Advice: Can't decide between Catholic or Orthodox

[ReaderT]

I have never heard of nor seen “rock band” Masses.

Here is one example celebrated by a Cardinal. (Forgive me, I’m not trying to be provocative, just providing clarification)

 

[twf]

Liturgy and fasting norms have evolved in the East as well. But I do acknowledge and admire the beauty of both your liturgical and fasting practices.
“Rock band” Masses are not part of my Catholic experience, and I’ve never encountered “liturgical dancing” outside of the Internet.
That said, Orthodoxy is arguably more “lax”, and less faithful to the early Fathers, in other areas such as contraception or the idea of second and third marriages.

 

[Michael16]

I like the idea of you going Byzantine Catholic. You get the Eastern spirituality and Tradition; and you get to be in the Church. Beautiful solution!

 

[twf]

Could you cite this Vatican approval of liturgical dance? …I’m assuming its in reference to the African variety which is more akin to the traditional liturgical dance of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. Cardinal Arinze, when perfect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, said that liturgical dance has no place in a Western (European / North American) cultural context.

 

[Michael16]

Hey, ReaderT: Can you explain to me why the Eastern Churches split with us?

I always understood the problem was based on these issues:

A: Primacy vs Supremacy of Saint Peter.

B: The Filioque Clause.

C: Palamism and the Hesychasm argument.

 

[ziapueblo]

The Second Vatican Council asks us to return to our ecclesiastical heritage which belongs to the entire Church.

The filioque is part of the Latin theological tradition and as Eastern Catholics we accept this as part of the Western tradition. Interesting enough, when in dialogue with the Orthodox, the Roman Catholic Church has never asked them to embrace the filioque.

We can be in communion while still having a different expression of the faith.

Depends on what lists you are looking at:

http://cdn.theologicalstudies.net/71/71.3/10.1177.004056391007100307.pdf

Recent Popes have stated that Roman councils since Nicaea II are “general Western councils.” My liturgical tradition only celebrates 7.

ZP

 

[catholic03]

My understanding was that they were not allowed to deny the filioque but at the same time do not need to affirm it. They are neutral.

They also do not believe in purgatory as we do because they do not see the need for indepth theological understandings while we Latin Catholics do. They believe in a place for purification of sin and that prayers can help but they do not define anything further.

Can an Eastern Catholic correct me if I am wrong?

 

[ziapueblo]

My understanding was that they were not allowed to deny the filioque but at the same time do not need to affirm it.

We do “affirm” the filioque in the sense that it is a legitimate understanding of the Trinity, particular to the Latin tradition.

They also do not believe in purgatory as we do because they do not see the need for indepth theological understandings while we Latin Catholics do. They believe in a place for purification of sin and that prayers can help but they do not define anything further.

For the most part this is spot on. Both East and West believe in purification of the soul after death. We Easterners keep it at that.

ZP

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Why on earth did the pope see it necessary to force Greek speaking churches to stop using leavened bread?

That was not the issue at all- it was mostly issue of Western Monarchs forcing unleavened bread on Eastern Catholics (pre-schism)… as far as we’re talking “before the schism”. Not denouncing someone who stepped on Latin Eucharist because “it is made of unleavened bread” happened in the East though. There were certainly problems on each side, but what you have mentioned is not exactly true neither is it biggest issue. West did not really propagate the Schism, after all West had two councils trying to mend the Schism. Orthodoxy, however, found it’s identity in resistance of Papacy.

You wouldn’t be excommunicated, but at the same time, the Roman church has declared liturgical dance valid, so you wouldn’t be able to say “we can’t do that” (in the same way that you can’t say “Ordinary-Form is not an option”)

Catholics are allowed to hold stance “Personally, I find liturgical dance distracting and it does take away my attention from God during liturgy, but other people have their own conscience to attend such services or to not do so. Personally, I prefer Extraordinary Form of the Mass and I can not focus during Novus Ordo service, but other people have their own conscience to attend Novus Ordo or not”. It’s pretty simple though. Even SSPX hold that Novus Ordo CAN be licitly celebrated if done correctly. After all, original form of Novus Ordo is Ad Orientem, using Incense and Latin.

Eastern Catholics are not bound to explicitly state Filioque in the Creed, their theology does not contradict it but if spoken in Greek, Filioque tends to be heretical even to Latin theology. Keep in mind that Filioque was in some way propagated in the East too, although in different wording which is still compatible with dogmas of the Church. Check John XI of Constantinople’s explanation of Filioque. All Eastern Catholics are required to believe about Purgatory is dogmatic- and hence, that purification of souls occurs prior to them becoming Saints in the Heaven, and it is good practice to pray for the dead.

Palamism and the Hesychasm argument.

That came long after the schism.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

I was once in same situation as you, OP. Thing is, as many have stated, over the centuries Church had very trying times but yet She overcame them all in unity. Perhaps you could say we are in trying times too, and this battle of “traditional vs liberal vs conservative” is one of “hard times” Church is going through. Leaving Church during inconvenience would make inconvenience only bigger- because if everyone who disagreed with something they perceived as evil left, Devil would have won. We were promised that would not happen, though.

If you do believe Latin theology to be correct, if you do believe Papacy as institution was established by Christ and Catholic Church is true Church of Christ, please, do not leave it. Work to solidify it when cold winds blow and do everything in your power to help the Church. From everything you’ve said I get impression that you agree with Catholic Church dogmatically and doctrinally, but you do not like how Church handled questions of discipline (such as liturgical dances, etc). On Eastern Orthodoxy, you seem to like how they handled discipline, but you do not necessarily agree with their ecclesiology nor do you hold to them declaring Latin Church as heretical. Go for what you believe to be truth, not what you believe to be easy. When our Lord was here on the Earth, would if not be practically easier to stay Jew than to follow Him? Or to stay pagan than to follow Him? Yet, those who chose to follow Him were ones who chose right.

If you do not believe what Catholic Church dogmatically teaches and you believe what Orthodox Church dogmatically teaches, be Orthodox. If you believe what Catholic Church dogmatically teaches, be Catholic. That’s my advice. I nearly became Orthodox as opposition to modernism, but true opposition to modernism must come from inside the Church, not outside. I would not be able to hold Catholic Church as heretical, Filioque as heretical, Purgatory as heretical or Pope as first among equals, so I remained Catholic. May God help you with your discernment, may He guide us all to Truth- where we all ought to be.

also, as many have stated, you could become Eastern Catholic. Even if you are Orthodox and you accept Catholic teachings as true in your heart, it might make you able to commune in Catholic Church and be Catholic while not leaving your Orthodox community- it could invalidate you in eyes of Orthodox Church, though- I am not sure about that, I guess that depends on particular Church you are in.

 

[ReaderT]

Hey, ReaderT: Can you explain to me why the Eastern Churches split with us?

I always understood the problem was based on these issues:

A: Primacy vs Supremacy of Saint Peter.

B: The Filioque Clause.

Thanks for the question @Michael16 ; these 2 would be the main causes, in my opinion.

 

[ReaderT]

fasting norms have evolved in the East as well.

To my knowledge they have not. The Didache (written 100 A.D.) prescribed fasting on Wednesday and Friday, and we still do that today. It’s frustrating not being able to have a hamburger or pizza on Wednesday, but if it was good enough for the Early Christians, it’s good enough for all Christians:

“Let not your fasts be with the hypocrites, for they fast on Mondays and Thursdays, but do you fast on Wednesdays and Fridays” (Didache 8.1)

“Rock band” Masses are not part of my Catholic experience

I’m surprised by this because I’ve experienced them, and I’m not even Catholic. “Teen-Life” Mass always had a rock band at my hometown’s Catholic parish.

Could you cite this Vatican approval of liturgical dance? …I’m assuming its in reference to the African variety which is more akin to the traditional liturgical dance of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.

If I’m wrong on this point, I’ll withdraw it, but there is definitely place to make an argument in “Dance in the Liturgy” from the Vatican Congregation for Sacraments and Divine Worship:

"The dance can be an art: a synthesis of the measured arts (music and poetry) and the spatial arts (architecture, sculpture, painting).

As an art which, by means of the body, expresses human feelings, the dance is especially adapted to signify joy.

Thus, among the mystics, we find intervals of dancing as an expression of the fullness of their love of God. Recall the cases of St. Theresa of Avila, St. Philip Neri, St. Gerard Majella.

When the Angelic Doctor wished to represent paradise, he represented it as a dance executed by angels and saints.

The dance can turn into prayer which expresses itself with a movement which engages the whole being, soul and body. Generally, when the spirit raises itself to God in prayer, it also involves the body."

 

[twf]

I meant the particulars of what is or isn’t a fast food, or how much intake one moderates has evolved… and always varied among rites. The practice of fasting in some form on Wednesday and Friday is definitely ancient, likely Apostolic. Some Latin Catholics do observe it. Ember days and Ash Wednesday are remnants of that practice.

I don’t deny that “rock band” Masses exist, they’re just not something I regularly encounter…and I’m sure they are a passing phase in Church history. Younger priests seem to be more traditional by and large. Regardless, despite your earlier example of a cardinal celebrating what you labelled a “rock band” Mass, I for the life of me can’t reconcile the concept with the Church’s formal teachings on sacred music in the liturgy. You sure won’t find someone like Archbishop Sample, who is known for his attention to sacred music, celebrating such a Mass.

I’ve never seen liturgical dance in real life. I accept the concept, in the context of say the Ethiopian Orthodox / Catholic tradition, but I don’t think Western European women dancing around the altar in leotards is in keeping with the spirit of the law.

 

[ReaderT]

I meant the particulars of what is or isn’t a fast food, or how much intake one moderates has evolved… and always varied among rites. The practice of fasting in some form on Wednesday and Friday is definitely ancient, likely Apostolic. Some Latin Catholics do observe it. Ember days and Ash Wednesday are remnants of that practice.

I haven’t heard how much we eat on fast days evolving, but you’re right that different traditions developed due to circumstance. Greece has 6,000 islands; if you tell them not to eat fish it’d be very difficult. Most Russians are landlocked, so they don’t eat fish.

 

[ziapueblo]

I guess we’re just Roman Catholics with a “funny Mass”? Saint Gregory Palamas on our liturgical calendar so we can look Eastern? What do you suppose ecclesiastical tradition is?

There are two levels of theology–the theologia prima (first level theology) and theologia secunda (second level theology); in Greek, the two are called, more significantly, “theologia” and “theoria”. The former is the essential, dogmatic level of theology as contained in the Church’s rule of prayer, which is to say, in the liturgy of the Church, for “lex orandi lex credendi”, the rule of prayer is the rule of belief. Our Liturgy is fully Eastern.

Theologia secunda, on the other hand, is the result of contemplation and reflection upon the theologia prima, and its elaboration into doctrine. Doctrine, however, is culturally, historically, and linguistically conditioned–the experience of each particular Church shapes how it understands the theologia prima. So, as Pope John Paul II noted, doctrine is variable, but the underlying dogmatic faith is transcendent; we simply have to be careful not to conflate the two.

Unfortunately, for a number of centuries, the Church of Rome thought of itself in exclusionary terms as the ONLY true Church; therefore, the doctrinal pronouncements of the Church of Rome were often labeled as “dogmatic”, when, in fact, they were particular ONLY to the Church of Rome. Therefore, not everything Roman Catholics consider “dogmatic” really is. It is now understood that, as long as there is agreement on the level of the theologia prima, variety in the theologia secunda is both acceptable and desirable, for a Church that is uniformly Roman (or for that matter, uniformly Byzantine) can make no pretension to ecumenicity or catholicity.

ZP

 

[ziapueblo]

Notice I said “Church of Rome.” As you pointed out, the Church is both Latin and Eastern.

So Rome came dogmatize for the East?

Your first error is thinking that the Eastern Churches “split”. Not even the Catholic Church teaches this. As Unitatis redintegratio (the Vatican II Decree on Ecumenism) notes, the estrangement was mutual, and there was plenty of blame to go around. Moreover, the same decree, together with numerous other documents since then, notes that the Orthodox Churches are true Churches in every respect of the term, which means that the division is within, not from, the Body of Christ

Again, is the Church of Rome to tell the East how to theologize?

Both East (Catholic and Orthodox) and West believes that the departed require purification of the soul before entering the presence of God, and that prayers for the departed are efficacious to that end.

The Latin Church (for its own cultural and pastoral reasons) chose to elaborate beyond this in the doctrine of purgatory, which describes this purgation as taking place in a distinct “place”, and of being physically painful. It also got wrapped up with the supporting doctrines of temporal punishment and the “treasury of grace”.

The East, on the other hand, stuck with the theologia prima, choosing not to speak authoritatively of that which has not been revealed to us, though it allows speculation as a theologumenon. Hence, the popularity of the Toll House theory.

I’ll leave you with this quote, “We are an Orthodox Church, with Orthodox theology, Liturgy, spirituality and canonical tradition that chooses to manifest this Orthodoxy in the spirit of the first Christian millennium, in communion with Rome.” (Current Patriarch Sviatoslav Shevchuk of the UGCC)

ZP

 

[ziapueblo]

Try Unitatis Redintegratio and Ut Unum Sint, as well as the Balamand Statement and Ravenna Document. Also read Orientalium Ecclesiarum and Orientale Lumen when it come to us Eastern Catholics.

As an Eastern Catholic, I have to accept “defeat” here. I can say all I want, that I accept VI on the grounds in which Patriarch Gregory signed the document adding the clause used at the Council of Florence, “except the rights and privileges of Eastern Patriarchs.” I can say that I accept the Zoghby Initiative, that I am 1) Orthodox in every way and 2) in communion with Rome as it was in the first millennium, but when it comes down to it, if your Catholic you have to accept it as valid Latin theology and figure out how to theologize it in our Eastern Tradition.

Honestly, this is why I feel very comfortable in the OCA parish and GOA parish that I often attend Divine Liturgy. I’m around Eastern Christians where I can be an Eastern Christian through and through. I don’t have to constantly “defend” Eastern theology or spirituality to “fellow” Roman Catholics all the time, and some of these are Roman Catholics in my own Byzantine parish. Yet, I still remain in communion with Rome. Why? Catholic guilt, Papal Primacy (not supreme jurisdiction), I grew up RC and probably many other reasons? Archbishop Nicholas Samera has said that every good Byzantine will wrestle with this and often consider a change in “upper management” (that’s my term and I think I should get it trade marked ).

ZP

 

[catholic03]

We do “affirm” the filioque in the sense that it is a legitimate understanding of the Trinity, particular to the Latin tradition.

Correct me if I am mistaken: You do not see the need to define the filioque as you do not see it as necessary to devise the particular doctrine.

But you accept it as a doctrine particular to Latin tradition.

Am I correct here?

 

[bassmansteiny]

became Orthodox because of the unwavering commitment to the faith of the Early Christians, whether in liturgy, fasting, “holding the line” against modernism, etc. The recent changes in the Roman Church (allowing liturgical dance, worship bands, “rock music” masses) did not bring me to Heaven. The extremely floral, poetic, beautiful Orthodox services did. The Roman fasting schedule did not challenge me, but the Orthodox one did. Whatever else we may discuss, it’s undeniable that the Orthodox have kept the ancient rules of the Fathers.

I’ve heard about the music and dance before on this forum, however I’ve never seen it. I am no doubting you, just that I have my home Catholic Church (CC)and I do visit a lot of other CC’s and I’ve yet to see any of this. The fasting thing I understand, that did change in the CC as to the amount of time and frequency. However it is not like one can’t fast more often, I know several Catholics that do follow the older way of fasting.

 

[bassmansteiny]

As for the Latin Church: I see in her the fullness of the Faith, has faithfully preserved, passed down and taught the Faith all through 2,000 years and has remained the one, Holy, catholic and Apostolic Church and is entirely Scriptural.

We have had our problems over the two millennia; but: We remain the one and whole Church.

I understand the problems we face in the Church today and sometimes it seems she slides towards accommodations with Protestantism and liberalism. But: She is still the Church Jesus founded with Saint Peter as the Rock.

Please, come home to us.

I totally agree, the thing also is, for all the more liberal Catholic Churches and Priest out there there are just as many more conservative ones in my experience. Also being that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and Jesus promises to be with us to the end of time and the gates of hell will not prevail, I believe the Church will come back to it’s more traditional roots.