Catholic and Orthodox: Best of both worlds

[Mickey]

Anecdotal evidence can be useful in certain situations, but not when it comes to general statistics.

Oh I am sure you can get the stats from the different dioceses if you wish. But for now, I offer my own experience and observations.

 

[ConstantineTG]

But has the individual in question provided any doctrinal reason for his ‘flirting’ with Orthodoxy? If not, if the attraction is spiritual/liturgical/theological/ethos/whatever, it does seem more responsible to consider Eastern Catholicism.

I would say the same to someone considering Catholicism who wasn’t convinced of the doctrinal claims of the Church. Best to proceed with caution.

Let us be fair to the Eastern Catholics, they are NOT:

1. A refugee camp for Roman Catholics disaffected with the Pauline Missal
2. An intermediate choice for Roman Catholics drawn to Orthodoxy but wants to remain in communion with Rome

Anyone who is in an Eastern Catholic Church for those two reasons would not stay there for long. If one cannot take the ECCs for who they are, for what they are, then they should not go there.

 

[ConstantineTG]

As CharlesdeFoucld said, those ‘flirting’ seem to be doing so not because of the doctrinal differences between the two Churches, as in the nature of the Petrine ministry, but because they are interested in Byzantine liturgy and spirituality. With that, they can find that ecclesial tradition without abandoning the Catholic Church by investigating the Eastern rites. And is it really an injustice to present another option for consideration?

I would also add, that those who are ‘flirting’ with the Byzantine tradition should be cautioned to have patience, for the sole reason that it can easily be the case that one really doesn’t identify with the Byzantine tradition, but is rather infatuated with the novelty of it all. There is a prudential reason that a minimum of a year fully immersed in the life of a rite is generally required before a formal change of rite is granted in the Catholic Church.

But when you pursue the authentic expression of Eastern Spirituality, then you will realize that there are doctrinal differences. I did not become Orthodox because I saw the discrepancies in Sacramental Theology and Soteriology. But as I sought the Eastern practice and Eastern way of life, the more I grew in it, I realized that the beliefs, the theology, the traditions, are not compatible with the West. There is a great deal of conflict. For example, the fact that we do not agree on the Augustinian/Thomistic view on Original Sin and Salvation/Soteriology, how can we actually be the same faith as the West? This is why I say the ECs are not Orthodox, they have to find the middle ground between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, and they can’t sit on the fence on this one. Being in communion with Rome means they are on the Roman side of the fence, even though they are close to Orthodoxy. But bottom line is, they are not Orthodox anymore.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I said the same basic history…as in unified until 1054, and usually some time afterwards, and after reunion, there is a common shared relational history.

You certainly view the Eastern Catholic Churches as abandoning their origins when they reentered communion with Rome. I can understand that as if you didn’t believe the Orthodox Church was the true Church then you wouldn’t be Orthodox. You must understand, conversely, that we feel the same about our Church, that it is the Catholic Church that is the true Church, that the Orthodox sadly schismed from the true Church and that is the Eastern Catholics who have come home to their mother.

But we also have the same common history between East and Rome. Yet at some point we split and then headed our separate ways. So the same thing applies to the ECs. They started changing the second they split from their mother Orthodox Church. So today, they are not the same as the Orthodox. There mere fact that they have taken a path not taken by the rest of the Orthodox Churches means they are already on different paths of history. All the commonality of the years before that is now gone as they have diverged at some point. That is where we are today, two Churches with a lot in common, a lot of similarity, but essentially they are different and are not “the same in every way save for communion with Rome.”

 

[JMJ_coder]

Let us be fair to the Eastern Catholics, they are NOT:

1. A refugee camp for Roman Catholics disaffected with the Pauline Missal
2. An intermediate choice for Roman Catholics drawn to Orthodoxy but wants to remain in communion with Rome

Anyone who is in an Eastern Catholic Church for those two reasons would not stay there for long. If one cannot take the ECCs for who they are, for what they are, then they should not go there.

I would agree with this almost entirely. The only point of disagreement would be on your number 2. We may indeed have the same view on it, but I’m not certain…I would need a little more clarification on what you mean particularly on the reasoning for wanting to stay in communion with Rome (e.g., is it for sentimental or cultural reasons, or for sound doctrinal reasons).

 

[Mickey]

This is why I say the ECs are not Orthodox, they have to find the middle ground between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, and they can’t sit on the fence on this one. Being in communion with Rome means they are on the Roman side of the fence, even though they are close to Orthodoxy. But bottom line is, they are not Orthodox anymore.

Exactly. I observed that the EC’s had to speak very carefully. Much of the time they fluffed off the differences to semantics. It was very obvious that the EC’s agreed with most things Orthodox, but had to submit to all things Rome. It caused an identity crisis. It affected me deeply. Often the term “Orthodox in communion with Rome” is used. But this is not accurate.

 

[JMJ_coder]

But when you pursue the authentic expression of Eastern Spirituality, then you will realize that there are doctrinal differences. I did not become Orthodox because I saw the discrepancies in Sacramental Theology and Soteriology. But as I sought the Eastern practice and Eastern way of life, the more I grew in it, I realized that the beliefs, the theology, the traditions, are not compatible with the West. There is a great deal of conflict. For example, the fact that we do not agree on the Augustinian/Thomistic view on Original Sin and Salvation/Soteriology, how can we actually be the same faith as the West? This is why I say the ECs are not Orthodox, they have to find the middle ground between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, and they can’t sit on the fence on this one. Being in communion with Rome means they are on the Roman side of the fence, even though they are close to Orthodoxy. But bottom line is, they are not Orthodox anymore.

I think there is a major difference between your Orthodox view and the Catholic view. While you think that the different outlooks, say on Original Sin, are mutually exclusive between the Roman and the Byzantine traditions, the Catholic stance is that they are different but complimentary understandings of the one same reality. The Catechism explains it this way:

1200 From the first community of Jerusalem until the parousia, it is the same Paschal mystery that the Churches of God, faithful to the apostolic faith, celebrate in every place. the mystery celebrated in the liturgy is one, but the forms of its celebration are diverse.

1201 The mystery of Christ is so unfathomably rich that it cannot be exhausted by its expression in any single liturgical tradition. the history of the blossoming and development of these rites witnesses to a remarkable complementarity. When the Churches lived their respective liturgical traditions in the communion of the faith and the sacraments of the faith, they enriched one another and grew in fidelity to Tradition and to the common mission of the whole Church.

1202 The diverse liturgical traditions have arisen by very reason of the Church’s mission. Churches of the same geographical and cultural area came to celebrate the mystery of Christ through particular expressions characterized by the culture: in the tradition of the “deposit of faith,” in liturgical symbolism, in the organization of fraternal communion, in the theological understanding of the mysteries, and in various forms of holiness. Through the liturgical life of a local church, Christ, the light and salvation of all peoples, is made manifest to the particular people and culture to which that Church is sent and in which she is rooted. the Church is catholic, capable of integrating into her unity, while purifying them, all the authentic riches of cultures.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Exactly. I observed that the EC’s had to speak very carefully. Much of the time they fluffed off the differences to semantics. It was very obvious that the EC’s agreed with most things Orthodox, but had to submit to all things Rome. It caused an identity crisis. It affected me deeply. Often the term “Orthodox in communion with Rome” is used. But this is not accurate.

It is accurate, you and I are Orthodox in communion with Rome…

wikimapia.org/13656150/St-Catherine-Russian-Orthodox-Church

 

[JMJ_coder]

But we also have the same common history between East and Rome. Yet at some point we split and then headed our separate ways. So the same thing applies to the ECs. They started changing the second they split from their mother Orthodox Church. So today, they are not the same as the Orthodox. There mere fact that they have taken a path not taken by the rest of the Orthodox Churches means they are already on different paths of history. All the commonality of the years before that is now gone as they have diverged at some point. That is where we are today, two Churches with a lot in common, a lot of similarity, but essentially they are different and are not “the same in every way save for communion with Rome.”

I think you have a certain point (though, as I pointed out earlier, from this side of the fence it is the Orthodox who have left their Mother Church), but I also think that a great deal of the ‘differences’ are more cultural and political than religious.

 

[Mickey]

It is accurate, you and I are Orthodox in communion with Rome…

 

[ConstantineTG]

I think there is a major difference between your Orthodox view and the Catholic view. While you think that the different outlooks, say on Original Sin, are mutually exclusive between the Roman and the Byzantine traditions, the Catholic stance is that they are different but complimentary understandings of the one same reality. The Catechism explains it this way:

1200 From the first community of Jerusalem until the parousia, it is the same Paschal mystery that the Churches of God, faithful to the apostolic faith, celebrate in every place. the mystery celebrated in the liturgy is one, but the forms of its celebration are diverse.

1201 The mystery of Christ is so unfathomably rich that it cannot be exhausted by its expression in any single liturgical tradition. the history of the blossoming and development of these rites witnesses to a remarkable complementarity. When the Churches lived their respective liturgical traditions in the communion of the faith and the sacraments of the faith, they enriched one another and grew in fidelity to Tradition and to the common mission of the whole Church.

1202 The diverse liturgical traditions have arisen by very reason of the Church’s mission. Churches of the same geographical and cultural area came to celebrate the mystery of Christ through particular expressions characterized by the culture: in the tradition of the “deposit of faith,” in liturgical symbolism, in the organization of fraternal communion, in the theological understanding of the mysteries, and in various forms of holiness. Through the liturgical life of a local church, Christ, the light and salvation of all peoples, is made manifest to the particular people and culture to which that Church is sent and in which she is rooted. the Church is catholic, capable of integrating into her unity, while purifying them, all the authentic riches of cultures.

Well, that is where we disagree. Because how can one tradition where the Immaculate Conception is completely unnecessary, and another tradition where the Immaculate Conception is absolutely necessary, be the same faith?

 

[EIF5A]

Well, that is where we disagree. Because how can one tradition where the Immaculate Conception is completely unnecessary, and another tradition where the Immaculate Conception is absolutely necessary, be the same faith?

Does Orthodoxy keep open the possibility of Immaculate Conception although not a necessary doctrine?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Does Orthodoxy keep open the possibility of Immaculate Conception although not a necessary doctrine?

The fact that the Immaculate Conception is based on the Augustinian understanding of Original Sin means it will never be accepted in Orthodoxy. If we’re just talking about the Theotokos not committing any sin of her own, that is perfectly acceptable. But to be exempted for something that we don’t even believe that is there in the first place, that cannot be acceptable.

 

[Celticnovice]

Jesuits by its very nature is a Western Society. I think it is very hard, if not impossible, to be true to one’s Eastern spirituality, and be part of a Western Order or Society.

You know, I thought the same thing until I actually read the Spiritual Exercises by San Ignacio and I was shocked at how much I agreed with and how profound the wisdom it contains. I found aspects of Jesuit spirituality that are quite analogous to Eastern Christianity. For example, ever read his third method of prayer? I did and it seems to me that San Ignacio could have been familiar with the desert fathers and the writings of St. John the Roman (Cassian) (At least in this example)…Now there are some differences in theology, but I have no trouble seeing Byzantine Jesuits (at least in my simple mind) adapting this spirituality to make it appropriate for Eastern Christians.

It has been done by Eastern Christians before, both by Catholics and Orthodox. I’m thinking of a book on prayer that was written by a Catholic monk and then re-written by an Orthodox monk for an Orthodox audience. I can’t remember the title or else I would share it.

Constantine, I know you have been back posting for awhile, but wanted to say hi and its good to see you back here.

 

[benjohnson]

It is accurate, you and I are Orthodox in communion with Rome…

wikimapia.org/13656150/St-Catherine-Russian-Orthodox-Church

We Lutherans are also in communion with Rome. There’s been some wise people in the pulpit, I’ve been told!

 

[CharlesdeFoucld]

Does Orthodoxy keep open the possibility of Immaculate Conception although not a necessary doctrine?

Orthodox monk and theologian Lev Gillet (whom I admire greatly) thought the Immaculate Conception was not only a possibility, but ’ it is a necessary and logical development of the whole of Orthodox belief.’

His excellent article (in four parts) can be found here.

 

[ConstantineTG]

You know, I thought the same thing until I actually read the Spiritual Exercises by San Ignacio and I was shocked at how much I agreed with and how profound the wisdom it contains. I found aspects of Jesuit spirituality that are quite analogous to Eastern Christianity. For example, ever read his third method of prayer? I did and it seems to me that San Ignacio could have been familiar with the desert fathers and the writings of St. John the Roman (Cassian) (At least in this example)…Now there are some differences in theology, but I have no trouble seeing Byzantine Jesuits (at least in my simple mind) adapting this spirituality to make it appropriate for Eastern Christians.

It has been done by Eastern Christians before, both by Catholics and Orthodox. I’m thinking of a book on prayer that was written by a Catholic monk and then re-written by an Orthodox monk for an Orthodox audience. I can’t remember the title or else I would share it.

I don’t know. I will admit I don’t know enough about Religious Orders and the like in the Catholic Church, but there is a reason that it does not exist in Orthodoxy. I guess it is possible for one to be part of a Western-style Order or Society or however it may be called, and still live authentic Eastern spirituality. But one has to give, either they are just part of the Order for the sake of it, or they are practicing Eastern traditions externally, but are Western internally. In my opinion, it would be more of the latter.

Constantine, I know you have been back posting for awhile, but wanted to say hi and its good to see you back here.

Thanks!

 

[Mickey]

Orthodox monk and theologian Lev Gillet (whom I admire greatly) thought the Immaculate Conception was not only a possibility, but ’ it is a necessary and logical development of the whole of Orthodox belief.’

His excellent article (in four parts) can be found here.

Without denying his significant literary contribution to Orthodoxy in this century, we must point out that Father Lev was never, strictly speaking, Orthodox, except in name. Metropolitan Evlogy of Paris, a notorious modernist and ecumenist, received him into Orthodoxy in a most unusual way: by concelebration—no vesting, no renunciation of heresies, no Chrismation: nothing. Moreover, one need read only a few of his writings to realize that Father Lev never truly converted to Orthodoxy. Throughout his life, he considered himself to belong to both the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church, in some mysterious way—although at times he would say that “the light shines brighter in the Eastern Church.” We do not wish to condemn Father Lev, who by all accounts lived a life of great poverty and simplicity and who was a sympathetic spiritual Father to many people; nor do we in any way impugn the uprightness of his intentions. However, we feel it necessary to indicate “the source of the profound and extensive errors in [the] theological outlook” of a man who was, quite manifestly, “neither Orthodox in his ecclesiology nor traditional in his personal spiritual life.
orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/review_toc.aspx

 

[steve_b]

From a Catholic and Orthodox perspective, I woudl like to hear opinions on this question. Can a Catholic be in two worlds: attend Divine Liturgies vs. the Mass (except for days of Catholic obligation), grow in holiness as a result of practicing the tenets of Orthodoxy outside of reception of the Sacraments, and at the same time remain technically Catholic?

this link answers the question of the thread.
melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/are-we-orthodox-united-with-rome

melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/how-do-the-popes-encyclicals-and-teachings-impact-on-the-melkites
D:

Interesingtingly I read a declaration from the Conference of Catholic Bishops that Catholics married to Orthodox spouses may raise their children Orthodox with the blessing of the Catholic Church so that a family would be combining the two faiths.

DJL

Do you have a link?

 

[JMJ_coder]

Well, that is where we disagree. Because how can one tradition where the Immaculate Conception is completely unnecessary, and another tradition where the Immaculate Conception is absolutely necessary, be the same faith?

You do realize that our understanding of the faith is not stagnant. The Holy Spirit is constantly leading us to truth. It took us quite a while to wrap our heads around the teaching of the Immaculate Conception, just like it took us a while to wrap our heads around the truth of Jesus’ nature. And we can still say we are trying to grapple with our faith and God’s revelation. It’s like a divine sudoku puzzle…the entire picture is there, but we have to work to discover where everything goes. But the truth was always there, even if we were oblivious to it before.

As St. John Chrysostom reflected while preaching on the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man:
Thus many also before us have spoken on this subject; many perhaps after us will speak on it; but no one will be able to exhaust the whole store of wealth. For such is the nature of this abundance, that the more deeply you dig down, the more plentifully divine instruction wells forth: it is a fountain never failing.