Catholic and Orthodox: Best of both worlds

[ConstantineTG]

You can attend Byzantine Catholic Divine Liturgies. You can receive the Eucharist at them. They are in full communion with the Holy See. You don’t even have to change rites. You can fulfill your obligation at either a Mass or an Eastern Catholic Divine Liturgy.

Is being in communion just about receiving the Sacraments and fulfilling obligations?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Personally, I don’t have any plan to break off communion from Rome, but if I did then I would go PNCC.

Why then be EC today if you would just go to a Western Church?

 

[ConstantineTG]

LOL…like when you used to be an Eastern Catholic?

Well, I found out the hard way. I did take that advice and see where it got me

No regrets though, but I am saying this for the sake of the Catholics. I’m not here to try to con people into Orthodoxy. If people want Catholics not to leave their Church for Orthodoxy after a person expresses interest in it, stop recommending the Eastern Catholic Church.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Really? The Orthodox do not have the Book of Revelation in their canon?

Please clarify.

There is nothing in the book of Revelations that is not consistent to what Christ taught during his time on earth.

Also, Revelations is never used in any of our (or Eastern Catholics) Liturgy, something to think about.

 

[dvdjs]

There is a concept of indefectibility, and of providence, but not of infallibility. There is no guarantee that the Greeks, Syrians, Russians, or whoever will define doctrine accurately. There isn’t any gaurantee that they will remain true, or even survive. There is no guarantee that a council will be true. What there is is a gaurantee that the Church will always survive, and it will always remain true to its foundation. And God will always provide for it. It is basically the negative of infallibility. Whereas infallibility guarantees am authority that will bee able to define the truth accurately, the east (both eastern and oriental) believe there will always be a remnant that will hold to what was handed down.

This perspective is interesting, but I doubt that it would be seen as accurate by Orthodox hierarchs. Rather I think the claim is that they are holding to truth, and that truth is not in doubt, and is irreformable. Thus the difference between indefectability and infallability is largely semantics. The idea that we a church is just holding forth on its opinion, and with many of opinions at least some remnant will be right is more akin to Protestant thinking. And still, each denomination claims that it is right. In reality, God established a Church to divide the truth.

Infallibility is not a guarantee that an authority will be able to define truth, but that the truth will be recognized in the Church and spoken, with finality through the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome.

 

[dvdjs]

If people want Catholics not to leave their Church for Orthodoxy after a person expresses interest in it, stop recommending the Eastern Catholic Church.

Whether or not that is sound advice depends on many details of the situation. Mileage varies:d one person’s experience does not provide sound evidence fore an imperative to “stop”.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Whether or not that is sound advice depends on many details of the situation. Mileage varies:d one person’s experience does not provide sound evidence fore an imperative to “stop”.

True, but the point is that the Eastern Catholic Church is not the Orthodox Church in communion with Rome. Whether one finds what they are looking for or not is indeed a case-to-case issue, regardless, we all should give the ECs more credit than being a “last resort” to keep Roman Catholics in communion with Rome. There are many fundamental differences between Orthodoxy and Eastern Catholicism that when one wants Orthodoxy, it is not good advice to point them somewhere they cannot find it just for the false hope of keeping them within your Church.

 

[Peter_J]

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.

A lot of people like to quote the first line of Rudyard Kipling’s “Ballad of East and West”, namely “East is East and West is West, and never the twain shall meet” … but they disregard the rest of it:

Oh, East is East and West is West, and never the twain shall meet,
Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God’s great Judgment Seat;
But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth,
When two strong men stand face to face, though they come from the ends of the earth!

If you’ve spent much time on CAF you’ve undoubtedly had the experience of saying to yourself “That poster and that poster are both Eastern, yet their posts are very different from each other.”

But I digress … the important thing is that I don’t go to an Eastern Catholic parish because I think that “Eastern-ness” is somehow intrinsically better than “Western-ness”. I go to an Eastern Catholic parish because – well, actually I don’t want to get into the reasons here. Let me just say that they are more involved than a simple “Eastern=good, Western=bad” kind of thinking.

 

[dvdjs]

True, but the point is that the Eastern Catholic Church is not the Orthodox Church in communion with Rome. Whether one finds what they are looking for or not is indeed a case-to-case issue, regardless, we all should give the ECs more credit than being a “last resort” to keep Roman Catholics in communion with Rome. There are many fundamental differences between Orthodoxy and Eastern Catholicism that when one wants Orthodoxy, it is not good advice to point them somewhere they cannot find it just for the false hope of keeping them within your Church.

Of course it is true that the ECCs are not merely a “last resort” for RCs that are unhappy with RCC. But reasons for looking East vary considerably.

Your impression that one cannot find orthodoxy in the ECCs, however, is a huge over reach. The fact that a particular person, involved with a particular parish did not find it is not a valid basis for generalization. Moreover, all of this thinking involves some implicit ideas of the criteria and norms for labeling something “orthodox”. What are the criteria and norms - and how much experience would one have to have in order to give them serious support? Idiosyncratic views based on limited personal experience don’t cut it. And don’t give a serious justification to tell anyone to stop doing anything,

 

[ConstantineTG]

Of course it is true that the ECCs are not merely a “last resort” for RCs that are unhappy with RCC. But reasons for looking East vary considerably.

Your impression that one cannot find orthodoxy in the ECCs, however, is a huge over reach. The fact that a particular person, involved with a particular parish did not find it is not a valid basis for generalization. Moreover, all of this thinking involves some implicit ideas of the criteria and norms for labeling something “orthodox”. What are the criteria and norms - and how much experience would one have to have in order to give them serious support? Idiosyncratic views based on limited personal experience don’t cut it. And don’t give a serious justification to tell anyone to stop doing anything,

Of course there is a criteria to what is Orthodox. If there isn’t, we’d be a complete mess and nothing better than the 30,000 or so Protestant denominations. Don’t we agree that the truth is the truth and it is the same anywhere for all time? That is the criteria for Orthodoxy.

Sadly, it is not just by my own personal experience I say what I say, although my experience was a large part to opening my eyes to this matter. But ECs sees Orthodoxy as nothing more than ritualistic tradition and none of the deeper theological understanding of these rituals. That is why Orthodoxy cannot be found in Eastern Catholicism. I see ECs dispense easily with certain rituals on the basis of Roman understanding rather than Orthodox understanding. That alone proves that ECs aren’t Orthodox.

 

[ConstantineTG]

A lot of people like to quote the first line of Rudyard Kipling’s “Ballad of East and West”, namely “East is East and West is West, and never the twain shall meet” … but they disregard the rest of it:

If you’ve spent much time on CAF you’ve undoubtedly had the experience of saying to yourself “That poster and that poster are both Eastern, yet their posts are very different from each other.”

But I digress … the important thing is that I don’t go to an Eastern Catholic parish because I think that “Eastern-ness” is somehow intrinsically better than “Western-ness”. I go to an Eastern Catholic parish because – well, actually I don’t want to get into the reasons here. Let me just say that they are more involved than a simple “Eastern=good, Western=bad” kind of thinking.

My point was, surely you became EC because of the traditions and praxis of the East. So I’m just a bit confused here why you would even consider going back to a Western praxis.

I chose Orthodoxy because I believe that the path to my salvation is found in the Byzantine tradition. I discovered that during my time as an EC, so there was no way I would return to the RC Church or go anywhere else Western, including Western Rite Orthodoxy (although our beliefs are 100% the same, I believe in the external expression of the faith as much as the internal understanding of it. No offense to those who follow the Western Rite, I speak for myself alone.)

 

[jimmy]

This perspective is interesting, but I doubt that it would be seen as accurate by Orthodox hierarchs. Rather I think the claim is that they are holding to truth, and that truth is not in doubt, and is irreformable. Thus the difference between indefectability and infallability is largely semantics. The idea that we a church is just holding forth on its opinion, and with many of opinions at least some remnant will be right is more akin to Protestant thinking. And still, each denomination claims that it is right. In reality, God established a Church to divide the truth.

Infallibility is not a guarantee that an authority will be able to define truth, but that the truth will be recognized in the Church and spoken, with finality through the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome.

Your understanding of infallibility just isn’t accurate. It explicitly includes the idea of defining truths. It is specifically associated with making definitions.

Indefectibility and infallibility are completely different concepts. Infallibility only fits the western understanding, in which tradition develops and our knowledge of truth grows. In the east, where the Church holds to the same beliefs as the fathers. Indefectibility is more fitting in that setting. It is one Church throughout time and all hold to the same doctrines. There is nothing new for our generation or any other.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Your understanding of infallibility just isn’t accurate. It explicitly includes the idea of defining truths. It is specifically associated with making definitions.

Indefectibility and infallibility are completely different concepts. Infallibility only fits the western understanding, in which tradition develops and our knowledge of truth grows. In the east, where the Church holds to the same beliefs as the fathers. Indefectibility is more fitting in that setting. It is one Church throughout time and all hold to the same doctrines. There is nothing new for our generation or any other.

If the truth is the same 2000 years ago as it is today, why do you need one person to be infallible just to figure that out? Isn’t the truth the same truth regardless of who a person is?

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by dvdjs
Of course it is true that the ECCs are not merely a “last resort” for RCs that are unhappy with RCC. But reasons for looking East vary considerably.

After having been a silent bystander for however-many rounds of this exchange, I’d now like to chime in, to point out that at this point you, dvdjs, are talking about “orthodoxy” while you, Constantine, are talking about “Orthodoxy”. Seems clear that the conversation went off the rails at some point.

 

[dvdjs]

Your understanding of infallibility just isn’t accurate. It explicitly includes the idea of defining truths. It is specifically associated with making definitions.

There is an important nuance here. It has to do with “defining”, which might have a different connotation than “making definitions”. If you think in terms of articulating essential qualities and meaning, I think think that is the right track. If you think in terms of creating ideas and calling them the truth, I think that that is the wrong track.

Indefectibility and infallibility are completely different concepts.

Indefectibility is the core of infallibility.

Infallibility only fits the western understanding, in which tradition develops and our knowledge of truth grows. In the east, where the Church holds to the same beliefs as the fathers. Indefectibility is more fitting in that setting. It is one Church throughout time and all hold to the same doctrines. There is nothing new for our generation or any other.

This is a more of a posture that a statement of objective reality. The expression of the truth has evolved over time in both East and West. That cannot be disputed. The very idea of holding to the beliefs of the Fathers rather than just the faith of the Apostles is a telling indication

There is nothing new for our generation or any other.

Of course this statement is not literally true. There is some implict drawing-the-line. What is that founded upon?

 

[dvdjs]

Of course there is a criteria to what is Orthodox.

Good, please articualte them in a manner that shows the chasm between EO and EC.

… ECs sees Orthodoxy as nothing more than ritualistic tradition and none of the deeper theological understanding of these rituals. That is why Orthodoxy cannot be found in Eastern Catholicism. I see ECs dispense easily with certain rituals on the basis of Roman understanding rather than Orthodox understanding. That alone proves that ECs aren’t Orthodox.

Easy to just say, especially when dealing in generalities, and with very limited experience. But this is overly generalized to the point of painting a very false picture. And more than a little defamatory.

 

[dvdjs]

After having been a silent bystander for however-many rounds of this exchange, I’d now like to chime in, to point out that at this point you, dvdjs, are talking about “orthodoxy” while you, Constantine, are talking about “Orthodoxy”. Seems clear that the conversation went off the rails at some point.

I don’t think that anyone considers ECCs Orthodox.

 

[ConstantineTG]

After having been a silent bystander for however-many rounds of this exchange, I’d now like to chime in, to point out that at this point you, dvdjs, are talking about “orthodoxy” while you, Constantine, are talking about “Orthodoxy”. Seems clear that the conversation went off the rails at some point.

See, that is the problem, you see big O and small O orthodoxy as two different things. To the Orthodox, they are one and the same thing. To be Orthodox is to be orthodox, and to be orthodox is to be Orthodox. Is orthodoxy subjective? That orthodox Christianity is different in the Catholic Church than it is in the Orthodox Church? I thought the truth is the same everywhere and for all time? If that is the case, why is orthodox in the Orthodox Church different to the orthodox in the Catholic Church? Orthodox means “true” and “correct”. There is only one truth.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Good, please articualte them in a manner that shows the chasm between EO and EC.

Easy to just say, especially when dealing in generalities, and with very limited experience. But this is overly generalized to the point of painting a very false picture. And more than a little defamatory.

All you do is accuse me of these things without putting forward any proof why I am being overly generalizing or defamatory. How about proving that my points are wrong. I’ve already outlined why I say what I say. You say I am wrong, in what sense? You haven’t offered anything.

 

[dvdjs]

All you do is accuse me of these things without putting forward any proof why I am being overly generalizing or defamatory. How about proving that my points are wrong. I’ve already outlined why I say what I say. You say I am wrong, in what sense? You haven’t offered anything.

Sorry, I do not mean to accuse you of anything, just to correct the record. I am happy to rebut or concede any specifics that you give, and am hoping that you will give some. But what more can be said about generalities?