Catholic and Orthodox: Best of both worlds

  • Thread starter Thread starter DJLake
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
steve_b said:
Hi Mickey, it’s been awhile. Hope all is well.

Yes the Latin Church is ~98% by numbers of the Catholic Church. But in Orthodox terms, doesn’t the Russian Church in numbers, dwarf the other EO Churches? And doesn’t that pose somewhat of a problem for the Ec patriarch in Constantinople?
Click to expand...
True. But among Eastern Orthodox Churches it does sometimes happen that a portion of one church is allowed to split off and become an independent (autocephalous) church. That basically never happens with the Latin Church.
 
DJLake said:
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?

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
Click to expand...
Why would anyone remain ‘technically catholic’ if they were practically orthodox? If you practice orthodoxy except when required to practice Catholicism what does that say about your faith? Maybe you should make a choice. Your practice and should be the same as your technical standing. Making choices is part of what it is to be healthy. You will tear yourself apart with your indecision and double life.

They teach very different ways of life (no matter what anyone tells you) and they have different principles that guide them. The Catholic Church might say it is fine or even profitable to practice the orthodox faith if you feel called, but the Orthodox view it as a way of life and you should embrace it in its entirety.

Interestingly and paradoxically the Orthodox perspective is much more individualistic, but Catholicism is much more pluralistic. The catholic can embrace the the orthodox perspective, but not vice versa. On the other hand, personal experience of the faith is much more central in orthodoxy.
 
SonCatcher said:
Have you looked at Eastern Catholicism? These are rites of the Catholic Church that historically have been Orthodox but have renewed Communion with the See of Peter. They practice the Divine Liturgy the same as their Orthodox brethren. Any Catholic in good standing may receive the sacraments in any Eastern Catholic church.

You can find out more about them at ByzCath.org or by asking in our own Eastern Catholicism forum.
Click to expand...
It’s good that the EC’s have communion with Antioch. But it should be just as important to the west to be in communion with Antioch as it is for the east.
 
jimmy said:
Why would anyone remain ‘technically catholic’ if they were practically orthodox?
Click to expand...
The way I see it, if Rome doesn’t mind remaining in full communion with them, then I wouldn’t necessarily* expect them to mind remaining in full communion with Rome.

*Some, of course, do break off communion with Rome.
 
Mickey said:
Originally Posted by Peter J
Personally, I don’t have any plan to break off communion from Rome, but if I did then I would go PNCC.
Click to expand...
Well thanks.

Entering into full communion with Rome isn’t something I would do at this point, if I were a free agent. But that’s academic since I’m already *in *the Roman Communion. I don’t think that “going home to the PNCC” is in my future.
Click to expand...
 
Mickey said:
Numbers should be irrelevant in your Church…and mine. 😉
Click to expand...
So the fact that the Albanian Byzantine Catholic Church has 3,845 members and the UGCC has 5,350,735 members makes no difference, because they both have sui iuris status?
 
Peter_J said:
So the fact that the Albanian Byzantine Catholic Church has 3,845 members and the UGCC has 5,350,735 members makes no difference, because they both have sui iuris status?
Click to expand...
I don’t know. Does it make a difference?

Is there really an Albanian Byzantine Catholic Church?
 
Mickey said:
Originally Posted by Peter J
So the fact that the Albanian Byzantine Catholic Church has 3,845 members and the UGCC has 5,350,735 members makes no difference, because they both have sui iuris status?
Click to expand...
It seems to me like it does or at least should. I know the church isn’t a democracy, but it shouldn’t be elitist either.

Having (or not having) sui iuris status is significant, of course, but it isn’t everything.
Is there really an Albanian Byzantine Catholic Church?
Click to expand...
Yes there is (sui iuris).
Click to expand...
 
ConstantineTG said:
I wish I had a dollar for everytime someone mentions Orthodoxy here and someone will respond with “have you tried Eastern Catholic Churches?” I would have singlehandedly funded for our new church building.
Click to expand...
LOL…like when you used to be an Eastern Catholic? 😃
 
Nine_Two said:
Even if everyone living in Russia was a faithful member of the Church (they aren’t), they would still only make up around half the entire Church membership. That’s a big difference.
Click to expand...
My response was to address using the term “monolith” for the CC.

If “monolith” is meant to address size alone, then I merely brought up the relationship of the RO compared to the other EO Churches. There’s quite a disparity in size

Not only size disparity is an issue, but the fact no ONE speaks for EO

Cardinal Kasper in addressing ecuminism between the CC and the EO Churches, said the following

“We are increasingly conscious of the fact that an Orthodox Church does not really exist,” he contends. “At the present stage, it does not seem that Constantinople is yet capable of integrating the different autocephalous Orthodox Churches; there are doubts about its primacy of honor, especially in Moscow.”

http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/the-crisis-of-ecumenism-according-to-cardinal-kasper

While that article was in 2002 and some think that makes it too “old” ergo it’s not applicable for today, the following took place in 2009
http://www.rferl.org/content/feature/1498708.html

while the patriarch of Russia may never becomes 1st among equals among the EO Churches, then pope Benedict XVI wrote the following Re: 1st among equals and the pentarchy
  1. In Christian literature, the expression begins to be used in the East when, from the fifth century, the idea of the Pentarchy gained ground, according to which there are five Patriarchs at the head of the Church, with the Church of Rome having the first place among these patriarchal sister Churches. In this connection, however, it needs to be noted that no Roman Pontiff ever recognized this equalization of the sees or accepted that only a primacy of honour be accorded to the See of Rome.It should be noted too thatthis patriarchal structure typical of the East never developed in the West.
  2. The expression appears again in two letters of the Metropolitan Nicetas of Nicodemia (in the year 1136) and the Patriarch John X Camaterus (in office from 1198 to 1206), in which they protested that Rome, by presenting herself as *mother and teacher, *would annul their authority.In their view, Rome is only the first among sisters of equal dignity.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...on_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html

Regarding the topic

Bp John gives the answer

“Sometimes I think that the Melkite Catholic Church, as well as other Byzantine Catholic Churches, enjoys the best of two worlds: Orthodoxy and Catholicism”

https://melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/are-we-orthodox-united-with-rome
 
steve_b said:
but the fact no ONE speaks for EO
Click to expand...
LOL! That’s the real point you were hoping to transition to.

Christ speaks for the Orthodox Church…He is the Head of the Church. 👍

And now I will quietly place you back on my ignore list. 🙂
 
Mickey said:
Christ speaks for the Orthodox Church
Click to expand...
I was going to say that “no ONE speaks for EO” is just stating the obvious (the EP has never given the impression that he’s the Orthodox equivalent of the Pope of Rome), but maybe I should have anticipated this ^^ response. :cool:
 
steve_b said:
My response was to address using the term “monolith” for the CC.
Click to expand...
It is.

As per that Kaspar quote, as I’m sure I pointed out to you in the past when you brought it up, it demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the Orthodox organizational structure.
 
steve_b said:
“We are increasingly conscious of the fact that an Orthodox Church does not really exist,” he contends. "At the present stage, it does not seem that Constantinople is yet capable of integrating the different autocephalous Orthodox Churches; there are doubts about its primacy of honor, especially in Moscow.
Click to expand...
Really? The Church with Apostolic Succession back to the Jesus & his Disciples does Not exist?

Why, please explain, should the various Autocephalous Churches be “integrated”? I recall that a certain Church Father said, “Where the Bishop is, there is the catholic church.” Catholic as in the original meaning of “Whole & Complete” aka nothing is Missing.

Doubts about the primacy? Perhaps because that is coming from a point of view that primacy doesn’t mean primacy, but supremacy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top