www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Byzantine Catholics identifying themselves as Orthodox?

Again, Joe, you are unfamiliar with Catholic theology. Yes, "merit" is a term from Trent and it is part of the theological inheritance of Trent. Still, it has not been in use by theologians in the past 40 years because it is a problematic term and easily mis interpreted. Again, if you want to understand "merit," see the Joint Declaration on Justification.

I should remind you that Catholic theology is a profession which takes many years of graduate study to master. And the CCC was not written for general consumption. This is why the USCCB is coming out with a US Catholic Catechism as are all national conferences of Catholic bishops. These Catechisms are for the non-professional.

"Merit" has a long history and does not mean in Catholic theology what it means in Webster's Dictionary.

Father,

Then I will withdraw what I have said and will confess that I don't understand what "merit" means. I don't want to get into an argument about it because that it not what this thread is about. God bless.

Joe

A few weeks back I commented that the Orthodox have lost their right to complain about the Eastern Catholic Church since they have established a Western Rite Orthodox Church. Then I was warned by Orthodox members to leave those poor Western Rites alone.

Well, the same goes here. As Catholics are not the only ones to claim the term Catholic, so the Orthodox are not the only ones to claim the term Orthodox. Believe me, I know it is irritating as the son of a TEC dad. But, people will define themselves as they will and not ask permission. We all have to live with this as a residue of historic divisions. I believe those division to be the work of the Evil One. So as we have to deal with the wounds caused by evil in every aspect of life, so we have to deal with the residues of division. And the only way to deal with such differences in the Christian world is with the charity of Christ. As Christ himself said "Love is the measure." Nit-picking is not.

AMEN !

-- John

And I'm not picking on anyone, just pointing out that Orthodox in union with Rome does not mean the same thing as Orthodox not in union with Rome with which I'm sure that Pope Benedict XVI would concur.

Joe

I don't feel like the discussion is an ongoing communal nit-pick. The words aren't important (some churches have them all and more - Holy Catholic Apostolic Orthodox Autonomous Byzantine Western Rite, Inc. Bishop Dave in his garage presiding, etc.), but the ideas behind them.

To me being Orthodox or Catholic describes a set of beliefs and a sacramental union of believers. The two groups do not overlap right now, whatever words you wish to use to identify each side. That is what is important in my opinion. Being Orthodox is not saying "I'm Orthodox", but being a member of and participating in the sacramental union of the Orthodox Church.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the thread. Nobody is complaining about Eastern Catholics, their validity or their right to exist. We're simply discussing what the implications of the phrase OICWR means and whether or not it makes sense. The WRO certainly have left the word Orthodox in their name, so I do think you know where they're coming from. I've certainly never heard them describe themselves as anything but Orthodox, but simply of a different liturgical expression.

The one person who does strike me as fitting the OICRW moniker who posts here is Todd/Apotheoun, but I will readily admit I simply cannot fathom his take on things. Nor by the same token does the Zoghby initiative make any sense to me. There are people who do believe they can hold these views in tension at the same time. I certainly don't criticize or nit-pick Todd when he says the things he does (usually I agree with him), but I still don't get it.

AMM,

Well, you and I agree that Todd's position is difficult to fathom. Every time I have asked him to reconcile what I perceive as the un-logical tension, he disappears. Perhaps he has written at length in the past, but I have yet to see a sustained or thorough explication from him or Matt.

As I experience it, OICWR is a kind of slogan that masks all kinds of complications. I am not comfortable with it, frankly. But, again, I am not going to tell others how they should name or define themselves. I think that is just a matter of respect, and that was my point regarding WRO. Defensiveness about WRO is matched by defensiveness of the phrase OICWR.

Identity politics are taxing and arguments over them are generally not terribly productive.

Now, OICWR as a theological claim against Vatican I or other theological positins IS something that can be and really ought to be discussed.

Do you see the distinction? As an identity claim and whether one is under the label orthodox or catholic, I think argument is useless. As a ground for specific theological claims, I think the OICWR crowd has a lot of explaining to do.

It is useless. Like I said, my church cornerstone reads "XYZ Orthodox Catholic Church" and I believe we are both. If people feel a closeness, affinity, or identification with Orthodoxy for whatever reason I count that as a good thing. I'm really not trying to convince people they should think otherwise.

LOL. That's a good one.

How about The Reformed Zion Holiness Methodist Episcopal Church of Christ of the Full Immersion, services held in a beauty parlor? Cant leave them out!

Hat tip to the esteemed Dr. Eric:

How about the Third Reorganized Second-Day After Friday Church of the First Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ with Miracles and Signs Following African Methodist Episcopal Church?

Gordo

I am curious, then how Eastern Catholics reconcile this canon from the EEOC.


Canon 43
The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office
(munus) given in special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the
Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the
college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire
Church on earth; therefore, in virtue of his office (munus) he
enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in
the Church which he can always freely exercise.

Are Eastern Catholics free to reject this canon? Do they interpret it as not applying to them?


Thanks

All Catholics of every rite are bound to believe this doctrine.

From what I am reading from Eastern Catholics here, i see a contradiction and am hoping someone can help me understand.