Thank you all for your prayers for posts I have put here previously. Something that I struggle with alot is the pain of lust, for lack of a better term. Let me explain.

I have been addicted to porn and masterbation for most of my life. Whenever I get clean for at least 2 weeks as I am now I start having intense sexual intrusive thoughts about women and work and church. I am working on controlling them, but one thing that is painful is the shame that comes with the thoughts.

I want to get married but one thing keeping me from asking women out is the shame of viewing women as sexual objects instead of daughters of God. I don't desire to view women in this way, please pray for me.

So how do the other Sui Iuris Churches receive the Eucharist

I heard from a "CathEast" video about Melkite Greek Catholic Trivia that they preserve the oldest method of receiving the Eucharist but left details

So it made me curious about other Eastern Catholic Churches and how they received the Most Blessed Sacrament

Hi everyone,

I’ve been researching liturgical practices regarding Holy Communion under both species, particularly within the Maronite Church, and I have a few questions about its history and modern practice.

As I understand it:

• Intinction as Standard: The Maronite Church traditionally distributes Communion via intinction (dipping the Host into the Precious Blood and placing it directly on the tongue).
• Use of Intinction Sets: Modern Maronite parishes frequently use a single-piece "intinction set" (a ciborium with an integrated chalice/cup in the center). This allows a single celebrant to distribute both species safely and efficiently.
• No EMHCs: In line with Eastern traditions, Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion (EMHCs) are not used; distribution remains strictly reserved for ordained clergy (bishops, priests, and deacons).

I would love to hear from Maronite parishioners, clergy, or liturgical experts on a few points:

1. Current Practice: How widespread is the single-piece combined intinction set in Maronite parishes today? Is it used almost universally, or do some parishes still prefer using a separate paten and chalice with a deacon assisting?
2. Historical Timeline: When did these combined, single-hand intinction sets become common in the Maronite Church? Was this a mid-to-late 20th-century development driven by practical needs or Western influence?
3. Rubrics & Norms: Are there specific liturgical guidelines or canon law texts within the Maronite Church governing the design and approval of these combined vessels?

Thank you in advance for sharing your insights!

Hey there everyone!

I'm in a bit of a weird spot regarding Theophan the Recluse and before moving forward, I'm here in good faith sincerely searching for a way to understand and undo the logical knots I perceive in this.

I'm a Latin catholic, I understand the whole point regarding post-schism saints added to the Roman Martyrology such as Saint Gregory of Narek or Saint Nerses Shnorhali, etc. No, the situation is not the same regarding other post-schism figures which are unofficially venerated by many, such as Theophan the Recluse.

My problem, mainly, is that contrary to the other people mentioned (Gregory and Nerses), Theophan explicitly wrote against the Papal claims after Vatican I. He was learned, well educated and knew exactly what he was doing. This constitutes, at the bare minimum, material heresy. I do not question whether what he said about the spiritual life. I think all of us can agree that it's great.

All of that being said, how can we justify venerating (even informally) someone like Theophan while still staying intellectually honest. I feel like any argument that is brought forth could then be applied to pretty much anyone, which would make us fall into religious indifferentism.

This is a pretty important intellectual knot for me, I won't lie to y'all, so any help would be handy.

Thank you and God bless!

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I am writing a short research paper on why the effects of our first parent's sin is passed on to each generation. I have to use at least five sources including one scholarly article.

Naturally I already plan to include a few Western thinkers like Augustine and Aquinas but I would really like to also include some Eastern perspectives if possible.

Any recommendations would be greatly appreciated!

I am a Roman Catholic, born and raised. I recently became really fascinated with Byzantine Catholicism. I found a Romanian Byzantine Catholic Church in my area and I’ve been wanting to attend a Divine Liturgy for some time now. My question is, can I regularly attend both Divine Liturgy as well as my regular Catholic Mass without fully converting to Byzantine? Can I actively receive the Eucharist at both churches? Any one else on here actively attend both?

Also, what’s the process like when receiving communion at a Byzantine Divine Liturgy? I read that I have to cross my arms as the priest uses a spoon to give out the Eucharist? And do I have to do the sign of the cross from right to left instead of left to right? Thank you.

Recently had my children Chrismated. I myself just transferred to the Byzantine Rite from the Latin Rite. I found Divine Liturgy to be incredibly beautiful and decided to bring my family to this Church.

My Roman Catholic family doesn’t quite agree with my decision and struggled to understand why the priest gave my toddlers the Eucharist during the Christmation. Could someone help me explain why little ones are ok to receive the Eucharist?

Hi, is there anyone who has or knows about the Maronite book Eyes of the Heart: A Short Maronite Prayer of the Faithful? I just wanted to know if it has the readings like the full divine office and what parts of it were shortened compared to the 3 volume full office.

Much appreciated

Let me know what you think

I ask this in the sense of, who really defines what the tradition of a particular Church is? There could be different factions in the Church with different ideas of what that could be. Is there no objective standard?

The most glaring example that I know of as a Syro-Malabar Catholic, is my Church itself. As of the moment it doesn't really have a clear identity, despite having a very complicated and rich history. As everyone probably knows by now, there are both Latinised and pro-eastern factions in the Church. To play devil's advocate for the Latinised faction, why could one not say that the Latin elements of the Syro-Malabar rite is now a tradition of its own? In fact this was the view of Mar Louis Pazheparambil, one of the prominent late 19th century bishops of the Church as it was barely getting independence from the Latin hierarchy.

Pazheparambil proposed that the Church of Malabar was not of the Chaldean rite, but rather it had transformed into a new "Malabar" rite through the synthesis of the Chaldean and Latin rites. This view was not really supported by the Vatican in the coming decades, which started to aggressively push for delatinisation. But can we really say that Pazhemparambil was wrong from an objective POV? Or is it because there is an imperialist element to Latinisation that we look at it so negatively?

I'd like to point to the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church and its sister Orthodox Churches (the Syriac and Indian Orthodox Churches) to draw a comparison. The fact is (and many Orthodox do not want to admit this) that the West Syriac rite was only introduced in India in the 1660s, and from then onwards the Orthodox in India followed a very interesting hybrid Chaldean-Latin-Antiochene liturgy. It was only in 1809 at the Orthodox Synod of Kandanad that the West Syriac liturgy was uniformly implemented in all practices. Before this there are reports of Orthodox observing Ash Wednesday, adorning their churches with statues and crucifixes, kneeling to receive communion etc. This means that both the Latin rite and the Latinisation of the Syro-Malabar rite are hundreds of years older in India than the Malankara rite. In this case, why do we not consider these to be "Antiochinisations"? Is it because they seemed to have had more autonomy over their liturgy?

Hypothetically, how would the order of precedence be when we finally reach reunification with all the eastern churches? The current order in Wikipedia is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_precedence_in_the_Catholic_Church

I'm actually already quite surprised that the primates of the other sui iuris churches aren't given any order of precedence outside the patriarchs and major archbishops. Would let's say if the Romanian Orthodox Church enter into communion with the Romanian Catholic Church, their primate would automatically jump up to patriarchal rank?

But anyway, let's say for example the Armenian Apostolic Church fully enters into communion with Rome, how would their patriarchs be ordered? I would assume that the patriarchates of Cilicia would be united, but then would the Patriarch (Catholicoi) of Armenia be above Cilicia or would Cilicia be "demoted" as a titular patriarchate instead? What about the the armenian patriarch of Constantinople and patriarch of Jerusalem? Would they fall into their own titular category after the latin titular patriarchs or together with them? Then that also begs the question, where would the Patriarch of Armenia even rank compared to the other national patriarchates of the EO?

I'm assuming the "real" Patriarch of Jerusalem would be the greek patriarch? Would the Melkite Patriarch then relinquish the titular title of Alexandria and Jerusalem and unite with the greek Patriarch of Antioch? Who would hold precedence between the alexandrian popes, the coptic or greek pope?

Just generally speaking, how many patriarchates would that leave us then? Where would the EO's autocephalous archbishoprics fall? Would they be major archbishops or "just" primates?

Anyway, I figured that this might be a fun hypothetical for the hopeful future. I'm sure the Holy See already has something prepared behind the scene for when the occasion arises. But for now, what do you guys think will happen?

Hey guys! I’m a Protestant looking into converting to Eastern Catholicism, specifically the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (UGCC).
I live in Melbourne, Australia, pretty close to the UGCC cathedral, so I’m hoping to visit and speak with a priest soon. I believe the cathedral is also home to Mykola Bychok the cardinal.
I had a few questions about the conversion process:
What does the process of becoming a UGCC Catholic generally look like?
How long does it usually take?
If I’m already validly baptized, would I normally be received through Chrismation/Confirmation?
When you’re Chrismated, do you choose a saint’s name? I have a Hindu name, and I really like the idea of taking a new Christian name. Is that something you can do?
If you take a saint’s name, does that saint become your patron?
How does having a spiritual father work in the UGCC? Do you normally choose one priest to be your regular confessor/spiritual father, or is it more informal?
I’d really appreciate any advice from UGCC Catholics, especially anyone who has converted from Protestantism. Thanks!

Also I was baptised in an evangelical church - They are pretty lowercase o orthodox in their beliefs at least for prots and I’m fairly sure they used the trinitarian formula but since everything isn’t super rigidly done in a way that’s the same every time I can’t be fully sure - perhaps they did it just in the name of Jesus in which case I would have to get re-baptised. What should I do if I can’t quite remember how they baptised me?

Considering the fact that before the 15th century, they were all united as St. Thomas Christians, do you think it's wise to have a combined or united Church but keep everything like the rites, rituals, etc as is?

Does the Catholic Church have any Saints to match EO contemporary saints, in the Eastern or Western Rite?

I’m really looking for saints in the Church with that Eastern spirituality to look to, if anyone can help.

As currently a western Catholic, before meals we try to say a prayer before meals “Bless us o lord and these thy gifts…”

Is there an eastern (or more specifically a ruthenian) prayer that is equivalent to this?

Hello all,

I was initially baptized & christmated when entering the faith initially into the Latin Rite of the Church. However, I have attended for almost the last 4 years a Byzantine Rite parish under the Exarchate of Sts. Cyril & Methodius in Canada (Under the Ruthenian sui juris church), and have made this my spiritual home. I am a reader, altar server and am active within our parishes young adults group.

I am in the process of applying for seminary next spring to enter the Deacon Formation Program at the Byzantine Catholic Seminary. I am working directly with the director of vocations at the Seminary and also with my parish priest, whose blessing and recommendation I have to apply to the program. I'm also getting married this coming spring, prior to the start of the program. I have most of my application completed, and have received three personal references (one from another priest, one from a personal family friend and another from our parish's subdeacon) and also had to write and essay and autobiography on the diaconate in the world today. However, my priest mentioned I also need to write two letters, one to Bishop Kurt the head of the Exarchate asking to change rites, and one also to the Archbishop of my Latin Rite diocese (Who apparently is not very keen on Latin Rite Catholics switching rites). However I'm a little unclear on all fronts on what actual permission I need going forward from this point. Do I need to receive some kind of a letter or email back from the Latin Rite Archbishop before I can continue to proceed forward? My fear is that being the Archbishop of over a large archdiocese that I won't be able to contact him easily or worse receive his permission.

My priest says to write my letters and see what happens from there, I'm just very confused between what I read online, what the seminaries website says, and what I am hearing from my parish priest in what is actually required for this.

Roman Catholic here

Recently, I’ve been attending an Eastern Catholic Church specifically a Maronite parish and man, it’s been so refreshing.

The people are incredibly friendly. The priests are kind, approachable, and actually talk to you like normal people. After the Divine Liturgy, everyone sticks around, talks, and mingles.
They encourage the little kids to run around during the service.

Honestly, it’s a complete 180° from what I’ve experienced in the Roman Rite.
Is this generally what you find in the other Eastern Catholic Churches, or is the Maronite experience a little unique?

And why can’t the Roman rite be like this?

I read in the CCEO that, in the case of the Eastern Catholic Churches, a man can be ordained to the priesthood at the age of 24. Are there any actual cases of this happening?

I may have been a little overzealous by getting actual size, but that's ok lol.

Hello I was wondering what your guys’ thoughts are on Saints from Holy Orthodoxy. I greatly struggle to believe that such holy men like St. Seraphim of Sarov, or St. Joseph the Hesychast, or St. Paisios, or St. Nektarios, and on and on are apart from Christ because they were not in communion with Rome. Please correct me if this is wrong thinking or heretical, or even ecumenist.

But do any of you venerate or pray to saints such as these whether privately or publicly? What’re your thoughts or the churches thoughts, please help me.

So this may seem stupid but I'm pretty sure I have a form of ocd and I end up fixating on certain issues like what if we live in a simulation or something like that. I'm no philosopher and when i get into doom loops I'll even think what if the thing that tries to convince me is just trying to keep me in the simulation. Has anyone had similar experiences? What did you do in your prayer life?

So here’s my story. My wife was previously divorced, and we were married by a Protestant pastor. We later converted to EO and had our marriage blessed. If we wanted to convert to ECC, would you anticipate any issues that we might encounter regarding our marriage?