Should We Proselytize the Eastern Orthodox?

[rkwright]

What if we were all to say that we reject the Union of Uzhhorod and say Ruthenian Catholics are not really Catholics. The Union was error and since it is not an ecumenical council it is not binding.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1842934' date='Apr 21 2009, 05:28 PM']What if we were all to say that we reject the Union of Uzhhorod and say Ruthenian Catholics are not really Catholics. The Union was error and since it is not an ecumenical council it is not binding.[/quote]
The Union of Brest, the Union of Uzhorod, and the 18th century restoration of communion with the Melkites would be over, i.e., if you can convince your patriarch to break with those agreements.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1842938' date='Apr 21 2009, 06:34 PM']The Union of Brest, the Union of Uzhorod, and the 18th century restoration of communion with the Melkites would be over, i.e., if you can convince your patriarch to break with those agreements.[/quote]

Why do I need to? You can dissent from Trent, Vatican I and claim it doesn't apply. Why can't we just say these Unions don't apply.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1842943' date='Apr 21 2009, 05:37 PM']Why do I need to? You can dissent from Trent, Vatican I and claim it doesn't apply. Why can't we just say these Unions don't apply.[/quote]
If you want you can say that, but your patriarch disagrees with you about those unions.

On the other hand, my patriarch and the Holy Synod of my Church says that the fourteen Latin Councils are not ecumenical, and yet your patriarch remains in communion with the hierarchy of my Church. Your difficulty is with your own patriarch, who -- for whatever reason -- has not taken it upon himself to insist that my Church accept those councils.

Edited April 21, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Resurrexi]

Whence does the authority of a Patriarch come? There existed no Patriarchs in apostolic times. The office of Patriarch is a human invention.

Edited April 21, 2009 by Resurrexi

[rkwright]

How can a Local Synod declare an Ecumenical Council non-Ecumenical.

From the Bill of Indiction of Trent
[quote]Wherefore, relying and resting on the authority of that Almighty God, Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost, and on the authority of His blessed apostles, Peter and Paul, (an authority) which we also exercise on earth; with the advice also and assent of our venerable brethren, the cardinals of the holy Roman Church; after having removed and annulled, as by these presents we do remove and annul, the suspension aforenamed, we indict, announce, convoke, appoint, and decree a sacred, ecumenical and general council,--to be opened on the ensuing calends of November of the present year, MDXLII, from the Incarnation of the Lord,--in the city of Trent, a place commodious, free, and convenient for all nations;[/quote]

Edited April 21, 2009 by rkwright

[Apotheoun]

How can the "Robber Synod" of Ephesus (A.D. 449) call itself ecumenical? The fact that the Roman Church has "called" its councils ecumenical in the past does not prove that they are ecumenical, anymore than the idea that the councils of the Orthodox Church held after the Great Schism are ecumenical simply because they use that term in referring to themselves.

For Eastern Christians what proves that a council is ecumenical is its acceptance into the liturgical tradition of the Church.

Edited April 22, 2009 by Apotheoun

[rkwright]

So how do we know when an ecumenical council is actually an ecumenical council?

Whose to say that your Synod that declared the 14 councils not binding is not itself valid?

Edit: How can trent not be argued to be accepted by the Church? It hasn't been questioned by the Church until this Synod... seems a little late by now...

Edited April 22, 2009 by rkwright

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1842966' date='Apr 21 2009, 06:03 PM']So how do we know when an ecumenical council is actually an ecumenical council?[/quote]
For Eastern Christians the commemoration of a council within the yearly cycle of the divine liturgy
proves the ecumenical status of a council, for the decrees of the council are then chanted as prayers within the liturgical worship of the Church.

[quote name='rkwright' post='1842966' date='Apr 21 2009, 06:03 PM']Whose to say that your Synod that declared the 14 councils not binding is not itself valid?[/quote]
The decrees of a synod of a particular Church are binding on the members of that Church.

Sadly for Roman Catholics there is no official list of ecumenical councils, and simply because St. Robert Bellarmine decided to provide a list of councils that he thought were ecumenical in the early 17th century does not mean that Eastern Christians are simply going to accept his opinion.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1842966' date='Apr 21 2009, 06:03 PM']Edit: How can trent not be argued to be accepted by the Church? It hasn't been questioned by the Church until this Synod... seems a little late by now...[/quote]
Trent's teaching on icons and relics is erroneous. It says that there is no "divinity" within icons and relics, and that assertion is contrary to the teaching of Nicaea II and the patristic tradition, which hold that divine energy (i.e., divinity or godhead) is present in icons and relics.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1842966' date='Apr 21 2009, 06:03 PM']Edit: How can trent not be argued to be accepted by the Church? It hasn't been questioned by the Church until this Synod... seems a little late by now...[/quote]
When the Ukrainians and Ruthenians, and later the Melkites, entered into communion with Rome, the bishop of Rome did not require their acceptance of those councils in the union treaties. Thus, the Eastern Catholic Churches did not accept those councils upon entering into communion with Rome.

Although it is historically important to note that the Roman Curia later made such demands, and most Eastern Catholics in the 18th and 19th centuries caved in to the pressure exerted upon them, but happily those days are over.

Edited April 22, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1842955' date='Apr 21 2009, 08:45 PM']If you want you can say that, but your patriarch disagrees with you about those unions.

On the other hand, my patriarch and the Holy Synod of my Church says that the fourteen Latin Councils are not ecumenical, and yet your patriarch remains in communion with the hierarchy of my Church. Your difficulty is with your own patriarch, who -- for whatever reason -- has not taken it upon himself to insist that my Church accept those councils.[/quote]
but you are not melkite... sorry if I missed it, but have you posted a statement from your patriarch about those 14 councils?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1842982' date='Apr 21 2009, 06:22 PM']but you are not melkite... sorry if I missed it, but have you posted a statement from your patriarch about those 14 councils?[/quote]
I canonically transferred to the Ruthenian Church, but I no longer attended that Church because of the "novus ordo-ing" of the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.

I now attend the Melkite Church and will eventually (after two years of attendance) transfer to that jurisdiction.

I miss the Byzantine-Slav liturgy, but I simply cannot stand so-called gender-neutral language.

Edited April 22, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1842982' date='Apr 21 2009, 06:22 PM']but you are not melkite... sorry if I missed it, but have you posted a statement from your patriarch about those 14 councils?[/quote]
Yes, it was posted in response to a post by Formosus.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1842907' date='Apr 21 2009, 06:05 PM']I was a Latin Catholic for 17 years and I too did not know that much about Eastern Catholicism prior to 2003. But after attending an Eastern Catholic parish in Ohio for two years while working on my MA in Theology, I requested, and was granted, a change of Ritual Church in 2005, and I have been happily Eastern Catholic for the past four years. Now the longer that I have been Eastern Catholic the more immersed I have become in the traditions of my [i]sui juris[/i] Church, and that immersive experience, i.e., of actually living as an Eastern Christian, has helped to change my theological views on many issues (e.g., Christology, Triadology, the nature of deifying grace, etc.).

The Eastern Catholic Churches are going to continue the process of de-Latinization, a process that began more that forty years ago, and which involves the restoration our liturgical, spiritual, and doctrinal traditions, even if that process makes some members of the Latin Church uncomfortable.[/quote]

and I can respect your experience. But all I can say is that I see differences between much of what you post and the Eastern Catholics with whom I have placed my trust on such issues. Maybe I'm wrong for learning from them but as of now I can't accept this disregard for papal infallibility. For me, this isn't an issue of East vs. West choice but a simple regard for Catholic (all rites together) doctrine. For me, there are certain things that are required of all Catholics for them to be considered as such, and this is one of them. I have no problem with de-latinization and doing things a different way. I attended a Marionite Rite parish, one of my sisters was baptized there, and I attended their children's "catechism" classes, for 3 years a long time ago before I became sedevacantist. It was my favorite parish and yes they did many things differently but that didn't bother and still doesn't. And maybe they aren't your example of a good Eastern Rite parish, but to me they are a true example of balancing a love for Eastern Tradition with true fidelity to the Pope.

That said, I don't know enough to argue with you any further on it. I respect your posts here as you do seem to be the leading eastern rite poster here. But I do have to disagree with many of your points. I can't always explain why, I just do.

peace