Top 5 Reasons People Think You Aren't Catholic

[ByzCathCantor]

Originally Posted by Phillip Rolfes

One could say that the East, as a general rule, does not "pick apart" the mystery; we simply live it.

What a great quote!

[Marie5890]

Thanks Phillip,
Your explanation not only has given me insight, but has resonated within me. Much appreciated.

[Marie5890]

Originally Posted by ByzCathCantor

What a great quote!

Yes, I loved that too!!!

[xzereus]

Originally Posted by ByzCathCantor

...I understand your recommendation for caution, and that it may relate to other issues noted in the article, but please understand that there is a sad history here with regard to the married priesthood.

I certainly understand this--I didn't mean to seem as if these aren't real issues. Of course, the reason I began this thread was to start healthy conversation regarding some of the issues the East is currently facing. I personally believe that the key factor in the prevention of union between the Orthodox church and the Catholic church is most definitely the negative treatment of the Eastern Catholic Rites by Roman Catholics, both from the clergy and the laity. I don't think this is an issue to avoid and, again, I appreciate you posting the article. I only hope that the link will be a cause to action for good rather than for bad.

Thanks again for all of the replies, and keep them coming!

[Jegudiel]

Originally Posted by xzereus

Hi,

I'm currently writing an article for http://beneaththyprotection.blogspot.com/, and I'm looking for more information on some Eastern Rite Catholics. Specifically, what are the top 5 reasons you've encountered that cause other Catholics to think you're not really Catholic or, at the very least, that you are wrong in your beliefs? Examples might be "married priests" or "leavened communion bread". Your responses are greatly appreciated.

Thanks.

1.) Some (mostly Latin Rite Catholic) who attend Eastern Catholic parishes seem to take delight in associating with "the Orthodox" while denigrating "Rome." As an example, the Orthodox Study Bible (whose NT is largely the KJV) is lionized by some in my parish while they spew hatred for the approved NAB.

2.) The huge chips on the shoulders of Roman Catholics who attend Eastern parishes who talk at length about "Latinizations" which they never experienced. Cradle Eastern Catholics rarely talk about "Latinizations." Most under 60 don't remember them or were never exposed.

3.) Envy.

[5Loaves]

1. We are autonomous, self-governing (sui iuris), particular churches, with parishes in the Latin Diocese territory but we are not in that Diocese. (Our Russian Greek Catholic parishes being an exception--- we are autonomous, sui iuris, particular churches, however the local Latin bishops/archbishop is our heirarch.)
2. We call our deacons "Father".
3. Our babies receive Eucharist.
4. We prostrate on the floor "like Muslims"
5. We sing "Alleluia" all though Great Lent.
Lent begins on a Monday and we celebrate Pascha on a date different from the Latin Church which is the same as the Orthodox.

[ByzCathCantor]

Originally Posted by Jegudiel

1.)Cradle Eastern Catholics rarely talk about "Latinizations." Most under 60 don't remember them or were never exposed.

I am a "cradle" Eastern Catholic.

I am well under 60.

I grew up in a parish with a married priest, somewhat of an experiment in that day and age, after a hurtful and damaging purge of the married priesthood in the generation past. This priest eventually had to turn to Orthodoxy, as the condition of married (with children) priesthood was simply not supported within a Catholic framework at that time. I always felt as if I had benefitted from being in that parish at that time. Both Father, Pani (which is what we would called the wife of the priest in our tradition) and their three daughters always treated me as if I were part of their family. I even considered the priesthood for a long time as a result of my exposure to Father on a more personal level. He is actually responsible for fostering no less than three vocations (one priest and two permanent deacons), not counting my own vocation as a cantor and choir director. All from a mission parish of less than 50 families.

I grew up in a predominately Roman Catholic neighborhood, quite close to my cousins (mother's side) who were all raised in the Roman Catholic Church. We would attend Mass at the neighborhood parish on many occasions. Yet, we always had to explain and "prove" that we were really Catholic. To his credit, the ordinarily rather conservative senior pastor of that parish understood and was very supportive. My siblings all attended parochial school there, and he freely offered the diocesan tuition rate to my parents (as we were Catholic and had no access to parochial schools through our own parish). He would hear my confession personally on Saturday mornings, in Eastern style, using Byzantine Rite prayers. Unfortunately, he was the only person outside my immediate extended family who actually did know we were, indeed, Catholic.

My first born child was the first in our Eparchy to be received into the Church via the full Rites of Christian Initiation, restored in 1997. Both sides of my family were astonished by this. Why? Because of course on the Roman Catholic side, First Holy Communion and Confirmation are reserved for future instance. The administration of First Eucharist was most surprising to them. Many didn't even realize that those of my generation were also Chrismated/Confirmed at Baptism. On the Eastern Catholic side of the family, the generation before me was so Latinized that many did not understand that this was, in fact, our proper tradition.

It was only in 1997 that the proper form of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed was restored, and the previously inserted Filioque was removed from the text. The younger folks had no idea, The older folks thought we were becoming Orthodox and were rejecting our Catholicity. Why? Because they grew up in an era where to Latinize was to prove one was Catholic. It had for their generation become a matter of survival in the Catholic world.

So, while we may not speak of Latinizations (at least not nearly as publicly and often as Roman Catholics discuss issues in their Church), we under 60 have certainly become well aware of them as our traditions are restored.

[Elisabeth51]

Originally Posted by Phillip Rolfes

Marie,

The great mystics of the West, including Aquinas, have always served as a wonderful antidote to a theology that at times has had a tendency to become overly-rational. .

I find it interesting you say this, I have a friend that continually states he does not need emotions or feelings, we have intellect and will, that feelings are unnecessary, have nothing to do with things like love and compassion, it's all logic, no feeling, and spouts St. Thomas like a broken record to back himself up.

While I know that he has some things in his past that are making him flee from any type of relationship and his own feelings----I find your above statement interesting!

[Seamus L]

I assumed Eastern Catholic Churches were Orthodox on a couple occasions when I was quite young, for no other reason than the fact that the architecture looked similar. Since about 1995 or 1996 when I went to my first Divine Liturgy, I've never had the slightest reason to suspect they weren't Catholic.

[Marie5890]

Originally Posted by ByzCathCantor

So, while we may not speak of Latinizations (at least not nearly as publicly and often as Roman Catholics discuss issues in their Church), we under 60 have certainly become well aware of them as our traditions are restored.

ByzCathCantor,

Can you, or others, expound on this more? What are you speaking of when you mean "Latinizations"

Are you saying that the Easter Catholic Churches changing their traditions to be "more Latin", to fit in, to be accepted and approved?

How incredibly sad.

What is it about human nature where we run, look down upon or afraid that which is different from us?

I look all around me, at the diversity of nature it very self, and I see a God who delights in the diversity of beauty to make Himself known to us.

[Peter J]

Originally Posted by ByzCathCantor

My first born child was the first in our Eparchy to be received into the Church via the full Rites of Christian Initiation, restored in 1997. Both sides of my family were astonished by this.

I'm astonished that your Eparchy didn't restore that practice until the 90s. /

Originally Posted by ByzCathCantor

Why? Because of course on the Roman Catholic side, First Holy Communion and Confirmation are reserved for future instance.

And, in most dioceses, First Communion precedes Confirmation.

[Peter J]

Originally Posted by Marie5890

ByzCathCantor,

Can you, or others, expound on this more? What are you speaking of when you mean "Latinizations"

Are you saying that the Easter Catholic Churches changing their traditions to be "more Latin", to fit in, to be accepted and approved?

How incredibly sad.

What is it about human nature where we run, look down upon or afraid that which is different from us?

I look all around me, at the diversity of nature it very self, and I see a God who delights in the diversity of beauty to make Himself known to us.

Good questions, but it's a pretty long story. Short version: the Eastern Catholic Churches became more "Latin" as we say, over many years. But since Vatican II, there has been a lot of returning to tradition.

[dvdjs]

For those who want thoughtful insight into Aquinas and scholastic theology in the Wast and East, search for posting of member Ghosty, who is highly educated and knowledgeable on these subjects. What been posted on this thread, I think, misses the mark widely,

For example, the comments on transubstantiation:

i.e. that the "substance" is what is changed while the "matter" stays the same. Although the East, both Catholic and Orthodox, accept the reality that such language is trying to explain - i.e. that Christ is truly present Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in the Eucharist - it does not embrace the language nor try to explain how such a mystery is accomplished

first misstates the Catholic dogma, then completely misapprehends the point of the dogma, which is about affirming the true and complete presence, notwithstaning appearances; it has never been about how. Finally, there is also a misapprehension of the Orthodox position on this issue. When confronted with Calvinism, Orthodoxy had adopted, at least for that moment, the precisely the same language as the West. it remains to be seen what will happen in America, with som many poorly trained clergy whose antipathy to "transubstantiation": leads them to adopt very interesting contorted positions.

. One could say that the East, as a general rule, does not "pick apart" the mystery; we simply live it.

One could say it, but it is just sloganeering. It overlooks all of the "picky" theologizing and dogmatizing in the East, it overlooks all of the great mystics of the West - among whom count Aquinas. And this mysticism is not and antidote, but part of the same lived tradition.

[dvdjs]

Originally Posted by xzereus

I personally believe that the key factor in the prevention of union between the Orthodox church and the Catholic church is most definitely the negative treatment of the Eastern Catholic Rites by Roman Catholics, both from the clergy and the laity.

Sorry, but you could not be more wrong about this.

The Greek Catholic churches are very much an impediment to union, but not at all for the reason you suggest. Your impression may come from taking the American experience as more significant that it merits. In the universal scheme of things, it is the very existence of Greek Catholic churches that is opposed by the Orthodox. How they are Greek Catholic churches are treated by Rome is immaterial - they are opposed in essence.

A breakthrough was made in Balamand, where the Orthodox signers for the first time agreed that Greek Catholic churches have a right to exist. This part of the agreement was harshly criticized within the Orthodox world; and the agreement has become a dead letter among the Orthodox.

[Cavaradossi]

Originally Posted by dvdjs

For those who want thoughtful insight into Aquinas and scholastic theology in the Wast and East, search for posting of member Ghosty, who is highly educated and knowledgeable on these subjects. What been posted on this thread, I think, misses the mark widely,

For example, the comments on transubstantiation:
first misstates the Catholic dogma, then completely misapprehends the point of the dogma, which is about affirming the true and complete presence, notwithstaning appearances; it has never been about how. Finally, there is also a misapprehension of the Orthodox position on this issue. When confronted with Calvinism, Orthodoxy had adopted, at least for that moment, the precisely the same language as the West. it remains to be seen what will happen in America, with som many poorly trained clergy whose antipathy to "transubstantiation": leads them to adopt very interesting contorted positions.

One could say it, but it is just sloganeering. It overlooks all of the "picky" theologizing and dogmatizing in the East, it overlooks all of the great mystics of the West - among whom count Aquinas. And this mysticism is not and antidote, but part of the same lived tradition.

I haven't read the full excerpt, but I'm not sure if what is quoted necessarily misrepresents the teaching on transubstantiation. It depends on if would we speak of physical matter as being an accident. If so, it would not be erroneous to state that the host retains its physical matter while changing substances (a substance being the incorporeal 'thing' for lack of a better term that is the being of something). While avoiding the terminology of substance/accident, the council of Trent does still mention that the species do not change, but the substance does, if I am remembering correctly, which hints at the same teaching in a less Aristotelian manner.

This definition of course is just explaining the obvious, that what we see, taste, smell, touch (presumably even look at under a microscope or with chemical analysis, with the reservation that such an action would be utterly blasphemous), etc., appears to be ordinary bread and wine, but is in fact the body and blood of Christ without getting into how the change happens.