Should the Eastern Catholic Churches even exist?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Cam42Apr 10 2005' date=' 08:02 AM'][quote]Finally, two other questions need to be asked: (1) Is it right, in the present circumstances, that there even be Eastern Catholic Churches in communion with Rome? (2) Wouldn't it be better for the various Eastern Catholic Churches to be in communion with their historic mother Churches instead of Rome, at least until communion is restored between the East and the West?[/quote]
Move that to the debate table and let's see what others think.

Cam[/quote]

[Cam42]

I will reserve my comments for later.....I don't want this to be a discussion between Appy and myself.

So, phatties what say you?

[Q the Ninja]

I love the Eastern Church(es)!

Edited April 10, 2005 by Q the Ninja

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

Of Course the should exist!

the Eastern Catholic Churches are in full communion with Rome. Just because the use a different Rite from the Roman Catholics dosen't diminish the fact that they are in Communion with Rome and acknolwedge that the Bishop of Rome as the Vicar of christ, and that the only way to heaven is through the Catholic church and through the Pope! their are some major differences between the eastern rites and the Roman rites, but we have more in common then we have differences. they represent Christian Unity and have a special place in helping the Orthodox and Catholics heal the rip in Christian unity.

Edited April 10, 2005 by Extra ecclesiam nulla salus

[Aloysius]

of course the Eastern Churches should be in communion with Rome! your impression was correct that any Catholic male can be elected pope, it just poses some issues when it comes to an eastern Catholic... I personally think it would be really cool and under the pontificate of an eastern I could forsee the schism ending altogether if the eastern was a good enough pontiff, there are just some issues that would have to be dealt with... there is no real precedent and we really don't know how it would work. there are easterns eligible, and we'll see if they get chosen. this is a discussion you can be sure the cardinals are going to be having, and it is a big question what the Church would do with a non Latin rite Pope... if an eastern were elected I guess it'd be up to him to figure it out.

[Guest Eremite]

St. Maximus the Confessor, honored by Catholics and Orthodox alike, has some words of wisdom on this topic:

[quote]...Have not the whole East and West brought their tears, laments, obsecrations, deprecations, both before God in prayer and before men in their letters? If the Roman see recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus, anathematizes the see of Rome that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he be in communion with the Roman see and the Church of God....It is not right that one who has been condemned and cast out by the Apostolic see of the city of Rome for his wrong opinions should be named with any kind of honour, until he be received by her, having returned to her -- nay, to our Lord -- by a pious confession and orthodox faith, by which he can receive holiness and the title of holy.... Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman see, for if it is satisfied all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed pope of the most holy Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic see, which from the incarnate Son of God Himself, and also by all holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions, has received universal and supreme dominion, authority and power of binding and loosing over all the holy Churches of God which are in the whole world -- for with it the Word who is above the celestial powers binds and looses in heaven also. For if he thinks he must satisfy others, and fails to implore the most blessed Roman pope, he is acting like a man who, when accused of murder or some other crime, does not hasten to prove his innocence to the judge appointed by the law, but only uselessly and without profit does his best to demonstrate his innocence to private individuals, who have no power to acquit him. (Letter to Peter, Governor of Syria and Palestine, Seventh Century)[/quote]

[Q the Ninja]

I don't understand..

[MichaelFilo]

They went off topic..


And the reasons that the East should stay seperate but in communion with Rome is this:

The difference in Liturgies. This difference, alongside the different traditions mark variety within the Church. His Holieness Pope John Paul the Great ordered the East to return to it's practices and to cease "Latinization". This is all because each Rite was founded by different Apostles (albiet, some apostles went to found more than one Rite). It would be a sin against Apistolic Succession itself to merge East and West and make them one Rite.

God bless,
mikey

[God Conquers]

SHould the Eastern Catholic rites return to the Orthodox patriarchy?

What? Is that a joke?

Of course not!!!!

Should Anglican rite Catholics return to the Anglican communion?

Should any converts return to their original churches until the entire church comes back into the fold?

No and no.

[Guest JeffCR07]

In my humble opinion, the Eastern Rites are even more important than the Anglican rite. The latter is wonderful because they have reconciled themselves and come home. The former is wonderful because not only have they come home, but they make home what it is.

The Church is not a western church, nor is it an Eastern Church. It is one Church, spread to all nations, and the existence of the Eastern Rites proves this. Moreover, the Eastern Rite churches are the living hope of a full scale reunion between East and West.

In Christ,

Jeff

[conservativecatholic]

The Church in the East is filled with traditions that I find so facinating! The Eastern Church reflects beginning of Christianity in almost every aspect. Of course the Eastern Church should exist!

[img]http://home.comcast.net/~riod/Ukranian_Church_clouds_0571.jpg[/img]
An awesome Ukranian Catholic Church in Maryland.


[img]http://www.materecclesiae.org/images/bishand.jpg[/img]

Eastern Rite Mass. Is that cool or what!?

We must remember, the Catholic Church is universal. Not soley Western!

May God Bless!
+Conservativecatholic

Edited April 11, 2005 by conservativecatholic

[Aloysius]

to give context to the issue at hand, it came up in our discussion of whether an eastern Catholic should be elected pope... we were talking about how unprecedented it is and the problem of the Pope having to be both Supreme Pontiff of the entire Church and patriarch of the Roman Rite. how could an eastern Catholic be patriarch of the Roman Rite? it brings up so many dillemas... and as far as we can tell he would either have to become dual rite or switch to Roman rite.

btw, the eastern rite doesn't call it "mass" it calls it "The Divine Liturgy"

[God Conquers]

Nice Iconostasis Rick!

[conservativecatholic]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Apr 10 2005, 10:15 PM'] to give context to the issue at hand, it came up in our discussion of whether an eastern Catholic should be elected pope... we were talking about how unprecedented it is and the problem of the Pope having to be both Supreme Pontiff of the entire Church and patriarch of the Roman Rite. how could an eastern Catholic be patriarch of the Roman Rite? it brings up so many dillemas... and as far as we can tell he would either have to become dual rite or switch to Roman rite.

btw, the eastern rite doesn't call it "mass" it calls it "The Divine Liturgy" [/quote]
I don't think it would be a dillema at all. Any male Catholic who adheres to every doctrine of the faith is eligible for election. If the manner in which the Eatern Church celebrates its "Divine Liturgy" is viewed as unaccpetable at the Vatican, let's bar Charismatics from the papacy since I view that particular movement as liberal and unorthodox. Barring Charismatics from the papacy is fine with me, but is it right?

[argent_paladin]

In the early church, the patriarchal sees of Antioch, Alexandria and Rome were centers of distinct traditions in communion with one another. The traditions of the different areas of Christianity enabled it to respond to the local needs of the people. This rich diversity continued even though it became marred by division and misunderstanding. But the richness of the Eastern Fathers and theologians can greatly benefit the Western Church and vice versa.
I think the better question is should non-Catholic churches not exist? I am praying that there will be Christian unity, and this can only happen united to Rome. But this unity cannot destroy the diversity of tradition and liturgy of the East.
Is this person saying that one must choose between unity with Rome and fidelity to your own tradition? Should they turn their back on the truth? Why do they have to make that choice? Why force them out of communion with Rome?

And what of the Maronite church? It doesn't have a "historic Mother Church" but maintained its independent identity while staying in union with Rome. And there have been other rites, like the Ambrosian, Mozarabic not to mention Dominican, Franciscan, etc. There has never been complete unity of liturgy in the Western church. I guess I would like to hear someone's argument that it would be better for Eastern Catholics to leave the Church. I can't think of a reason (except that it complicates and perhaps impedes movement toward unity with the Orthodox).