Advice: Can't decide between Catholic or Orthodox

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Maronites say hi! There was ALWAYS Eastern Catholic Church in unity with Catholic Church and fact Maronites accepted those Ecumenical Council speaks for itself. While General Synods of the West is name given to Ecumenical Councils, that was also name given to Eastern Ecumenical Councils- term General Council meant “Ecumenical” Council in medieval Latin. That is why in many history books Luther was calling for General Council- he simply meant Ecumenical. Not to say that word “general” means “applying to all”. Truth stay truth, and truth is same whether you are in East or West.

I believe in many clauses of union between Eastern Catholics and Holy See, Eastern Churches say they leave everything to judgment of Apostolic See- which has judged latin doctrine to be true. Nevertheless, what is required as belief even of Latin Catholics is fact there is final purification of souls and it is good practice to pray for those souls. Nature of Purgatorial fires is believed according to model of Mark of Ephesus even by Latins, as Mark of Ephesus won purgatorial fire debate during Council of Florence. I have no idea why would Eastern Catholics have problem with this dogma, considering it is of Eastern origin.

I guess we’re just Roman Catholics with a “funny Mass”?

That is highly disrespectful of Divine Liturgy. I suggest you do not use this term. Divine Liturgy in itself is very noble, ancient and reverent. While calling it “Mass” might be done out of habit, calling it “funny” might be perceived as wrong.

So Rome came dogmatize for the East?

Same way Nicea could dogmatize entire world. Truth is truth- does not matter who proclaims truth. Why are you so fixated on diminishing role of East in the West and role of West in the East? Both are part of One True Church which is there to guide itself to truth through whatever means necessary- be it Papal Infallibility, Ecumenical Council or any other form of revelation.

Your first error is thinking that the Eastern Churches “split”.

They were not in full communion with Church of Christ though. If any Eastern Bishop regarded Filioque as heresy, Pope as anything less than primate of the Church, thomism or augustinian theology as heretical, such bishop severed himself from the Church same way sedevacantists do. Schism is defined as “refusal of submission to Roman Pontiff” which surely did happen in the East. Don’t get me wrong, East still retained valid sacraments and true faith, but there was a real separation in most cases (save for those with dual communion, or those who never rejected Latins).

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Also, while I am deeply sorry for the fact you have to defend your catholicity often, it is also because of statements such as not needing to accept Catholic dogmas. Eastern Catholics in my country tend to be questioned only by those who never heard about them, and even then it’s mostly “wait are you in union with Pope?” “Yes” “so you believe everything we do?” “Yeah, though we do express it differently”.

I understand that while Zoghby initiative seems very appealing, in the end it was rejected not only by Vatican, by Pope Benedict, but also by Eastern Orthodoxy. It is mostly due to the fact “in communion with Rome as it was in the first millennium” is pretty ambiguous. George the Hagiorite, Maximus the Confessor and many Eastern Christians believed in inerrancy of Roman Church despite being fully Eastern in the first millennium. Catholic Church tends to agree with them, while Orthodox Church tends to single them out as few individuals in error. Pope Gregory the Great also fought for privileges of Eastern Patriarchs during his papacy, and he would probably agree with clause added from Florence to Vatican I, but he would never relinquish his authority to make “eastern synods null and void” as Peter of the Church. What your approach to Supreme Jurisdiction makes is that I have to believe Pope has full power over all baptized while you believe Pope does not, and simply one of us has to be in error. We are not professing one thing in different manners, those beliefs are simply contradictory. Pre-Schism ecclesiology also held that Archbishop has real power over his bishops outside synods, and Patriarchs have power over clergy in their Patriarchate outside synods. Current Eastern system is much more about equality of bishops which is not the 1st millennium model- not a problem really, but not something compatible with Zoghby initiative in itself either.

Also, most Eastern Catholics in my country tend to be staunch defenders of Papal Supreme Jurisdiction, Infallibility and they don’t really have any problems with considering change in upper management… because they believe in Pope being Peter of the Church. Perhaps if we stopped trying to exalt ourselves by diminishing role of Papacy, these problems would cease. You might add that it’s easy to say when I’m Latin Catholic- but I could say it’s easy for Italians to say when Pope is their primate and my Bishops are not part of Italian Synod. I do love Eastern theology as much as I love Latin theology, and I hold some Eastern beliefs with some Western in the mix (though I try to differentiate, to not be in state of “spiritual schizophrenia” as you put it). But even Eastern theology makes it’s complete sense in unity with institution of Papacy and Petrine Ministry.

 

[Vico]

I was born/baptised Catholic

There is an obligation to remain in communion with the Catholic Church for those that are baptized into it.

ACTUS FORMALIS DEFECTIONIS AB ECCLESIA CATHOLICA​

2. The substance of the act of the will must be the rupture of those bonds of communion – faith, sacraments, and pastoral governance – that permit the Faithful to receive the life of grace within the Church. This means that the formal act of defection must have more than a juridical-administrative character (the removal of one’s name from a Church membership registry maintained by the government in order to produce certain civil consequences), but be configured as a true separation from the constitutive elements of the life of the Church: it supposes, therefore, an act of apostasy, heresy or schism.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p..._intrptxt_doc_20060313_actus-formalis_en.html

 

[ziapueblo]

That is highly disrespectful of Divine Liturgy.

I’m Byzantine Catholic and this how some see the Eastern Catholic Churches. A nice, aesthetically pleasing Liturgy with all the incense and chanting that Roman Catholics love yet when it comes down to it we are expected to leave all our other Eastern traditions behind.

Same way Nicea could dogmatize entire world.

Last I saw, Rome had Papal legates at the council.

Why are you so fixated on diminishing role of East in the West and role of West in the East?

What I’m fixated on is that some RCs do not wish us to recognize the “History, tradition and abundant ecclesiastical institutions bear outstanding witness to the great merit owing to the Eastern Churches by the universal Church.” ( ORIENTALIUM ECCLESIARUM)

Both are part of One True Church . . .

Sure doesn’t seem that way to many of us Byzantines.

thomism or augustinian theology as heretical

Yet it’s ok for RCs to outraged that Saint Palamas is celebrated in our liturgical calendar and his icon is hanging in our prayer corners.

ZP

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Yet it’s ok for RCs to outraged that Saint Palamas is celebrated in our liturgical calendar and his icon is hanging in our prayer corners.

nobody says it is- I understand when some people question if Saint Palamas is authentic part of Byzantine tradition or if he does not contradict Catholic faith, but curiosity does not mean outright rejection. Outright rejection is not fine, if that’s what you meant.

What I’m fixated on is that some RCs do not wish us to recognize the “History, tradition and abundant ecclesiastical institutions bear outstanding witness to the great merit owing to the Eastern Churches by the universal Church.” ( ORIENTALIUM ECCLESIARUM )

This is problem of two extremes- neither being healthy. Neither someone not wishing to recognize that is healthy, neither someone wishing not to recognize being part of Catholic Church doesn’t end in name only, and that truth is universally always truth- even if expressed differently.

Last I saw, Rome had Papal legates at the council.

Would you then say Maronites can ignore Third Council of Constantinople and be monothelites, because their Church was not present at that council? I mean, after all truth does not bother them if there were no legates nor Bishops present of their Church… right?

Sure doesn’t seem that way to many of us Byzantines.

While sad, what seems or does not seem can be distracting- what is true is true, no matter if something seems or does not seem to be true. You know Melkite Church is part of One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, and that is a fact. Because Eastern Catholics are a minority, some people tend to have misconceptions. Those get fueled by remarks about not having to accept General Synods. It really sounds like if I had some problem with any of post-schism Ecumenical Councils (and before V1 I guess), I could just transfer rites and ignore it completely- and that is of course not the point of Eastern Churches. Eastern Churches are accurate witnesses to truth from their perspective. Infallibility of the Church extends both to East and West as far as Catholic Church goes and hence they can not contradict each other not even in theologia secunda.

 

[ziapueblo]

nobody says it is- I understand when some people question if Saint Palamas is authentic part of Byzantine tradition or if he does not contradict Catholic faith, but curiosity does not mean outright rejection. Outright rejection is not fine, if that’s what you meant.

Look at past threads. It seems to me outright rejection. I understand that it goes both ways, some Orthodox rejecting Aquinas and scholasticism.

and that truth is universally always truth- even if expressed differently.

I don’t deny this at all but it seems as if some RCs deny the Eastern expression of the faith. It’s as if the Latin Tradition is the end all be all.

ZP

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

I don’t deny this at all but it seems as if some RCs deny the Eastern expression of the faith. It’s as if the Latin Tradition is the end all be all.

That should not be the case. East should not deny West and West should not deny the East. Which is why we consider each other’s councils as binding in dogma and theologia prima should reflect that.

 

[ziapueblo]

That should not be the case. East should not deny West and West should not deny the East.

Eastern Catholics “accept” Latin traditions as part of the Latin tradition. I unfortunately don’t see the reverse happening. For example the filioque. Eastern Catholics accept it as the Latin understanding of the Trinity. Not as heretical. However, as I just mentioned, the reverse is not the case. I don’t see any RCs saying, “Eastern Catholics have a different understanding of the Trinity and that’s ok. This is why they don’t say it in their Creed.” I see the opposite. That we are “allowed” to say the Creed as we have traditionally used it but we have to believe in the Latin theology about the filioque.

ZP

 

[twf]

You only see that attitude from fringe traditionalist on the inter-webs… you know that’s not the official position of Rome. When the Pope recites the Creed in Greek, the filioque is not included.

…and really, the Latins you’re complaining about are just as critical, if not more so, of the majority of post-Vatican II Latins…

 

[ziapueblo]

You only see that attitude from fringe traditionalist on the inter-webs… you know that’s not the official position of Rome.

This is true :+1:t3:

…and really, the Latins you’re complaining about are just as critical, if not more so, of the majority of post-Vatican II Latins…

And I realize that it goes the same way for zealous Orthodox on the internet as well.

ZP

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Eastern Catholics “accept” Latin traditions as part of the Latin tradition. I unfortunately don’t see the reverse happening. For example the filioque . Eastern Catholics accept it as the Latin understanding of the Trinity. Not as heretical. However, as I just mentioned, the reverse is not the case. I don’t see any RCs saying, “Eastern Catholics have a different understanding of the Trinity and that’s ok. This is why they don’t say it in their Creed.” I see the opposite. That we are “allowed” to say the Creed as we have traditionally used it but we have to believe in the Latin theology about the filioque .

I don’t really see that much difference in two sentences you linked as opposite. Spiration itself is a doctrine of Latin Church and hence is true. Not believing in spiration in itself has serious theological implications. Many Greek / Alexandrian fathers believed in sort of Filioque (while phrasing it very differently and without altering Creed)- John Beccus XI of Constantinople being prime post-schism example of Eastern Father who believed Filioque to be correct understanding of Trinity even in Eastern manner (while again, not phrasing it that way). Historically, most problems with Filioque in the East were because of it’s inclusion in the Creed without consent of other Patriarchs. While many approaches differ in East and West, and emphasis on different aspects of Holy Trinity differs too, I don’t quite think we have different understanding of Trinity on each side. Eastern Catholics are allowed to say Creed as they have traditionally used to (and on top of that, each sui iuris Church can actually adopt Filioque if it judges it to be right approach and correct translation with no confusion for the faithful, as well as important to it’s particular tradition). Eastern Catholics are not required to believe in the Latin theology of Filioque- but about Eastern Catholic theology of Filioque… which are both very similar concepts anyway.

 

[bassmansteiny]

You are right. I am going to think on it more. I know I definitely left the Catholic church for a reason, and I came to Orthodoxy because the traditions of the early church were being better preserved. All the creeping modernism and liberalism, I was so fed up with seeing it in parish after parish, and I had met quite a few priests who seemed to have a hatred of young traditionalists, these older fellas who were ordained at a time when the “on eagles wings” and guitars in the mass were at its peak. Like i said, if i went back, i would go with a very traditional parish. Its not like the church hasnt had bad popes in its history. But still. I don’t know, I need to really get this together within myself. I just wish it weren’t so bloody complicated.

You know though, some food for thought, there has been a lot of movement by the younger members of the Catholic Church for a return to the old Mass. That’s why you are seeing more and more of the traditional latin liturgy popping up. Also there seems to be an increase, from what I’ve read and seen on EWTN, for example, of young priests coming whom are embracing the old latin mass. You could be on the ground floor of this traditional mass making a come back in the Catholic Church.

 

[ziapueblo]

For most Orthodox and Catholic theologies who are in dialogue between the two Churches, the filioque is pretty much a non-issue.

ZP

 

[twf]

Its not just the EF Mass. Plenty of OF (Novus Ordo) Masses have lots of chant, incense…and yes, even Latin. Certainly in my neck of the woods.

 

[bassmansteiny]

I have never seen a “Rock Band Mass” either. I suppose the closest I’ve seen is maybe an upright/double bass and acoustic guitar at one Catholic Church. Pretty much all the others have been primarily organ and piano with some string and brass instruments on rare occasions. However I would say 98%of the time any Catholic Church I’ve attended, and I’ve been to a lot all over, has been organ and/or piano.

 

[bassmansteiny]

I really want to attend one of these extraordinary form Masses. I think they have one in the Kalamazoo Diocese. I have a great love for our faith but especially for our history. From the Latin Mass I’ve seen on TV it seems so rich and beautiful, even though I don’t yet speak Latin.

 

[AlNg]

“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)

I don’t think that either Moscow or Constantinople accept his Church as a canonical Orthodox Church.

 

[ziapueblo]

Orthodox in our liturgical practice, theology and spirituality.

ZP

 

[AlNg]

Orthodox in our liturgical practice, theology and spirituality.

I don’t think that the local Ruthenian Eastern Catholic church has the same liturgical practice, theology and spirituality as the local Greek Orthodox church.

1. They say the rosary before the Divine Liturgy.
2. The fasting rules are very much relaxed from those of the Greek Orthodox.
3. They have an icon of Our Lady of Guadalupe in the Church.
4. They honor the Roman Catholic Pope at each Divine Liturgy.
5. Generally speaking, my understanding is that the Eastern Catholic Churches must agree to the validity of the filioque even though it is not said during the recitation of the creed. The Eastern Orthodox do not agree with the Roman interpretation of the filioque. At least that is what they say.

 

[twf]

I don’t think that the local Ruthenian Eastern Catholic church has the same liturgical practice, theology and spirituality as the local Greek Orthodox church.

1. They say the rosary before the Divine Liturgy.
2. The fasting rules are very much relaxed from those of the Greek Orthodox.
3. They have an icon of Our Lady of Guadalupe in the Church.
4. They honor the Roman Catholic Pope at each Divine Liturgy.
5. Generally speaking, my understanding is that the Eastern Catholic Churches must agree to the validity of the filioque even though it is not said during the recitation of the creed. The Eastern Orthodox do not agree with the Roman interpretation of the filioque. At least that is what they say.

Regarding #1, some Orthodox Christians have been known to pray the Rosary. Just as some Latin Catholics have been known to pray the Jesus Prayer.
Regarding #2…Orthodox fast requirements do vary somewhat between jurisdictions, and individuals are often given differing expectations from their spiritual Father.
Regarding #3…I’ve heard that Orthodox Christians in Mexico honour Our Lady of Guadalupe. My mother also happens to have a VERY Western looking icon of Our Lady that was recovered from a Ukrainian Orthodox Church that burned down.
Regarding #4…this is obviously a difference, as the Ruthenians are highlighting that they are in communion with Rome.
Regarding #5…really depends who you ask. My Orthodox cousin, who is currently discerning a monastic vocation, has no issue with the Filioque (properly understood).