FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Questions about Catholicism
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
MagisterMusicae,

So you are saying that more than just the catechist is wrong (who also has experience in teaching both Latins and Easterns in the faith), but also the Ruthenian Catholic deacon (who also made the point that there hasn't been an ecumenical council since Nicaea II) is wrong. You may have experience in teaching Latin theology for the last 12 years, but do you have experience with teaching Eastern Christian theology? You may have a masters-level study in philosophy and theology but so do a lot of Protestants and liberal "Catholics". Having a masters-level study in philosophy and theology does not make your position correct.

And no, it is not necessary to accept the supreme authority of the Pope but is necessary to accept the supreme status of Rome as "First Church". This does not mean that one follows blindly his brother if he feels he has gone into error. Do you always agree with the Pope?

There are schismatic Orthodox and there are Greek Catholics who are Orthodox in union with Rome. I look forward to entering into the Church via the Greek Rite.
(06-11-2019, 10:30 AM)newenglandsun Wrote: [ -> ]Important as the Theotokos is, and she isn't venerated any more than in the Orthodox faith, 

So they say.

And yet also accuse Latins of excessive Marian veneration and devotion.
Do Easterners believe Mary required baptism?
(06-11-2019, 04:54 PM)newenglandsun Wrote: [ -> ]MagisterMusicae,

So you are saying that more than just the catechist is wrong (who also has experience in teaching both Latins and Easterns in the faith), but also the Ruthenian Catholic deacon (who also made the point that there hasn't been an ecumenical council since Nicaea II) is wrong. You may have experience in teaching Latin theology for the last 12 years, but do you have experience with teaching Eastern Christian theology? You may have a masters-level study in philosophy and theology but so do a lot of Protestants and liberal "Catholics". Having a masters-level study in philosophy and theology does not make your position correct.

And no, it is not necessary to accept the supreme authority of the Pope but is necessary to accept the supreme status of Rome as "First Church". This does not mean that one follows blindly his brother if he feels he has gone into error. Do you always agree with the Pope?

There are schismatic Orthodox and there are Greek Catholics who are Orthodox in union with Rome. I look forward to entering into the Church via the Greek Rite.

Half of my dad's side of the family is Ruthenian. They would be aghast at the statement that they were "Orthodox in union with Rome" as am I.

St Josephat died defending Catholicism, not in order to be an "Orthodox in union with Rome." He sought to stamp out the schism and heresy of of the Orthodox sect to restore Catholicism.

I'll double down then. The catechist is wrong and the deacon. Their statements which you report here are an affront to everything St Josephat died for.
(06-10-2019, 08:05 PM)newenglandsun Wrote: [ -> ]As a (soon to be) Urkrainian Catholic (I'll be chrismated when our priest comes back from vacation, probably in August), I can state that there is some misinformation on this thread regarding number 2.

Because Greek Catholics are affirming a stronger sense of their being Orthodox in Communion with Rome (not just in liturgy but also in theology), the immaculate conception is considered a theologoumenon. My catechist even openly rejects the immaculate conception and the Augustinian understanding of Original Sin.

That said, on the Western understanding of original sin, the immaculate conception seems to be absolutely needed based on the more pessimistic understanding of original guilt developing in the West as opposed to the East which concentrated more on the effects of the ancestral sin of Adam and Eve in the context of inheriting a common propensity to sin and subjugation to death (of which we are freed through baptism).

The Pope's papal authority in the East is more resemblant of the first millennium. The Pope is involved in approving the appointment of bishops and patriarchs (as all bishops and patriarchs were in the first millennium) but the jurisdictional authority is our own, the theology is our own, the liturgy is our own.

This is exactly what that Byzantine bishop I talked to was telling me about specious contradictions given to lay people in the guise of sound reasoning in order to deceive the laity for the teacher's own purposes.  He also used the Immaculate Conception and ancestral sin to demonstrate the phenomenon.  He told me that many teachers in close contact with the schismatics, either in sentiment or because of family ties, often teach what you claim your catechist's position is, even though it contradicts the patrimony of the universal church.  At the end of the talk he concluded that two contraries cannot be true and truth cannot contradict truth, therefore when one sees these things, he knows he's not in the presence of an illumined spirit.

It's all second hand info, but I hold it in high regard coming from someone in the magisterium.
(06-11-2019, 08:27 PM)yablabo Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-10-2019, 08:05 PM)newenglandsun Wrote: [ -> ]As a (soon to be) Urkrainian Catholic (I'll be chrismated when our priest comes back from vacation, probably in August), I can state that there is some misinformation on this thread regarding number 2.

Because Greek Catholics are affirming a stronger sense of their being Orthodox in Communion with Rome (not just in liturgy but also in theology), the immaculate conception is considered a theologoumenon. My catechist even openly rejects the immaculate conception and the Augustinian understanding of Original Sin.

That said, on the Western understanding of original sin, the immaculate conception seems to be absolutely needed based on the more pessimistic understanding of original guilt developing in the West as opposed to the East which concentrated more on the effects of the ancestral sin of Adam and Eve in the context of inheriting a common propensity to sin and subjugation to death (of which we are freed through baptism).

The Pope's papal authority in the East is more resemblant of the first millennium. The Pope is involved in approving the appointment of bishops and patriarchs (as all bishops and patriarchs were in the first millennium) but the jurisdictional authority is our own, the theology is our own, the liturgy is our own.

This is exactly what that Byzantine bishop I talked to was telling me about specious contradictions given to lay people in the guise of sound reasoning in order to deceive the laity for the teacher's own purposes.  He also used the Immaculate Conception and ancestral sin to demonstrate the phenomenon.  He told me that many teachers in close contact with the schismatics, either in sentiment or because of family ties, often teach what you claim your catechist's position is, even though it contradicts the patrimony of the universal church.  At the end of the talk he concluded that two contraries cannot be true and truth cannot contradict truth, therefore when one sees these things, he knows he's not in the presence of an illumined spirit.

It's all second hand info, but I hold it in high regard coming from someone in the magisterium.

Actually, the Catechist was formerly Protestant who entered into the faith through the Ruthenians. Ended up at this highly Latinised Ukrainian Catholic parish and has taken countless reform efforts to bring it into Eastern practice. Chanting liturgy instead of reciting it, replacing the stations of the cross with Eastern iconography, introducing pre-liturgical morning matins prayers, etc. He did have a conflict with one priest who was responsible for stamping on his potential ordination to the diaconate but he gets along with the current priest. His wife is a Latin, he catechizes Latin children, and is, as I mentioned, a Fourth Order Knight of Columbus. So he hangs out regularly with Latins and yet maintains a more Orthodox than Latin view of the faith.

Do you trust everything that any bishop says, by the way? Just because a bishop says it, doesn't mean I hold it a part of infallible teaching. Especially if the bishop is using highly Latin terminology and yet is Byzantine.
(06-11-2019, 08:20 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-11-2019, 04:54 PM)newenglandsun Wrote: [ -> ]MagisterMusicae,

So you are saying that more than just the catechist is wrong (who also has experience in teaching both Latins and Easterns in the faith), but also the Ruthenian Catholic deacon (who also made the point that there hasn't been an ecumenical council since Nicaea II) is wrong. You may have experience in teaching Latin theology for the last 12 years, but do you have experience with teaching Eastern Christian theology? You may have a masters-level study in philosophy and theology but so do a lot of Protestants and liberal "Catholics". Having a masters-level study in philosophy and theology does not make your position correct.

And no, it is not necessary to accept the supreme authority of the Pope but is necessary to accept the supreme status of Rome as "First Church". This does not mean that one follows blindly his brother if he feels he has gone into error. Do you always agree with the Pope?

There are schismatic Orthodox and there are Greek Catholics who are Orthodox in union with Rome. I look forward to entering into the Church via the Greek Rite.

Half of my dad's side of the family is Ruthenian. They would be aghast at the statement that they were "Orthodox in union with Rome" as am I.

St Josephat died defending Catholicism, not in order to be an "Orthodox in union with Rome." He sought to stamp out the schism and heresy of of the Orthodox sect to restore Catholicism.

I'll double down then. The catechist is wrong and the deacon. Their statements which you report here are an affront to everything St Josephat died for.

Huh? St Josephat died tried to bring Latinization into the Eastern Church despite defending the Union of Brest? He died trying to bring other Orthodox in union with Rome but I don't think it was in bringing Latinization into the practices of the East.

I know a lot of Eastern Rite Catholics who would not only be aghast at the notion they were Orthodox in union with Rome but also have not thoroughly considered the more Eastern practices of their faith and how drastically different they are from the Latin side. I know one Latin friend of mine who wonders why I can't go and confess right now to a Greek Catholic priest. That's because baptism and chrismation are linked in the East, essentially into one sacrament. One who is not chrismated, has an incomplete baptism. That's just one major difference. Most Eastern Catholics and Latin Catholics simply have ignorance of the history.
(06-12-2019, 01:05 AM)newenglandsun Wrote: [ -> ]Do you trust everything that any bishop says, by the way? Just because a bishop says it, doesn't mean I hold it a part of infallible teaching. Especially if the bishop is using highly Latin terminology and yet is Byzantine.

You ask this question despite the fact that you trust everything your heretical catechist tells you.

Pot. Kettle. Black.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5