www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Why are you Catholic?

Dear Angela,

You are

Have a great weekend!

Alex

ER,

You would be correct that the Latins don't like "loose ends". So we struggle hard to define everything. Actually I take the Byzantines to be much more "Orthodox" on this level, at least from my understanding they don't feel the need to explain or define everything.

Really I don't know where you get the "Get with the Latin way" thing. I could equaly say the same thing about the Orthodox. As if you guys aren't the least bit prickly about every minute detail about the Divine Liturgy and feel the need to compel the Latin Church under your views of how we should conduct our Mass. And you all also seem to thing that your continual blood letting over ethnic and cultural events that occured over 500 years ago are some form of superior custom to the Western ideal of "live and let live". Why it may seem that the Latin Church compels all to follow it's customs or it's percieved view of the world, is because Rome is the focal point of the media for the Christian voice. The Western media, economics, and military might, has a memory it's self of the Papacy being a strong leader in Western affairs. So the fact that the Western world lead by the USA is pushing it's culture values on the rest of the world it comes as no small surprise that a Pontiffical presence comes in some small degree with that being the US has a significant Catholic population.

Your are right a point that the Roman Catholic Church feels it's self the superior Christian Church if you will. But in that way that we feel the Church has preserved the faith, never fallen into heresy, and do to Papal Infallibilty never will fall into heresy.

The fact that Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople, and Alexandria, all fell to Islamic control. placing a burden of Rome being the sole See to lead... may also play a role to this day in how Rome see it's self it's role to the Christian world. I don't know?

Dear Maximus,

I think you are right on.

The West only had one Apostolic See to speak of and that was Rome. The East had four plus all those villages that the Apostles established Churches in!

It was inevitable that Rome would assume the position and role that it did throughout the West and then began asserting it throughout the entire Church.

The Fourth Council did declare Rome's Primacy of Honour during a Council, although that didn't imply primacy of jurisdiction over other Patriarchates or Churches in the East.

You are a very likeable Latin.

Alex

Well thank you Alex. And by the way I don't find you annoying either Perhaps a little to flattering

Dear Maximus,

Well, when it comes to me, take your pick !

Have a great weekend, Servant of Christ!

Alex

Maximus,

It is fine with me if "Latins" remain loyal to the Latin way--that is your tradition.

Like His All-Holiness, Bartholomew, stated to a group of Roman Catholic theologians not long ago, we have developed differently; we are "organically" different.

That being the case, it is absurd for either side to impose an artificial norm upon the other; especially a norm foreign to one's church culture or one that denies the unique historical experience of one's culture, whether Latin or Greek.

Hopefully, ecclesiastical hegemony has seen its day; whether it is the hegemony of the East or the West.

I adhere to the position of my Bishop on this issue, because it is the rational position.

Our Bishops have sworn solemn oaths to adhere to those rational positions that protect the legitimate interests of their respective flocks.

Sometimes, it seems we expect too much from ecumenical overtures and try to force issues; God's time-line is..just that..God's time line.

By all means...be what you are; what your culture demands. And God's blessings to all Latin Christians as they travel "the way."

We shall continue to walk the way of our ancestors, as well.

ER

Xrisi aygi

ER,

Sounds Good. Your Bishop sounds very wise.

I don't think there'll be an administrative union of both (catholics and orthodox) and I think that both churches understood that this way of "uniatism" is not viable in the future.
Yesterday, an Anglican bishop was interviewed in the Catholic Channel and they discussed about the Ecumenical dialogue and he said that most of the modern church leaders state that the Union of Christians will be reached through a "Communion of Communions". Obviously, to reach this communion with protestant groups is very difficult because of the reasosns we all know. But this model of unity would be a good option for Orthodox and Catholics: Churches with their own identity and ecclesial independence, recognizing the validity of their sacraments, ordainations and communion in Spirit.

Dear Mor Ephrem and Memo,
Sorry I have been absent for a few days. I had no internet connection due to construction.
With respect to monothelitism and the Maronite Church, Pierre Dib, Bishop of Cairo, argues in "History of the Maronite Church" that the Maronites were never monothelites. In those early documents, he states that Maronite writers were arguing against the possibility of Christ's natures each "willing" a different thing, i.e. they used the term "will" to mean "what was willed." Thus, it was a language problem more than a difference in doctrine. I will not try to summarize the argument further here; it's been a while since I read it. The book is translated by Chorbishop Seely Beggiani and is published by the "Maronite Apostolic Exarchate, Detroit." If anyone is interested in reading it, I'll find out more details about where to get it. --Agape

It seems that all of our problems started out as a language problem... :rolleyes:

Dear Catholicos,

Fr. Serge Keleher is also of the view that the Filioque became an issue for the East because of a language problem between Latin and Greek expressions of pronouncement!

What's in a name? A lot it would seem . . .

Alex