understandings at work here, one which
says that we cannot come into God's presence without being purified first
because God will reject us as a person otherwise, and one which says that in
coming into His presence, He doesn't reject all those in Christ, but He does
"reject" and burns away all that is incompatible with His presence in us.
Yet, if we have Christ, we hold onto that relationship and the burning is
only temporary (whatever temporary means there), whereas those who do not
have Christ, upon coming into God's presence, experience the second death,
total and unending fire of His presence. That is "hell".

The next difference comes in our prayers for these people. Somehow over time
the RC concept mutated from what we understand as Orthodox to this whole
system of merits and the applying them from one to another. Initially, the
understanding of "merits" simply meant that a particular saint who was close
to God due to their humility and love of God in their life, who had
eradicated much of the passions and established the virtues, had by that
reason acquired the life that has faith which can move mountains. This is of
God's doing, not the saints, and the saint continually keeps this in mind if
he/she does not with to fall. However, Christ says we will be able to do
that, and like the demon that the disciples could not cast out because they
had not fasted and prayed as they should have, one's acquiring the Holy
Spirit in humility does have something to do with how well one is able to
help others with a gift God has given them, whether that is healing,
hospitality, etc. Thus, there are some that have more "merit" in their lives
than others. Doesn't mean one has earned salvation, but simply that one has
acquired a certain relationship with God which allows them to transmit to us
more of God's mercy and grace within our lives. That is why we ask people to
pray for us, in hopes that they have a relationship with God that will aid
us. So one sees the Fathers speaking of merits at times, and some current
Orthodoxy material will also speak of them as well.

However, somehow in the RC circles, this grew into some sort of "thing" that
one can almost measure. So if one did such and such a thing, it would give
them X number of merits from a saints abundant storehouse of merits (he/she
had more than they needed for themselves). I think one can find examples
where this has gone to extremes such as the selling of them (as if the
Church owned them), and the more legalistic "pray this prayer and get 2000
merits" which I read something similar to that in some Catholic literature
once.

In Orthodox understanding, such prayers and gifts of the saints cannot be
moved around like that, nor can you store up a saints merits for when you
get to "purgatory" yourself. All that a saint can help you with in that
regard is to pray for you and help guide you to acquiring the "merits" for
yourself so that when you get to God, you will experience the least amount
of burning possible. Nor are they quantified as something measurable. Yet,
we deem the prayers of the saints as powerful and a great help in time of
need, and they work towards our salvation and redemption of our whole life.
Consequently, Orthodoxy has never built us such a system of merits as the RC
has.

Those are the two main differences between our views of this purifying in
the next life as I have understood things. May others correct my mistakes.
Perhaps there are others, but my post has gone on long enough as it is.

Dear OrthoMan,

Thank you for your last post. This is a post I can sink my teeth into and contemplate. It has offered much food for thought and expresses many ideas which I have been moving toward concerning the purification that happens after death. Please continue with these type of informative messages.

Terry

Bob,

The R C website you directed us to had this to say about "Uniate" (in the glossary):

I have no problem in proclaiming my union with the pope. I think we have a great pope and I applaud what he's done. I am proud to be a part of the Catholic Church.

Thank you for posting the explanation of the differences on Purgatory. Actually, the writer of that piece is under a false assumption that the developed explanation of some Roman theologians is required belief of the entire Catholic Church. Just as the Toll House view is one view among Orthodox--so the view cited by your writer is just one view in the Catholic Church. For example, see this article by a Catholic theologian:

http://cte.rockhurst.edu/stramarad/th1course/th1reading/readings/purg.html

I cite this article only to show there are a variety of views of purification even in the Western Church. As for myself, I would hold essentially to the positive presentation of the writer you cited. All that is required belief for Catholics is that there exists such a purification after death.

David Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

[This is a post I can sink my teeth into and contemplate. It has offered much food for thought and expresses many ideas which I have been moving toward concerning the purification that happens after death. Please continue with these type of informative messages.]

You are welcome. In all honesty, it is the only explaination I ever had that was explained in a way that I could comprehend it.

It was written by a former Nazarine minister who converted to Orthodoxy a few years back. He started out in an AOL Orthodox Discussion group studying both Roman Catholicism and Orthodox Catholicism. He ended up Orthodox which is certainly to our advantage. He continues to study Orthodoxy today and as you can see, has a better handle on it than most Orthodox.

OrthoMan

I think Tammy makes something of a point here. Why is it necessarily a bad thing (if God is One, and Truth is One, and the Church is One) for Easterners to adopt some "western" devotions, or for Westerners to adopt seom "eastern" devotions. I'm sure that if I confessed to praying Akathists no one on this forum would tell me not to!

Don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating the dissolution of the various traditions into one big mish-mash. But nevertheless it seems that the Eastern tradition is already in trouble if it has to make artificial rules like "No Rosary Praying Here" or "Check your Miraculous Medals At The Door."

God bless.

LatinTrad

Orthoman on Orthodox "identity"

Alice has already responded with a devastating critique of the ideas presented in the first paragraph. And Orthoman's post, ostensibly in response misses the point entirely; it examines differences between Catholic and Orthodox perspectives, rather than differences among Orthodox perspectives. (It also makes the usual tiresome error in elevating certain theological paradigms to the level of dogma. As usual this is done only with Catholic perspectives, not with Orthodox ones so as to build straw men to knock down. :rolleyes: )

The second paragraph contains a nice slogan, but it hardly elucidates an identity. Where, when, and whom are involved in the "everywhere, always, by all"? Evidently not pre-chalcedonian Christians, to take but one example.

Would you like to try again?

Some Easterners are concerned with ways of getting rid of the Rosary, Crucifixes, Stations of the Cross etc. Don't feel so bad if you're unsuccessful. Some of us Westerners are praying for ways to jettison the guitar mass, congas, rhythmic clapping, handholding, and the Gay and Lesbian group that meets in the church basement.

Hi, OrthoMan,

Thanks for the complements!

Now, warning--I think I'm going to upset some people here. It is not my intent. These are personal difficulties of mine and I invite comment:

I have difficulty with the ecclesiology of those who say that the One Church is somehow broken into three or more fragments, all of which retain equal legitimacy. That would seem to contradict the words of Christ, the teaching of the Fathers, and the constant teaching of the Catholic Church, (not to mention that of the EO and OO Churches!).

I think that the Eastern Catholic Churches are awesome--all the Eastern Patriarchates used to be Eastern Catholic after all (AFAWC!). And I love the Divine Liturgies of Chrysostom, Basil, Thomas, etc.

Nevertheless I am troubled by the fact that many rank-and-file Eastern Catholics feel obliged by their Eastern identity to basically deny the Orthodoxy of Rome. The very term "Orthodox in communion with Rome" seems to indicate that Rome itself is not Orthodox. Then, when you learn that many of these "Orthodox in communion with Rome" actually

-deny the ecumenical character of Councils that Rome considers ecumenical,
-declare that certain dogmas-solemnly-defined (like the Immaculate Conception, whose feast we celebrate tomorrow) are are not binding on their Churches, and
-reject the Catholic understanding of Papal primacy in principle,

it is even more upsetting.

Could someone help me out?


LatinTrad

[It also makes the usual tiresome error in elevating certain theological paradigms to the level of dogma. As usual this is done only with Catholic perspectives, not with Orthodox ones so as to build straw men to knock down. ) ]

You seem to be trying to mix apples and oranges to make a point. The Immaculate Conception, Papal Infallibility & Supremacy, Purgatory are dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church according the New Advent Catholic Encylopedia -

{Now, truths formally and explicitly revealed by God are certainly dogmas in the strict sense when they are proposed or defined by the Church. Such are the articles of the Apostles' Creed. Similarly, truths revealed by God formally, but only implicitly, are dogmas in the strict sense when proposed or defined by the Church. Such, for example, are the doctrines of Transubstantiation, papal infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, some of the Church's teaching about the Saviour, the sacraments, etc. All doctrines defined by the Church as being contained in revelation are understood to be formally revealed, explicitly or implicitly. It is a dogma of faith that the Church is infallible in defining these two classes of revealed truths; and THE DELIBERATE DENIAL OF ONE OF THESE DOGMAS CERTAINLY INVOLVES THE SIN OF HERESY.}

What Alice was talking about is the Orthodox belief regarding the soul after death. I think my post gave a pretty good explaination of the Orthodox belief as opposed to the Roman Catholic belief in the soul after death and Purgatory.

Alice brings up the subject of 'toll houses' which in neither a doctrine or an official dogma of the Orthodox Catholic Church any more than Mary as Co-redemterix is an official doctrine or dogma of the Roman Catholic Church.

There are doctrines and and dogmas that are binding to both the RC & OC churches. And there are theological opinions by both churches which we Orthodox refer to as theologoumenia [opinions or ideas expressed which may be true but are not binding on the Orthodox faithful or defined by synods of the Church].

What I gave as examples were Roman Catholic dogma. What Alice came back with is theologumenia. Big difference!

[The second paragraph contains a nice slogan, but it hardly elucidates an identity. Where, when, and whom are involved in the "everywhere, always, by all"? ]

Exactly what it says. Those that believe in the doctrines, Canons, and Creeds that were formulated during the first seven Ecumenical Councils when the Church was still BASICALLY one and still Orthodox. The councils that were represented by all five Christian Patriarchates at the time.

[As usual this is done only with Catholic perspectives, not with Orthodox ones so as to build straw men to knock down. ) ]

The examples Alice gives are not doctrine within the Orthodox Catholic Church and never have been. As stated earlier, they are theologoumenia. Are you really telling me that the IC, Purgatory, Papal Infalliblity and Supremacy are not RCC dogma but (Roman) Catholic perspectives?

[Evidently not pre-chalcedonian Christians, to take but one example.]

This one is still up in the air. They are not as far away from their Byzantine Orthodox broters and sisters as previously believed.


OrthoMan

[I have difficulty with the ecclesiology of those who say that the One Church is somehow broken into three or more fragments, all of which retain equal legitimacy. That would seem to contradict the words of Christ, the teaching of the Fathers, and the constant teaching of the Catholic Church, (not to mention that of the EO and OO Churches!).]

So do I LatinTrad, so do I! I agree with 100% on this!

[I think that the Eastern Catholic Churches are awesome--all the Eastern Patriarchates used to be Eastern Catholic after all (AFAWC!).]

All the original Eastern Patriarchs are still Catholic LatinTrad. Contrary to what you are taught they never left that One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church mentioned in the Creed. They are still it, in its original form. But that's something you and I will have to agree to disagree on!

[The very term "Orthodox in communion with Rome" seems to indicate that Rome itself is not Orthodox. Then, when you learn that many of these "Orthodox in communion with Rome" actually

-deny the ecumenical character of Councils that Rome considers ecumenical,
-declare that certain dogmas-solemnly-defined (like the Immaculate Conception, whose feast we celebrate tomorrow) are are not binding on their Churches, and
-reject the Catholic understanding of Papal primacy in principle, it is even more upsetting.]

So the terminology seems to p--- off both the Church of Rome and the Orthodox Catholics! Then they wonder why they get it from both sides. And it will contine that way until they decide to be loyal to one or the other. I think that we can both agree that the way things stand now they can't be loyal to both. The very fact that they seem to be put dogma as secndary in importance to ritual and tradition is also unacceptable to both our churches.

OrthoMan

LT, Who are you applying this to?

If you are applying this to the Orthodox Churches not in communion with Rome it doesn�t quite work because the Catholic Church teaches that their ecclesiology has it�s own �authenticity and originality� (to quote PJPII from Orientale Lumen).

If you are applying this to the Eastern Catholic Churches in communion with Rome it doesn�t work either because the Catholic Church teaches the same thing about our ecclesiology. No one has ever stated that Catholic ecclesiology is broken into three or more fragments. It is the Catholic Church herself that teaches that each Particular Catholic Church brings to the universal Church a particular way of doing ecclesiology.

What you seem not to understand is that each Particular Catholic Church is a living and breathing organism. Each Church brings to the universal Church a unique way of witnessing Christ. The Church at Rome is alive and speaks in one doctrinal language. The Church at Jerusalem is also alive and speaks in a different doctrinal language. The Church at Antioch is also alive and speaks in yet another doctrinal language. When a man and woman become husband and wife they become one body. Yet they remain two individuals. They see though two different eyes, they process things with two different brains, they speak with two different voices. Likewise each local Church is a product of its own experience. Each contributes something slightly different but equally magnificant to the entire Church.

OK. The fact that you are setting up a straw man and attempting to knock it down only shows that you do not have a good grasp on Catholic theology.

First, are you aware that the Catholic Church places the Seven Great Councils in a different category than the �General Councils in the West� (as termed by Pope Paul VI? If not please get yourself to a library and look up the letter of Paul VI to Cardinal Willebrands of October 1974 is found in "Information Service" of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, n. 25 (1974/III) pages 8-10. Also check out the homily Cardinal Willebrands preached in Lyons for the 7th centenary of the Second Council of Lyons which directly follows.

Second, let�s use the Council of Trent as an example. This Council was a response to the heresies of the Protestants. How exactly did Trent affect the Eastern Churches? Did the Eastern Churches have theologies that were heretical and in need of reform by Trent? No! Trent did not affect the way Eastern Christians expressed doctrine. They kept on living the Christian Life they always lived. Why in heavens name do you expect Eastern Christians to re-write their theology based upon the problems the Church had in another part of the world? Trent is not a council at the same level as the Seven Ecumenical Councils. All Eastern Catholics are expected to do about Trent is to acknowledge that the teachings expressed there are true. They are not expected to chuck the Christian Life they have lived and go and memorize the recipes for being Catholic that were issued at Trent.

Regarding �certain dogmas-solemnly-defined� that are or are not binding, you really miss the boat on this. You make it sound like every time there is an issue that is dealt with in the Latin Church the other Catholic Churches must tear down their houses and rebuild their lives to incorporate the way the Latin Church has responded to a problem in her own house. Why such arrogance? All that the Catholic Church asks is that all Catholics acknowledge that these things are true. They do not expect each Christian to chuck their own doctrinal and liturgical lives to adopt those of the Latin.

I think the problem here is that you are insisting that each Catholic Church give up its unique life experience and imitate the experience of only one of the Church. This simply isn�t what the Catholic Church teaches and is nothing more than Latin conceit.

BTW, the link to the article by Fr. Taft worked for me today and I read the article. It is wonderful. Check out his examples that show Latin ecclesiological exclusivism and Roman pretentions. I recommend that everyone interested in this conversation read it straight through three times on three successive days.

Admin

Orthoman,

You cited an article on Purgatory which supposedly put forth the authoritative Catholic belief on Purgatory. Problem is: it didn't. It put forth one view. It is false to claim that Catholics are bound to hold to that interpretation of Purgatory. As djs has said: that is a "straw man."

All that Catholics are required to believe is that there is a purification after death for some. That's it. The other stuff is one theological view. The other stuff is not dogma.

I've mentioned this earlier in this thread but you've ignored what I said and you continue to misrepresent our faith. Why? A few weeks ago you came to this Forum with a "News" item about Fatima which was shown to be false. Did you apologize for introducing this here? What is your purpose for being here?

David Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Hello Mr. Administrator,

Please don't get so upset. I was just asking. Maybe I don't have a good grasp on Catholic theology. I'm just a simple layman who is trying to understand. I also respect very much most of what you have written in response to brother OrthoMan's attacks. Now I know you're getting broadsides on both bows here and maybe that's why you're a little bit excitable . . .

But as far as I can tell, Paul VI's letter His Eminence does not overturn the fact that the official titles of all the "General Councils of the West" are "CONCILIVM OECVMENICALE -----". Even VATICAN II, everybody's favorite Council, was called Ecumenical.

Now, I wrote:


I have difficulty with the ecclesiology of those who say that the One Church is somehow broken into three or more fragments, all of which retain equal legitimacy. That would seem to contradict the words of Christ, the teaching of the Fathers, and the constant teaching of the Catholic Church, (not to mention that of the EO and OO Churches!).


The Admin wrote:
LT, Who are you applying this to?

Meanwhile, the Admin himself wrote on this very thread:
The ethos of Orthodoxy exists as much in the Roman Catholic Church as it does in the Byzantine Orthodox Church as much as it does in the Oriental Orthodox Church.

and:
Hmmm�. So all of the Orthodox theologians who state that the Churches separated from one another are really lying to us? The fault is all on the part of Rome and Constantinople and the other patriarchates have no responsibility to ensure �that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgement.�

These statements indicated to me that differing groups, who have different hierarchies and beliefs, can all equally be the Church of Christ. Which is impossible.

MAYBE I AM MISREADING THE ADMINISTRATOR'S WORDS. THIS IS QUITE POSSIBLE. I HAVE NO DESIRE TO KNOCK ANYTHING DOWN, STRAW OR OTHERWISE.

God bless,

LatinTrad

Bob,

An irony of its use on the cwnews site is that if you click the link for "uniate" in the site's glossary, you get:

"Definition:
The Eastern Catholic churches are those Eastern Christian bodies which sought and obtained a restoration of full communion with the Holy See after having been identified for some period of time with the Oriental Orthodox or Eastern Orthodox churches. These Eastern churches are also sometimes identified as "Eastern-rite Catholics" or as "Uniates." The latter term is generally used by Orthodox critics, and not always appreciated by Eastern-rite Catholics.". (emphasis mine)

The fact that the term is "not always appreciated" doesn't seem to have stopped cwnews from using it.

Just a side observation.

Many years,

Neil