Defining Orthodox Catholic

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lux_et_veritas
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Lux_et_veritas

Guest
How is an Orthodox Catholic defined?

In the second paragraph of this web-page, author Michael Rose defines it in his words. Do you agree or have another definition?

latinmassmagazine.com/articles/articles_2002_SU_Rose.html

What about “Traditional”? Is it the same or different?

Please keep the discussion strictly limited to Catholicism in full communion with the Holy See (in other words, lets not get into SSPX and similar).

I’m just trying to understand what kind of Catholic I am and I don’t know if Orthodox is it, or Traditional. Michael Rose’s description seems to fit me quite well.
 
This definition would seem to rule out those who favor a married priesthood in the Latin Rite.
 
I have trouble with how to describe myself too. I have recently returned to RCC and I was surprised by some of the liberal notions I have found at some churches.

I was using the word “traditional” to describe my view, but stopped because I wasn’t sure if that was the best word to use. It seems that traditional is more used for those who worship at TLM. Orthodox is tricky, because I worry it would be confused with the Eastern Rite churches.

Lately I have been using “conservative” to describe my approach to Catholicism. I don’t know if that is the correct term. I do agree with the definition the author wrote in the article.
 
40.png
AuntMartha:
I have trouble with how to describe myself too. I have recently returned to RCC and I was surprised by some of the liberal notions I have found at some churches.

I was using the word “traditional” to describe my view, but stopped because I wasn’t sure if that was the best word to use. It seems that traditional is more used for those who worship at TLM. Orthodox is tricky, because I worry it would be confused with the Eastern Rite churches.

Lately I have been using “conservative” to describe my approach to Catholicism. I don’t know if that is the correct term. I do agree with the definition the author wrote in the article.
Click to expand...
Well, I suppose that means I’m not the only one struggling for a way to define myself, but Michael Rose’s definition of it fits me like a glove. I too struggled with thinking it meant like Eastern Orthodox, but I suppose not.

I too have felt the same way about Traditional. While I enjoy traditional things within the Church, I wouldn’t say that I’m exclusively partial to them - yet laughs.
 
This is an interesting question. Would the definition offered by Mr. Rose also include those who receive communion in the hand and let their daughters serve mass?
 
40.png
diarmait:
This is an interesting question. Would the definition offered by Mr. Rose also include those who receive communion in the hand and let their daughters serve mass?
Click to expand...
Not sure. The church does permit these things. I know some parishes, such as the one I’m attending, you won’t likely be receiving communion in the hand, but if you extended them to push the issue before the priest got to you at the rail, I don’t know if he would push back or respect your wishes. I’m not going to try to find out either as I’ve become not only adapted to receiving it on my tongue at the rail for the last two weeks, I now prefer it. Don’t ask me why, it just happened. I know the rail provides for better opportunity to prepare myself because I don’t have the distraction of “people-watching” at an unconscious level as I walk past the pews and see the Host at the last minute.
 
Guys,

**An Orthodox Catholic is the one who doesn’t have to say: “I’m a Catholic but…” 😉 **

Orthodox Catholics are those who accept everything the Pope and the Roman Curia teaches. They also accept the Vatican II council and the new mass. The word Orthodox does not at all mean that you are from the schismatic Eastern Churches. It just means “Right belief.” So when you say Orthodox Catholic, you’re saying: “The Universal Truth.” Orthodox Catholics are those who are in full communion with Rome.

If you prefer the Tridintine mass over the new mass, you can say “Traditional Catholic.” The Tridintine mass is in communion with Rome. Those who are not in communion with Rome and prefer the pre-Vatican II mass and say that Vatican II professed heresy and the current Pope is heretic, are called “Radical Traditionalists.” They are only near Catholic.

Those who are liberal and want religion their own way and want to challenge Church teachings are called “Progressive Catholics.” Most progressive Catholics are in physical communion with Rome, but are spiritually excommunicated, since they believe in heresy.
**So, Mr. Rose was right in that statement. Orthodox Catholics are in full communion with the Vatican and don’t challenge official Church teachings. So, I’d use the term Orthodox Catholic, and if someone doesn’t understand what that means, I’ll just explain it to them. **
 
We are all the same kind of Catholic. Sinful.

Labels to set us apart into our relative worthiness tempt us into judging one over another, which divides the Church and is evil.

An “orthodox” Catholic has just as much responsibility to respect and be sensitive to the feelings and failings and temporal/spiritual needs of a brother in the Church as any other “kind” of Catholic.

Alan
 
40.png
AuntMartha:
…Orthodox is tricky, because I worry it would be confused with the Eastern Rite churches.

Lately I have been using “conservative” to describe my approach to Catholicism. I don’t know if that is the correct term. I do agree with the definition the author wrote in the article.
Click to expand...
**It is not correct to say that the schismatic Eastern Orthodox Churches are “Eastern Rites.” When you use the word “Rite” you’re saying a Church in communion with Rome. **
**The Eastern Churches that are in communion with Rome, I’d prefer to call them Eastern Catholic Churches. The word “Rite” also tends to mean more like rituals and ways of worship. **
**The word “conservative” should only be used for secular politics. When you’re saying you’re conservative, you’re saying that you support the conservative party. The word “Orthodox” is the right ecclesiastical term to use.😉 **
 
40.png
AlanFromWichita:
Labels to set us apart into our relative worthiness tempt us into judging one over another, which divides the Church and is evil.
Click to expand...
This is hard for me to explain, and I don’t know if I can put my feelings into words and still make sense. The reason I am concerned with “orthodox” vs. “liberal” is because of two reasons:
  1. I am looking for a Catholic Church to worship in that follows Church teachings, follows the GIRM, etc. So the "labels’ are useful to me, in a descriptive sense, not a judgemental one. For example, when I asked my friend recently if her Church is more liberal or more conservative, she answered that it is pretty conservative, and went on to tell me about it.
  2. I am concerned (and maybe I am wrong to feel this way, but I do) that the RCC will go the way of the Episcopal church and other Protestant churches, if it strays from its basic doctrines. If we have no definition for those who are intent on changing the Church dramatically, how do we describe them? Or rather, their viewpoint? And if all is the same, and there is no difference among us, then why are there disagreements on if the doctrine is right or wrong? Why? Because some have an orthodox view and others have a more liberal view.
I don’t know if that makes any sense, but that’s why I use descriptive words such as the above.
 
Roman_Army said:
It just means "Right belief."
Click to expand...

Michael Rose’s definition goes well beyond mere “right belief”. It imposes a particular kind of conservative thought pattern far beyond what the Church requires of faithful Catholics.
 
40.png
AlanFromWichita:
We are all the same kind of Catholic. Sinful.

Labels to set us apart into our relative worthiness tempt us into judging one over another, which divides the Church and is evil.

An “orthodox” Catholic has just as much responsibility to respect and be sensitive to the feelings and failings and temporal/spiritual needs of a brother in the Church as any other “kind” of Catholic.

Alan
Click to expand...
Lets understand why I am raising the question. I believe in adherence to the Magisterium and the Vicar of Christ. The bottom line is that trust in the Holy Spirit without Obedience to these two things is not just a clanging cymbal it is a giant gong. I’ll keep repeating that.

While I must respect all human beings, I wish not to “belong” to a group of Catholics who value “choice” of which teachings they will adhere to. I’ve been in parishes where I don’t know who to trust, including the priests and there is evidence of it here in these forums when people speak of getting outrageous advice, telling a penitent that self-abuse is not only ok, but encourages it. I don’t have to accept this and won’t. We all have trouble following the teachings here and there, but the key point is willingness to obey and not try to change the Church to suit our own personal desires.

Jesus was smart enough to know that if he left it up to each individual to simply figure it all out on their own, everyone’s compass would be pointing in a different direction. No, Jesus set the compass at North and that is where we go. He gave us the gifts of the Papacy and Magisterium in a concept that says one ship cannot have 10 captains and expect to sail straight. One cannot bend the compass needle and proclaim to be going north. It is a fallacy. This is relativism and it has invaded the Catholic Church, causing significant damage along the way.

I do respect all human beings including those with whom I disagree, but I do not have to embrace their false doctrines. Orthodox Catholics in general are faithful to the Magisterium and to the successor of Peter and I prefer to hang out with these people so that I can grow in understanding of the Lord’s word with them.

Obedience out of knowledge is good, but obedience out of trust in the Holy Spirit is what the Lord expects of us and what He treasures the most. The Church has spoken time and again about its reasons why gay marriage and women priests, celibate priesthoood, etc., are not going to change at this time, but groups of Catholics continue to press it. Well, I’m not going to say that we are all in one big happy family because that kind of poison is going to cost a great deal of people plenty. Time that could be spent in acts of charity and kindness, and in prayer, and in practicing humility are traded off for acts of pride and selfish desire. Sure God has Love and Mercy, and that is I’ve heard in my parishes over the last 20 years. You know what? They missed Justice and talk of sin. In some parishes the word no longer exists and was escorted out the door with reverence and profound prayer, humility and obedience.

I had no label for myself until I saw Michael Rose’s definition and it fit my bill.

If the Holy Spirit intends for us women to be included in the priesthood, He does not require picket signs, blatant disobedience and outright disrespect of the Holy See and bishops to make it happen. Rather, He is quite capable of influencing even an elderly Pope who may seem to be lost back in time. This is the power of the Holy Spirit - it does not matter.

It is an arrogant assumption to make that WE know better than the Holy Spirit and it certainly must crush Him when people feel He is incapable of guiding the Papacy and Magisterium in the direction God wants it to go. This is called “hearing out own voice and thinking it is the voice of God”.

I have a real beef with Catholics who continue to hammer the Church for change. I say to you that even a 100 year old Theologian has nothing on the 2000 years of refined comprehension the Catholic Church has had.

I’ve been spending years in parishes where the vast majority of people believe in a Catholic free-for-all, picking and choosing what to believe. I’ve abandoned that and now I go to where the orthodox reside - those of obedient heart.

steps off soapbox
 
Dear Diane,

I understand that you wish to have membership with Catholics who obey the Magesterium.

The problem I have is, when does it become the Church’s responsibility to provide a truly Catholic experience at each and every celebration of the Eucharist at every Mass around the world?

To me, it does not seem like the sheep’s job to determine whether the shepherd, assigned by the Holy Catholic Church in any given area, is leading them astray.

If we have to pick and choose which Catholic parish we belong to because some might lead us astray, then truly the Catholic Church is no better than the Protestants according to our own measure of a Church which may or may not happen to lie to us on any given measure.

Either the Mass is a valid Catholic Mass, or it is not. If it is not Catholic, then it is the job of the Pope and the bishops to fix it, not mine. If it is Catholic, let’s learn to be a little less rigid about details that mean nothing to them.

What do we have priests and bishops for, if we’re going to second-guess them? Let’s just dispense with their authoritative positions, and have those sheep who score highest on an “orthodoxy” test administered by Rome to run the show, directing the priests as necessary to keep them sufficiently “Catholic.”

We talk about being obedient to our earthly rulers, as Jesus taught us, but Jesus said nothing about second-guessins which ones before submitting.

I wish I could remember a quote which was once used against my own second-guessing of certain priests several months ago in this very forum. I think it was by St. Terese the Little Flower, and it had to do with submission to the priest who is delivering the Holy Eucharist even if she thinks he’s the devil incarnate.

Sure, there are those who actively protest and demonstrate to change the Church. The Church really doesn’t have to worry about that unless those people are put into positions of authority or until the Church opens up its teachings to popular vote. Among the divisions that hurt the Church are those Catholics who do not wish to “associate” with other Catholics whom they judge to be in less than full Communion with the Church.

If you are in a Church you consider sufficiently orthodox, then (maybe) you should consider saying this prayer of thanksgiving: “O God, I thank you that I am not involved in a Catholic Church like much of the rest of humanity is–dishonest and disobedient to True Church Teaching,–even as some of Your renegade shepherds embrace. I fast twice a week, I pay tithes on my whole income, and I adhere to the Magesterium better than most priests these days.”

Alan
 
40.png
Catholic2003:
Michael Rose’s definition goes well beyond mere “right belief”. It imposes a particular kind of conservative thought pattern far beyond what the Church requires of faithful Catholics.
Click to expand...
What “conservative” thought pattern do you mean? Would there be a corresponding “liberal” thought pattern that would also apply to orthodox Catholicism?
 
40.png
VociMike:
What “conservative” thought pattern do you mean?
Click to expand...
I’ve already given one example, that the Church’s current practice of mandatory priestly celebacy in the Latin Rite is the best for the Church at this time.
40.png
VociMike:
Would there be a corresponding “liberal” thought pattern that would also apply to orthodox Catholicism?
Click to expand...
Yes, that the present-day Church would benefit from making priestly celebacy optional in the Latin Rite.

Faithful, “right believing” Catholics can take either side of this issue. Whether “orthodox” Catholics can depends on how one wants to define “orthodox”.
 
Warning to anyone who would call themselves an “orthodox” Catholic, and use it as a measurement of Catholicity. Of course, I post this in pride myself, but such evil and faithlessness lurks in me that I am compelled – as if it were my responsibility to be everyone’s spiritual director – to point out some of the words that St. John of the Cross wrote in “Dark Night of the Soul:”
St. John of the Cross:
**CHAPTER II **
Of certain spiritual imperfections which beginners have with respect to the habit of pride.

AS these beginners feel themselves to be very fervent and diligent in spiritual things and devout exercises, from this prosperity (although it is true that holy things of their own nature cause humility) there often comes to them, through their imperfections, a certain kind of secret pride, whence they come to have some degree of satisfaction with their works and with themselves. And hence there comes to them likewise a certain desire, which is somewhat vain, and at times very vain, to speak of spiritual things in the presence of others, and sometimes even to teach such things rather than to learn them. They condemn others in their heart when they see that they have not the kind of devotion which they themselves desire; and sometimes they even say this in words, herein resembling the Pharisee, who boasted of himself, praising God for his own good works and despising the publican.
  1. In these persons the devil often increases the fervour that they have and the desire to perform these and other works more frequently, so that their pride and presumption may grow greater. For the devil knows quite well that all these works and virtues which they perform are not only valueless to them, but even become vices in them. And such a degree of evil are some of these persons wont to reach that they would have none appear good save themselves; and thus, in deed and word, whenever the opportunity occurs, they condemn them and slander them, beholding the mote in their brother’s eye and not considering the beam which is in their own;they strain at another’s gnat and themselves swallow a camel.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
Catholic2003:
I’ve already given one example, that the Church’s current practice of mandatory priestly celebacy in the Latin Rite is the best for the Church at this time.
Click to expand...
Actually I don’t agree that the definition referred to in the original post spoke against a married priesthood. The definition speaks of one"…who accepts the Church’s understanding of the priesthood and doesn’t have an agenda to redefine or “re-envision” it." The Church’s understanding of the priesthood already allows for married priests, so I don’t see how allowing married priests in the Latin Rite constitutes “redefining” or “re-envisioning” the priesthood.
 
40.png
VociMike:
What “conservative” thought pattern do you mean? Would there be a corresponding “liberal” thought pattern that would also apply to orthodox Catholicism?
Click to expand...
In another thread, about getting a website to define which churches are “orthodox” and which are not, I mentioned Archbishop Chaput’s public comment on the issue of holding hands during the Our Father.

Archbishop Chaput is widely considered to be not only orthodox, but also very bright.

His comment about the hand holding issue was essentially that it was not either a permitted act (e.g. GIRM option) nor a prohibited act but rather a non-regulated act; those who wished to hold hands were welcome to; those who did not wish to were welcome not to, and both sides should allow the other side to do as they wished on the issue and respect their decision.

There are any number of people in this forum who are anywhere from mildly to outright adamant about not holding hands, and the general consensus among them is that it is a violation of the GIRM and an abuse.

Some of them would consider Archbishop Chaput’s answer to be entirely unsatisfactory, and unorthodox.

If Archbishop Chaput is right (and I consider him to be at least slightly more an authority and expert on the matter than many in the forum), then I think it could be rightly said that there can be a conservative bent to orthodoxy and a liberal bent to it, and both positions could fall well within acceptable practice of the faith.

The difficulty is that there are people who are faithful to the Magisterium who brook no variance from a rigid interpretation of the rules, and consider that some of the rules themselves are not truly “orthodox” as they may have had their genesis is a violation of the then existing rules prior to them being allowed (e.g. girl altar servers) or feel the rule is a betrayal of true orthodoxy (same example - altar boys seen as a first step to the priesthood). While they are orthodox, they are quick to label anyone who doesn’t agree with them as unorthodox, or liberal, or some other dismissive categorization.
 
40.png
VociMike:
Actually I don’t agree that the definition referred to in the original post spoke against a married priesthood. The definition speaks of one"…who accepts the Church’s understanding of the priesthood and doesn’t have an agenda to redefine or “re-envision” it." The Church’s understanding of the priesthood already allows for married priests, so I don’t see how allowing married priests in the Latin Rite constitutes “redefining” or “re-envisioning” the priesthood.
Click to expand...
I think you are being overly generous. I have read enough of Mr. Rose’s works to believe that he would consider that the discussion of allowing for more married priests) at the minimum entirely unnecessary,and bordering on unorthodox, if not outright a sign of unorthodox positions.
 
40.png
otm:
I think you are being overly generous. I have read enough of Mr. Rose’s works to believe that he would consider that the discussion of allowing for more married priests) at the minimum entirely unnecessary,and bordering on unorthodox, if not outright a sign of unorthodox positions.
Click to expand...
I’m not being generous, I’m just responding to the words as written. As I said, the Church’s understanding of the priesthood already encompasses married priests, so one can cleary accept the Church’s understanding of the priesthood and still support married priests.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top