I follow some of your posts and videos and always find your material useful and Intesting, even if many times way over my head. I have read this article here in full because I did watch debate which I found super Interesting and because my sister, whom was baptized Catholic, had just recently joined the Antiochian Orthodox Church and it bothers me to be honest, that I don't fully understand why she would do such a thing when she could have joined an Eastern Catholic Rite. But I want to learn as I do want to seek Truth and not just accept things because they are what we were born to it. On the other hand, it has also become exceedingly clear to me that God's providence and will dictated I be born in the west and into a Mexican Catholic family. Who am I to just change that because my senses prefer EO liturgy and I can no longer find my preferred Latin Mass close to me?
Anyways, I enjoyed your article and learning from you. Thank you
As a Melkite, the amount of people that go "who?" Or don't know of ECs or treat them with derision or suspicion, (check out Avoiding Babylon and other Youtube sites that host autist Thomists) really discourage many from embracing a sort of second class status in Catholicism. It's hard when you could be welcomed in an Orthodox Church.
Speaking of said Youtubers, that very podcast basically said, "Eastern Catholicism is still Roman Catholicism!" That is what we deal with regularly. Trying to show the Orthodox their is safety in Unity when we have similar laity that would rebel like the very Orthodox laity post Council of Florence.
A lot of it is the Catholic and ECs fault too. We've recently only got some attention and its from Traditional Catholic channels or people wanting to flee the drama of Roman Catholicism.
Forgive my ignorance, but could you expand a little more on the EO rejecting the Eternal/Hypostatic Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son. I thought they did not reject this so much as just rejecting the addition to the creed. Thanks.
I appreciate your long, detailed answer here. I do wonder, though: do you believe Thomism to be true? I admit I have not studied it to the degree that I should, but when I do encounter it, it seems less than convincing, especially on questions of salvation.
To your question - I largely side with Aquinas. Especially on predestination/grace. But that is only because he is channeling Augustine correctly. So I wouldn't say my adhesion to Aquinas there is Thomism particular. Otherwise, I greatly admire Aquinas. I think he is one of the best.
Sometimes the feeling of despair comes into play for myself when hearing these debates. I want to so desperately be on the right side, because salvation may hinge on it. I pray that God has me where he wants me to be, both in life and in the Catholic Church.
Excellent piece. The issue of culpability and ecumenism (true ecumenism NOT indifferentism) is key, and is a valid development is response to these questions that is actively addressed by the Catholic Church in the second vatican council. The Catholic Church is the only one of these communions at present which authoritatively grapples with these while keeping a firm finger on the validity of both doctrinal approaches and allows a certain breathing room for both "easter and western" expression of thought. Well put, and we'll thought out response.
Excellent article that also explains why I converted from Eastern Orthodoxy to Catholicism. I discerned that the undivided tree, as it were, of the Church embraced the filioque and the divine establishment of the papacy, then came to understand how the Filioque and Immaculate Conception were theologically necessary conclusions of our shared sacramental and trinitarian principles.
For me, the issue of paedocommunion was difficult to grapple with, but I was able to see that it doesn't deprive children of grace when we consider that even in Orthodoxy it is understood that the Eucharist must be properly received with reverent disposition for one to receive its full effects, and that those who do not receive directly but are commemorated or present in the liturgy do receive graces indirectly.
According to the theology of Nicholas Cabasilas, this applies both to the living and to the dead. See the appendix of his Commentary on the Divine Liturgy. Young Catholic children are members of the body of Christ who, while looking forward expectantly to their evential admission, are present at the Eucharist, commemorated along with the whole congregation, and are directly blessed by the priest. Therefore the infants who are not yet permitted to approach the sacrament are not deprived of grace.
You mention the "dogmatic rejection of . . . the Eternal/Hypostatic Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son" as one of the biggest reasons that the EO position fails. This seems especially devastating to their position, especially given how strong some of the Orthodox statements about the Filioque are (namely, that it is heresy and a particular evil heresy at that). What is the typical EO response when you raise this point?
I follow some of your posts and videos and always find your material useful and Intesting, even if many times way over my head. I have read this article here in full because I did watch debate which I found super Interesting and because my sister, whom was baptized Catholic, had just recently joined the Antiochian Orthodox Church and it bothers me to be honest, that I don't fully understand why she would do such a thing when she could have joined an Eastern Catholic Rite. But I want to learn as I do want to seek Truth and not just accept things because they are what we were born to it. On the other hand, it has also become exceedingly clear to me that God's providence and will dictated I be born in the west and into a Mexican Catholic family. Who am I to just change that because my senses prefer EO liturgy and I can no longer find my preferred Latin Mass close to me?
Anyways, I enjoyed your article and learning from you. Thank you
As a Melkite, the amount of people that go "who?" Or don't know of ECs or treat them with derision or suspicion, (check out Avoiding Babylon and other Youtube sites that host autist Thomists) really discourage many from embracing a sort of second class status in Catholicism. It's hard when you could be welcomed in an Orthodox Church.
Speaking of said Youtubers, that very podcast basically said, "Eastern Catholicism is still Roman Catholicism!" That is what we deal with regularly. Trying to show the Orthodox their is safety in Unity when we have similar laity that would rebel like the very Orthodox laity post Council of Florence.
A lot of it is the Catholic and ECs fault too. We've recently only got some attention and its from Traditional Catholic channels or people wanting to flee the drama of Roman Catholicism.
Long read but worthwhile
Wow, I'm honored you took the time. Thanks a lot!
Forgive my ignorance, but could you expand a little more on the EO rejecting the Eternal/Hypostatic Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son. I thought they did not reject this so much as just rejecting the addition to the creed. Thanks.
Yes. The EO officially condemned the *DOCTRINE* of the Filioque at the Synods of Blacharnae (1285) and Constantinople (1484)
I appreciate your long, detailed answer here. I do wonder, though: do you believe Thomism to be true? I admit I have not studied it to the degree that I should, but when I do encounter it, it seems less than convincing, especially on questions of salvation.
Hi Philip!
Thanks for reading. That must have taken time.
To your question - I largely side with Aquinas. Especially on predestination/grace. But that is only because he is channeling Augustine correctly. So I wouldn't say my adhesion to Aquinas there is Thomism particular. Otherwise, I greatly admire Aquinas. I think he is one of the best.
Sometimes the feeling of despair comes into play for myself when hearing these debates. I want to so desperately be on the right side, because salvation may hinge on it. I pray that God has me where he wants me to be, both in life and in the Catholic Church.
Excellent piece. The issue of culpability and ecumenism (true ecumenism NOT indifferentism) is key, and is a valid development is response to these questions that is actively addressed by the Catholic Church in the second vatican council. The Catholic Church is the only one of these communions at present which authoritatively grapples with these while keeping a firm finger on the validity of both doctrinal approaches and allows a certain breathing room for both "easter and western" expression of thought. Well put, and we'll thought out response.
Excellent article that also explains why I converted from Eastern Orthodoxy to Catholicism. I discerned that the undivided tree, as it were, of the Church embraced the filioque and the divine establishment of the papacy, then came to understand how the Filioque and Immaculate Conception were theologically necessary conclusions of our shared sacramental and trinitarian principles.
For me, the issue of paedocommunion was difficult to grapple with, but I was able to see that it doesn't deprive children of grace when we consider that even in Orthodoxy it is understood that the Eucharist must be properly received with reverent disposition for one to receive its full effects, and that those who do not receive directly but are commemorated or present in the liturgy do receive graces indirectly.
According to the theology of Nicholas Cabasilas, this applies both to the living and to the dead. See the appendix of his Commentary on the Divine Liturgy. Young Catholic children are members of the body of Christ who, while looking forward expectantly to their evential admission, are present at the Eucharist, commemorated along with the whole congregation, and are directly blessed by the priest. Therefore the infants who are not yet permitted to approach the sacrament are not deprived of grace.
Great piece, Erick!
You mention the "dogmatic rejection of . . . the Eternal/Hypostatic Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son" as one of the biggest reasons that the EO position fails. This seems especially devastating to their position, especially given how strong some of the Orthodox statements about the Filioque are (namely, that it is heresy and a particular evil heresy at that). What is the typical EO response when you raise this point?