www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Eastern Catholics - why are you in union with Rome?

This is kinda off-topic (Kung) but his name did come up in this tread.

Here is what I was looking for.

http://www.zenit.org/article-14086?l=english

Apparently ... Benedict is still interested in what his old theology teacher thinks.

-ray

The thread asks, "Eastern Catholics-why are you in union with Rome."

It is not a matter of personal opinion as to why a Catholic of a non-Latin right belongs to a sui juris church. And so far, that is all I seeon this thread.
There has to be a clear cut and an official answer to this question, with references from the source.
Show us Patristics and tell us the official position of your sui juris church being in communion with Rome.

Really! How can you prove a statement like that! Show me your proof please. Was a poll taken somewhere? A survey.
I don't think many Ukrainian Catholics in Toronto, Ontario were part of that poll or survey.
Just a word of advice. Make statements you can backup.

P.S. I never knew there was another Toronto and in Ohio yet! What a shock. There is no St. Joseph's Eastern Catholic Church in Toronto, Canada.

Yes really.

I did not take a poll or survey.

Miller re-read and consider my post and my point. I assert that that "a larger than negligable portion of Eastern Catholic faithful feel Vat I is binding and pertinent to us." Even if it isn't the clear majority, is there any resonable way to deny that there aren't a significant number of Eastern Catholics who hold this opinion?

SS, with respect, you are attempting to make your claim using the informal logical fallacy called argumentum ad ignorantiam.

The argument to ignorance is a logical fallacy of irrelevance occurring when one claims that something is true only because it hasn't been proved false, or that something is false only because it has not been proved true. A claim's truth or falsity depends upon supporting or refuting evidence to the claim, not the lack of support for a contrary or contradictory claim.

The fact that it cannot be proved that the universe is not designed by an Intelligent Creator does not prove that it is. Nor does the fact that it cannot be proved that the universe is designed by an Intelligent Creator prove that it isn't.




http://skepdic.com/ignorance.html

Jesus, Peter & the Keys [amazon.com] has the bulk of patristic texts that I have found convincing.

Some of us in turn don't feel special need to find patristic texts to "Justify remaining under Rome" so much as we would require cohesive arguments to justify leaving. People in already in place tend to need positive argument for the adoption of a theology or ecclesiology new to them or their experience.

Your phrasing does sort of speak to an a priori assumption we feel compelled or driven to justify remaining.

This is kind of how some Catholics or Orthodox talk to cradle Anglicans "How do you justify remaining Anglican?" "Well" one may respond "what compelling argument do you offer me to make myself justify it?"

JZ, with respect I suppose that I managed to fall into the self-same error that Miller did in that respect!

But to go back to my first time asserting "a larger than negligable portion of Eastern Catholic faithful feel Vat I is binding and pertinent to us." Let's recall the context of my writing this: I was responding to the question "Might I ask what Vatican I has to do with Eastern Catholicism?"

So JZ, maybe I should bounce this off you... is it possible to prove "a larger than negligable portion of X" does or does not exist when it hasn't been established what is negligable or not to begin with?

It seems rather pointed to in turn demand "proof" of such.

I suppose I could do some homework in finding a collection of texts to PROVE that a portion (any portion) of Eastern Catholics DO believe Vatican 1 to be pertinent (come to think of it, "pertinent" itself is rather vague word, isn't it!) to Eastern Catholics.


1) in fact I have no surveys of prevailing Eastern Catholic thought.

2) in fact we haven't established what would be a "negligable number"

3) in fact we have't established what would qualify as pertinent.

But in spite of all that, if a little good faith cannot be mustered to accept or gently "roll with" the idea essentially that some Eastern Catholics think Vatican 1 is pertinent to Eastern Catholics (with or without polling Toronto Ukraininians!) then we may be so firmly at an impasse, further discussion would be unwarranted.

Sorry Miller, I can't back up my assertion with a survey. Feel free to dismiss my opinion.

Sigh... I need an attorney to edit my posts.

And, no answer yet.
The answer should be easily explained, and not explained by opinion. But here we are on page 6. Why no answer? I'm not challenging the Eastern Catholic Clergy that can and have answered this before in great detail and with references. I'm not challenging a certain Canadian whom may teach at university, certainly they can answer this. Let's hear it folks.

If you have this book, can you give us a few quotes, providing of course a bibliography (for legal reasons, credit is due to those who are having their book directly quoted)

Nah.

Yer doin' OK.

Don't fall into the trap of semantics.

I don't agree with you ... but you are presenting yourself well. Carry on.

-ray

There are no semantics in answering a serious question that should be straight forward and easily answered.

Shlomo Lkhoolkhoon,

I think the simple answer is that the Catholic Church shows the fullness of Christ's Church on earth. That is within no other Apostolic Church do you have the diversity of Liturgical Traditions. The Oriental orthodox come closest, but they do not seek to expand their Churches beyond their own ethic groups for the most part.

Within the Catholic Communion of Churches I have the ability to seek the fullness of faith in my tradition, without having to sacrifice (post Vatican II) my beliefs.

Poosh BaShlomo Lkhoolkhoon,
Yuhannon

SS, although I disagree with what you said, I agree you have the right to post whatever your want. Just don't rely on fallacies to make your case; if you do, your argument will lack validity and cogency and will be worthless to the end user. If you had supplied the evidence requested, you would have made your case.

I was not accusing anyone .. if that is what you are thinking.

It was just a comment out of the air. I was encouraging him. He seemed a bit frustrated.

Peace to all churches.
-ray

Ray, I pm'ed you.

So, does anyone have the answer? It's like CCD 101. I'm going to send you all back to Sunday School (which Adult education is something every parish should have).