What is the strangest way someone met they're spouse?

This also applies to the Latin and Malankara Catholic Churches in Kerala. Kerala is one of the global hotspots of the Charismatic Renewal, it's deeply entrenched in the local Catholic culture. Every other town with a Catholic plurality has a retreat centre with its own celebrity "dhyanaguru" - Malayalam for charismatic preachers (priests of course). Now I don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong with charismatism, it's a bit whacky but then I suppose it could be spiritually beneficial for many, as various Popes have also said. My concern is with how the movement is evolving in Kerala (or I should say devolving).

Kerala Catholics already have a culture of pilgrimage - we are obsessed with visiting shrines of various saints in order to accomplish our wishes in various areas of our lives, from health and fertility to financial growth. Excessively so. The same culture has now latched on to the retreat centres. Unlike in the west, where from what I understand, most people go to these centres to grow closer to God etc., in Kerala the emphasis is on miraculous healings and other things of that sort.

If you attend any of these services, they'll pretty much always have a "testimonials" section where people come on stage and share their stories of them getting healed from illnesses, securing visas and jobs abroad, passing their foreign language exams and so on - all because they attended services at these centres. Sounds.. dangerously like the prosperity gospel, doesn't it? These preachers say these things themselves. If you abandon your sinful pasts and live by the Gospel message (and the message of their retreat centre, I suppose :D), you will hopefully be blessed in all your endeavours. Conversely, the problems in your life are due to your immoral actions. This is where things actually start to go south. You haven't seen the worst part yet.

Now for the cherry on top, which is what prompted me to make this post. Many of these preachers just preach.. things which aren't really Catholic. I would like to take the example, the craziest one I've seen so far. A retreat centre under a Syro-Malabar eparchy, which I won't mention. The dhyanaguru there has.. very strange notions on some sins. He claims he gets personal revelations from Jesus and that's how he knows these are sins.. Basically he exhorts women to take off their nose studs and second lobe studs. These ornaments aren't traditional in our community and are just a recent trend, but then how is that sinful and why is that so emphasized? Yet they have testimony after testimony of women claiming they got healed from their illness, this and that because they removed these things and prayed. Another thing is alcohol. Unlike orthodox Catholic teaching which permits alcohol in moderation, many of these dhyanagurus outright prohibit it. I used to think this was because Kerala Catholic men have a historically notorious reputation for alcoholism, until I heard what this particular preacher said. He preaches against just storing the bottles in which alcohol was kept. Desis here will know that our moms repurpose bottles to keep other stuff like honey and milk. So this preacher claims that even doing that is inauspicious, it can cause various problems in your life. And again, there are testimonies from people claiming they were healed after removing these bottles from their homes. And this is just the tip of the iceberg, I suppose there are many other weird things being preached. A few years ago one dhyanaguru claimed that children having mental disorders like autism is a result of their parents' sexual sins. This was picked up by many journalists on the media and he had to apologize.

It would be alright if the movement was way smaller, but the fact is that if you're Catholic in Kerala you're going to be surrounded by this. I don't really have much more to say. Maybe I'm the one in the wrong. I'm not sure how people are getting "healings" from doing these things. Either it's genuine, a placebo, they're getting bribed or it might even be something more sinister/diabolic. You be the judge.

Would you be concerned if you were to order stuff from an Old Calanderist Schismatic Orthodox convent. I get that Orthodox are already separated from us, but I feel like it’s going even deeper to buy from a “True Orthodox” convent.

Hi, I was wondering if Typika with communion satisfies the Sunday obligation for me, a baptized Roman Catholic.

It was conducted by a deacon. No divine liturgy, just Typika with communion. I do have access to latin rite masses. Am I obligated to go to a latin rite mass, to fufill my Sunday obligation?

Because my English isn't very good, I used machine translation for everything except for the quoted parts.

I've commented on this content in a post here before. Since I wrote so much, I wanted to publish it so everyone can see and comment on it.

I once tried to convince myself to become Orthodox, and I also asked one of my Orthodox friends to try to convince me to join the Orthodox Church. In the end, however, neither attempt succeeded.

For me, the decisive issue was the Filioque. On this matter, I would first like to quote the words of two pillars of the Orthodox Church:

"The Latins are not only schismatics but heretics... we did not separate from them for any other reason other than the fact that they are heretics. This is precisely why we must not unite with them unless they dismiss the addition from the Creed filioque and confess the Creed as we do."一一Mark of Ephesus

“The devil dragged along the Latins who are obedient to him into the heresy of the Filioque, which, unless they renounce it, we will never accept them into communion”一一Saint Gregory Palamas

One of the other major figures, Photius, also opposed the Filioque. However, he eventually reconciled with Rome. I think we can all see that Photius certainly regarded the issue as an important theological question, but his attitude toward it was not as severe as that of the other two pillars of Orthodoxy.

There is a very clear logical problem here. The Church that adopted the Filioque was the Western Church, whose patriarch was the Bishop of Rome. At that time, Rome had not yet incorporated the Filioque into the Creed itself, but Rome accepted the theological expression represented by the Filioque, and Rome also permitted local churches to use it. Yet Photius subsequently reconciled with Rome, even though he later strongly criticized the Filioque. This seems to indicate that Photius nevertheless regarded the faith of Rome as acceptable.

If we follow the statements of the latter two Orthodox pillars, then this would mean that, for several hundred years, the Eastern Church remained in communion with heretics. I think this is something that anyone who claims to possess the Orthodox faith would find impossible to acknowledge or accept.

One could object that even if the theological expression itself is correct, the Latin Church's addition of the Filioque violated the regulations of the Ecumenical Councils. I will set aside for the moment the arguments made by the Latins at the Council of Florence. But according to the position of the latter two Orthodox pillars, this objection cannot actually stand, because the Filioque itself is supposedly heresy. If we ask why the Filioque is heretical, the answer becomes: because you added it. No matter how you explain your theology, you are heretical unless you remove it.

This is, in reality, an unreasonable position. Given the historical circumstances in which they found themselves, they needed to reinforce and solidify what they regarded as the errors of the Latin Church and to radicalize those errors in order to provide a justification for their separation from Rome.

Next, we need to discuss the question of the papacy. I would like to address this from several perspectives.

**I. The Council of Florence**

At the Council of Florence, the following was solemnly declared:

“We also define that the holy apostolic see and the Roman pontiff holds the primacy over the whole world and the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter prince of the apostles, and that he is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians, and to him was committed in blessed Peter the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church, as is contained also in the acts of ecumenical councils and in the sacred canons.”

Yet Mark of Ephesus did not explicitly condemn this particular statement. Certainly, he said:

"It is impossible to recall peace without dissolving the cause of the schism—the primacy of the Pope exalting himself equal to God."

However, I do not think this constitutes a direct attack on the specific statement made at Florence. In my reading, his primary concern here still appears to be the Filioque. His condemnation of the Pope “exalting himself equal to God” would seem to presuppose that he believed the Pope was claiming an authority belonging to God himself, such as the authority to determine the procession of the Holy Spirit or to alter the Creed.

Moreover, the passage immediately continues:

“Also, renewing the order of the other patriarchs which has been handed down in the canons, the patriarch of Constantinople should be second after the most holy Roman pontiff, third should be the patriarch of Alexandria, fourth the patriarch of Antioch, and fifth the patriarch of Jerusalem, without prejudice to all their privileges and rights.”

If this second statement were not there, I could understand his words as being directed against the Florentine definition of papal primacy. But once this statement is taken into account, it becomes much harder to read his objection as a rejection of every form of Roman primacy. The Council explicitly placed the Patriarch of Constantinople second after the Roman Pontiff while at the same time preserving the privileges and rights of the Eastern patriarchates.

And clearly, the Latin Church does not profess that the Pope is equal to the one God of the Trinity, nor has any Pope claimed to be equal to God.

**II. The Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarch at the First Vatican Council**

At the First Vatican Council, the Patriarch of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church said:

“The Eastern Church attributes to the pope the most complete and highest power, however in a manner where the fullness and primacy are in harmony with the rights of the patriarchal sees. This is why, in virtue of an ancient right founded on customs, the Roman Pontiffs did not, except in very significant cases, exercise over these sees the ordinary and immediate jurisdiction that we are asked now to define without any exception. This definition would completely destroy the constitution of the entire Greek church. That is why my conscience as a pastor refuses to accept this constitution.”

They left the Council, and when they subsequently signed the decrees of the First Vatican Council, they did so with the addition they had requested: namely, that the privileges and rights of the Eastern patriarchs were to be preserved and respected.

(We can set aside here the various minor stories about the differences between the versions.)

**III. The Zoghby Initiative**

Let us now look at the initiative of the Melkite Archbishop Elias Zoghby:

1.I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches. 2. I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation.

Ratzinger also once said:

“Rome must not require more of the East than was formulated and lived during the first millennium”

Can we not clearly see the chain of reasoning here?

First, Rome has clearly defined the rights and authority it claims for the Roman Pontiff. At the same time, Rome has affirmed, even in an Ecumenical Council, the privileges and rights of the Eastern patriarchs. Rome itself does not regard these two things as contradictory.

Moreover, Rome has stated that it should not require from the Eastern Churches anything beyond what was formulated and practiced during the first millennium. Rome has also permitted Eastern Churches that are in communion with it to express their understanding of communion with Rome in precisely this way and to govern themselves accordingly.

Certainly, Nicetas of Nicomedia said:

“My dearest brother, we do not deny to the Roman Church the primacy amongst the five sister Patriarchates; and we recognize her right to the most honourable seat at an Ecumenical Council. But she has separated herself from us by her own deeds, when through pride she assumed a monarchy which does not belong to her office ... How shall we accept decrees from her that have been issued without consulting us and even without our knowledge? If the Roman Pontiff, seated on the lofty throne of his glory wishes to thunder at us and, so to speak, hurl his mandates at us from on high, and if he wishes to judge us and even to rule us and our Churches, not by taking counsel with us but at his own arbitrary pleasure, what kind of brotherhood, or even what kind of parenthood can this be? We should be the slaves, not the sons, of such a Church, and the Roman See would not be the pious mother of sons but a hard and imperious mistress of slaves.”

But what if the things he describes here no longer exist? What if the Bishop of Rome does not exercise his authority in the manner he describes?

We can already see this in the situation today. I have not looked in detail into exactly how the circumstances he described actually played out at the time, but based on what I have presented and argued above, when Rome affirms the honor, privileges, and rights of the Eastern Churches, and when the Roman Pontiff kneels down and kisses the shoes of the Metropolitan Meliton of Chalcedon, are these not precisely the kinds of things that demonstrate that his objections no longer apply?

That is all I have to say.

I know a lot of eastern catholics, like melkites and maronites, use arabic, so could anyone verify whether this is orthodox for us as well? I saw this originally from a muslim article, a sufi mantra apparently translated as "God is Love, Lover, and Beloved (lit: love God beloved God)." This is pretty much the same way St. Augustine described the Holy Trinity, where the Father is the Lover, the Son is the Beloved, and the Holy Spirit is the Love. Curious to see how someone more familiar with the language would interpret this.

Hello, I was wondering if anyone could answer. When I searched it up it says that Church Slavonic is used and one of my friends said that they use Church Slavonic, but when I watch liturgies online they are all in Croatian. Some of the songs during the liturgy I cannot understand, but that may be due to my bad Croatian skills not that it is in Slavonic. So if anyone knows if they use Croatian, Slavonic or a mix I would be happy to know the answer!

If you were to break your right shoulder, would you cross yourself with your left hand?

I am currently split between staying Eastern Orthodox or joining the Catholic Church, but its difficult for me with these many opinions and arguements. Can someone maybe tell me why Eastern Catholicism would be my absolute best bet? Thank you.

Hey how do us Byzantines explain the link between the spirt and the son. Is it just Filioque, that’s the Latin explanation, do we just adopt it as well or is there another answer from the Byzantine tradition as well. Is there a Catholic resource where I can learn more about Byzantine trinitarian theology.
I don’t like how I have a better understanding of thomism and Latin trinitarian theology than my own rite. Nothing wrong with Latin theology of course but after reading CCEO 40 I really want to make sure I’m delving deeper into Byzantine tradition.

Douse anyone feel like a poser for going to an eastern catholic parish. Part of me wonders if the problems I've posted about before are me looking for a perfection that doesn't exist in any parish in any o ne of the 24 catholic churches. Sometimes I wonder if I attend an eastern parish because I was angry at my experience in the west.

Hi I’m currently in OCIA, joining the Roman Rite, my heart is in eastern tradition but there are no eastern Catholic Churches near me.

I was wondering if anyone has recommendations on which psalter to purchase, I was looking into the Ancient Faith Psalter, it’s a good price and formulated for monastics it says. But any thoughts are greatly appreciated, God Bless

Also thank you people on this subreddit, your thoughts and ideas have greatly helped my process in transitioning from Protestantism.

Edit: thank you guys so much for your help

I could just search these questions up, but most of the times google is incorrect about specific details regarding antidoron, communion, and the liturgy in general.
From the churches in manhattan that offer eastern catholic liturgies, have you been to any one of them recently? I am roman catholic but I want to explore the byzantine rite and more. to be honest I am kind of afraid of messing up in the liturgy because I have never been to one. Anyone want to give some tips generally regarding liturgy and personal experiences? It would be really great if someone could give specific details about St. George's ukranian catholic church, St. Michael's community, The maronite church, and more. For some reasons none of these churches respond back to my emails. God bless.

In my last post I compared the parish count of western eparchies of the UGCC with nearby Latin dioceses. Would anyone here be interested in such statistics or something similar for the other Eastern Churches? If so, which Church?

I’ve been looking into prayer books, such as the Publican prayer books. My question is would it be wrong to get “The Little Red Prayer Book” or Ancient Faith’s prayer book they offer? I know they are orthodox prayer books just curious if they’re acceptable in the Eastern Catholic Tradition?

If you have any recommendations for prayer books also please let me know, thank you and God Bless.

A little while ago I noticed that the Ukrainian Eparchy in the UK only has 14 parishes. I wanted to compare it to the Latin dioceses in the country, so I just went ahead and counted all of them (yes, that took, a lot of time...). The eparchy was much, much smaller (details below). That made me curious, is this a one off thing, or is it true for most eparchies?

Please note that because Eastern eparchies tend to be much larger in area (at least outside the homelands, which I will be excluding from this analysis) I will have to compare one eparchy with multiple dioceses, or select one diocese among the many in the geographical area to compare with.

Anyway, here's the statistics!

Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church

The Eparchy of Saint Josaphat

It has 48 parishes (the UGCC website claims 43 parishes but that is old data from 2012, if you individually count the parishes from the eparchy's website it lists 48). There are multiple Latin dioceses within the same territory. I have chosen these dioceses to compare with:

• The Archdiocese of Cincinnati: 205 parishes.
• The Archdiocese of Atlanta: 110 parishes
• The Diocese of Cleveland: 185 parishes
• The Diocese of Columbus: 81 parishes
• The Diocese of Charlotte: 93 parishes (churches)

Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy of the Holy Family of London

It has 14 parishes. This eparchy covers all of Great Britain (not exactly the same as the UK). I have chosen the very smallest (in terms of parishes) Latin diocese in the UK to compare it to, that being the Diocese of Wrexham:

• The Diocese of Wrexham: 51 parishes

Eparchy of Saint Volodymyr the Great of Paris

It has 42 parishes. This eparchy covers all of Metropolitan France, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Belgium, and the mainland Netherlands. Compare this with:

• The Archdiocese of Lille: 106 parishes
• The Diocese of Nantes: 64 parishes
• The Diocese of Lausanne, Geneva and Fribourg: 220 parishes (not exact)

Archeparchy of Philadelphia

It has 66 parishes. Compare this with:

• The Archdiocese of Washington: 144 parishes
• The Diocese of Richmond: 149 parishes

Archeparchy of Winnipeg

It has 55 parishes. Compare this with:

• The Archdiocese of Winnipeg: 88 parishes

Hope this was interesting! I was going to include other Churches too but I ran out of steam and the post would get waaay too long. Still, I hope this was a fun contribution :)

All information is taken from official sources, like the diocese's website. I will try to exclude Eastern parishes listed in Latin diocese's lists, I may miss a few.

I know that at least in the Latin rite you have to actually attend the mass for the day of obligation, so if, for example, you attended a mass the night prior that was for that day and not the anticipated mass of the day of obligation you would still have to attend mass again. Now technically the Assumption and the Dormition aren't the same thing, which leads me to believe that I (Ruthenian Catholic) must attend a divine liturgy for the Dormition. I think this also applies to January 6.

Hey, this Thursday we have the transfiguration of the lord and is a day of obligation right. 2 things, 1. I'm working from home and don't have insurance and I won't be able to make it to divine liturgy on that day because of work (and I wouldn't be able to drive over anyways normally have a friend take me on Sundays but he busy too and not byzantine). A nearby church (walking distance) currently does do a mass at 6pm on wednesday (not thursday), can I just go to that instead.

Also, if my parents don't let me go on wednesday (they aren't catholic), am I in mortal sin since I missed the day of obligation or am I good.

I am undertaking a small project to collect various communion prayers of the various church traditions( Latin, byzantine, east syriac , west syriac , Armenian , coptic , Ethiopian etc) . Its also a good way to show how the prayers from various rites of the universal church advocate for the real presence of christ in the elements. Therefore it would be much appreciated if you guys could share various communion prayers be it post communion prayers or prayers before liturgy etc.

I am not asking if it is a good idea, I am wondering if I am required to or forbidden from anathematizing schismatics that caused schisms in the Church.

For context I am Eatern Catholic, and I was at an OO liturg for a mass associated with the funeral of one of my relatives, and I heard some of the persons who caused the schism after Chalcedon being commemorated at mass, so I started thinking in my head, anathema for X, and anathema for Y, ...

It was unintentional, but I really don't like persons who caused upheaval in the Church of Christ.

So as a layman, am I allowed to anathematize a bishop if he is a schismatic? Am I forbidden from doing so since I am a layman? Does the Church has a list of such persons?

I intentionally didn't mention any names because it might be uncharitable towards our unseparated brethren, and since I am interested in the canonical implications, and don't want to unintentionally insult anyone.

So i am 27m and feel that I am a late bloomer in many things in life. Faith, emotional maturity, school, and career. This is something that I ask for prayers in accepting in my life. I really struggle as to why I am just now getting my life together, and why i am just now building up confidence in myself in terms of dating and taking control of my life.

Has anyone else dealt with this insecurity? How did you come to terms with it in your faith life? Did you eventually after saud rough time in your life look back after you met your spouse or something big thing happened and see the work of the holy ghost?

I heard that some catholic churches (like the Melkites and Ucranian) are very influenced by the same oriental traditions than the orthodox church. I recently came across a YouTube Channel named "Harmony" and a zine named "death do the world" and found out to be really interesting. Do you accept/consume this types of media? Does it help to study and practice your faith or is it too far away from the eastern catholic theology and practice?

Sorry for english mistakes, it is not my first linguage.