/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>803173

It's like the orthodox churches in their respective countries, only with the pope as the head of church.

They're catholics, but with Greek orthodox traditions.

Eastern Catholics think they can have different doctrines from Rome yet still be under Rome.

Not meaning to be uncharitable here, but that’s the essence of it.

>>803173

Catholics of the Byzantine rite, usually who came from an Orthodox jurisdiction before re-entering communion with Rome.

>>803181

I think this could be put in a different perspective. Two languages may use a different word, with a different connotation and ethymology, to refer to the same object or concept, yet both do refer to one and the same object or concept in an acceptable manner, it is just two different perspectives, and one should not shun either. Likewise, Latin and Greek theological and ecclesiological traditions may express their experience of Christ in different words, with rather different perspectives, yet neither should be shunned, but we should rather see what each has to tell us about the mystery of Christ, and ultimately how they reach toward the same "object or concept" even though they use different "languages" (literally and figuratively), "ethymologies", "connotations", "perspectives".

Although I say this as an Orthodox, I think we should look very carefully and with interest at how the Eastern Catholics reconcile the theology of their own tradition, the theology of the Church of Rome that they're supposed to agree with, and their own experience of Christ. We may not agree with the result (in fact they themselves do not agree with one another - Eastern Catholics can be anything from "Roman Catholic with a more exotic liturgy" to "Eastern Orthodox who happens to commemorate the Pope in the liturgy") but we should not shun their efforts at discerning the Christian truth.

>>803185

>>803185

As a sidenote, i love the melkites.

The combination of being stubborn as mules about how awesome their theology is, being super pragmatic, and not giving a crap about the political pretensions of either of the 2 head sees of West or East is bravely christian and hilarious.

I feel sorry for them tbh. For as long as they've been in communion with Rome, they've never shaped much of the direction of the Catholic church. It's a oneway street. Nor does the average Catholic even think about their perspective.. or even knows it. Yet at the same time, they've shut themselves off of Orthodox as well, who are their spiritual brothers as far as theology goes.

Oh, and on top of that, they're unfortunately on the frontlines when it comes to dealing with Islam too (if we count all Melkites and not just Greeks).

>>803197

you literally just have to accept the pope you don't have to change anything.

>>803417

What about the filioque? Wouldn't that be a stumbling block for a lot of Eastern schismatic brothers out there? Do the Eastern Catholics have the filioque in their creed?

>>803429

Eastern Catholics don't have the filioque in the creed, although that is rather secondary. Having a modified creed is a symptom of our different understandings of the relationship between the doctrinal authority of the Pope and the doctrinal authority of Ecumenical Councils, but the main issue is -what- the filioque means. Even if our liturgies use the same words, it's pointless if we turn out to actually have different Trinitarian theologies.

The Council of Florence tried to find common ground but we still don't find it acceptable. At the same time, we've been quite lazy on our end and, unlike the Catholics, we haven't made much of an effort yet to interpret Augustine's Trinitarian theology in an Orthodox manner (because that is essentially where the core of the problem lies, at this point).

>>803417

It's not like the Eastern Catholics were just left alone after reunion with Rome. Some basically became Latin Catholics (see the Ethiopians) and some were not allowed to let their theological and liturgical tradition breathe, to the point it even caused schism (see Alexis Toth for example).

Furthermore, this "hands-off" approach of "yeah you just need to commemorate the Pope in the liturgy, you don't need to do anything else" has led to many Eastern Catholics not actually understanding Roman Catholic theological tradition, or even knowing that Roman Catholics don't express the faith in the same way.

Finally, on a more practical approach, even just "accepting the Pope" doesn't mean "not changing anything else". If you enter communion with the Pope, you lose autocephaly. In the Eastern Orthodox communion, autocephaly means that there is no higher authority regarding ordination of bishops or administration - the Patriarch is the one accepting or rejecting the ordination of so-and-so bishops in his jurisdiction, and there is no higher authority above him to also do this. But in the administration of the Catholic Church as it is today, the only church to really be autocephalous is the Church of Rome.

So, at the very least, dialogue with Rome with the intent to restore communion would be more attractive if the Catholic Church returned to the form it had before the schism, administratively speaking. We can discuss the Pope's universal jurisdiction after that… And, doctrinally speaking, the Orthodox would need to actually understand and then find acceptable (even if not ideal) the Roman Catholic dogmas, and likewise, the Catholics would need to actually understand and then find acceptable (even if not ideal) the Eastern Orthodox dogmas.

>>803429

no eastern catholics do not have "filioque" in their creed because filioque is a latin word and eastern catholics generally dont use latin as a liturgical language.

also, the filioque is not a theological issue. any orthodox theologian who isnt an idiot knows this. the filioque was controversial (at least, it was to the orthodox) because of authority. rome added the filioque to the creed without having a ecunemical council over it and the orthodox threw a fit over it. anyone who thinks the filioque is a theological issue and that catholics are "heretics" for believing in filioque is a complete fool. the orthodox actually believe in the theology of the filioque, they just dont use filioque because of language and because they want to stick it to rome. just like how they believe in purgatory but they dont call it purgatory and they change it up a bit because just calling it "purgatory" is too roman for them.

>>803950

I have never heard of an Orthodox theologian or scholar saying the filioque isn't a doctrinal issue. You have two stances: those who see Augustine and the council of Florence as having the same theology, which isn't that of the Greek fathers, and those who see Augustine and the Greek fathers as having the same theology, which isn't that of the council of Florence.

Or maybe you just wanted to indirectly say that all Orthodox theologians are idiots.

Also, no, we do not believe in Purgatory. You repeating that we do will not make it true.

>>803982

Yeah and neither do many Eastern Orthodoxes believe in the immaculate conception. This is why it's very weird that the Catholic Church claims that EOs are "schismatics" only, when if you deny the immaculate conception, or purgatory you're a heretic. Maybe because you can technically believe in Purgatory or the Immaculate conception as an Eastern Orthodox? Is it possible at all?