Do the Orthodox Even Want Reunification?

[bpbasilphx]

Well, the first two chapters of his book “The Orthodox Church” were so anti-Catholic I couldn’t finish it. He can be when he wants to be.

Not that I could tell.

Can you be specific?

Please note that THE ORTHODOX CHURCH has been through several editions in the nearly 40 years since its first publication, with frequent changes.

 

[Cecilianus]

Your answer comes with no surprise at all, Just what I expected, if it was about Orthodox and the picture was fuzzy you would have made out of it more than what it appears to be.

Uh, no I wouldn’t have. I wouldn’t expect an Orthodox prelate to burn incense to an elephant any more than I would expect a Catholic one to.

Well, according to them, they claim you are not Catholic, and for us non-Catholic, we have their claim which it seems to be based on some strong ground, and we have the word of your Church or your Pope that it says they are not Catholic, Nothing is clear, however for you, Just because you chose to go by the Pope does not make you right and make them wrong,we have no way that we can tell, In short a parallel to the Old calendarist.

But out of prejudice, you can only see one way of the street.

For most people, it’s pretty common knowledge that the Pope is regarded by the Catholic Church as its infallible head, and that people who claim the Pope is a heretic or apostate probably don’t believe what the Catholic Church teaches.

that is what we mean when we say that your church is no longer the same, you cannot recognize the early Church in it any more, nor the Church of the Holy Fathers, Also that is what we mean when we say that your church is ever moving away and ever changing, as some former RC said that the RCC right now is no more than 80 years old.

I think that the Code of Canon Law can be codified without losing our identity as the same church as the “early Church”. (Btw, the “Apostolic Canons” are not apostolic in origin, historically speaking - we don’t really know when they were written.) And it’s even possible that some things that were once forbidden are now permitted.

Not at all, your point I understand, but your concept of perceiving things one way, that I don’t understand.

Again, I don’t understand your grammar here.

 

[Cecilianus]

Not that I could tell.

Can you be specific?

Please note that THE ORTHODOX CHURCH has been through several editions in the nearly 40 years since its first publication, with frequent changes.

It was a number of years ago, and I can’t remember very well. He began the book by quoting someone - Ignatii Brianchaninov, I think - as saying “If you wish to save yourself from Protestantism, reject Roman Catholicism”, which as a former Protestant I take a good deal of objection to. He may have also quoted some Greek writer identifying Catholicism as the cause of atheism. I didn’t feel comfortable reading his presentation of the act of excommunication levied in 1054, either. That’s all I can remember.

 

[Andrew_Phillip]

He called the Pope the "Supreme Pontiff’ and said that they would obey him “as if he were the Savior himself”. It wouldn’t make a scrap of sense to say that if the Pope were acting as merely a local bishop and not requiring any obedience from him. He specifically used the word “pope”, so he isn’t just referring to all bishops with apostolic succession. I don’t see how you could obey every bishop in the world as the “first of the pontiffs”.

It was the “faith of Peter”, not the practice of Peter, that he wanted the Pope to revert to.

St. Symeon’s words are very clear - there’s no way to make them mean the opposite of what he said. If they were out of context, then please quote the rest of it.

**It is not the Orthodox who have tried to twist the words of Saint Symeon to suit their unilateral claims to Supremacy of Rome.

The title of “first among equals” or “first of the pontiffs” is one which the consensus of the early Church conferred for specific purpose, and temporal necessity. It was not ever considered to be a theological or spiritual command.

Saint Symeon, makes the point, that the Church obeys the decisions of the consensus Church (a conciliar decision) inspired by the Holy Spirit as they would Christ Himself.

He exhorts the Bishop of Rome, to re-submit himself and his flock to this established order and tradition - just as the Apostle Peter did - by his own faith and his own practice in the early Church.**

He is a Holy Orthodox Saint since 1981 - we should know what he was saying don’t you think - or is the Catholic Church claiming suzerainty over our Saints now?

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

Some high ranking Cardinal (Walter Kasper?) said, we should recognize that the EO Churches do not speak with a unified voice. On the negative side, this means that even though the EP of Constantinople and the Pope lifted the mutual anathemas of 1054, and relations with certain EO Churches are improving, other EO Churches (e.g. ROCOR) are really mad with us Catholics and even with the other EO Churches talking to us, to the point of calling the EP of Constantinople a heretic who succumbed to the “heresy” of ecumenism. On the positive side, though, I hope that we WILL have continued improvement of our relations, and hopefully even a reestablishment of full communion, with SOME Orthodox (Eastern, Oriental, etc) Churches.

There’s a Patriarch in Damascus, for example (I think his name is His Holiness Ignatius Zakka II, not with an EO Church but another Assyrian Orthodox Church which at a former time had extended all the way to China and India), this Patriarch said that at this point the differences between his Church and the Catholic Churches are merely one of organizational structure. He meant that there are no differences of faith. Hopefully we will have full communion with his Church reestablished within the foreseeable future. I would really like to see this good Patriarch (he is a very holy person, according to people who know him) become a Cardinal, and maybe he could be elected our next Pope? I would have no problem whatsoever having a Pope from one of those Churches who are in full communion with Rome. I hope there’s no impediment in the canon laws to something like this happening. I mean, is there any impediment to electing a Pope who currently does not belong to the Roman Catholic Church? E.g. Cardinal Husar, the leader of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church - I guess he could be elected Pope?

 

[malphono]

There’s a Patriarch in Damascus, for example (I think his name is His Holiness Ignatius Zakka II, not with an EO Church but another Assyrian Orthodox Church

Actually that’s HH Moran Mor Ignatius Zakka I (Iwas) who is Patriarch of Antioch of the Syriac Orthodox Church.

 

[Pravoslavac]

You are partially correct, there is some disunity and conflict within the Orthodox, however for the most part it is superficial. The Old Calendarists are as much a part of the EO as the Lutherans are a part of the Catholic Church.

Let me just chime in that this example is not the same. I’m Serbian Orthodox, and we’ve always been on the old calendar (Julian). We are not separate from any other Orthodox Church canonically in any way. You’re comparison of Old Calendarists and the EO with the Lutherans and the Catholic Church is false as the Lutheran’s are not in communion with the Catholic Church.

I’m guessing you must be referring to the the Greek Old Calendarists?

 

[Ignatios]

Uh, no I wouldn’t have. I wouldn’t expect an Orthodox prelate to burn incense to an elephant any more than I would expect a Catholic one to.

And what could he possibly be doing ( the Cardinal) in the presence of an Idol, maybe cursing it??? if he was then they would have killed every Catholic there and we would have heard about it. I mean come on…See, right here is the difference between us the Orthodox and you the RCs, If that was an Orthodox we wouldn’t hesitate for one second to call it what it is and condemn him for it, where you people act instinctively by creating doubts in order to protect him so your pride would not be injured.

To put it in a simple way, For the Catholics, whatever the Pope says, it goes. For the Orthodox whatever the Patriarch or the Bishop says, it better be right or HE GOES. period.

For most people, it’s pretty common knowledge that the Pope is regarded by the Catholic Church as its infallible head,

MOST yes but not all, as for being infallible, I have seen few Catholic laugh when they hear this word, and they still call themselves Catholic, one of them is a Priest.

and that people who claim the Pope is a heretic or apostate probably don’t believe what the Catholic Church teaches.

Yes because they don’t consider you as the true Catholic church.

I think that the Code of Canon Law can be codified without losing our identity as the same church as the “early Church”.

The canons are for things to be identified, AND, you can be identified who you are by them , if you delete them and you made up others that are in contradiction to the previous ones … then, this is an identity change.

(Btw, the “Apostolic Canons” are not apostolic in origin, historically speaking - we don’t really know when they were written.)

I agree that there is a dispute over their Origin, but nevertheless they were adhered to by the one unified Church, and they were used and confirmed by some of the E.C. AND I agree that Pope Constantine rejected them, but then they were accepted and confirmed by Pope Hadrian I, and now I really don’t know whether your church adhere to some or to none.

And it’s even possible that some things that were once forbidden are now permitted.

Here where we split.

Again, I don’t understand your grammar here.

lol, Okay.

I said “*your point I understand *” :
I understand that your point is that without having someone to come out and say this is wrong and this is right, such as the Pope in your case, there is no way for you to tell what is what.

I said “but your concept of perceiving things one way, that I don’t understand” :

Here , what I am saying is, that I am giving a parallel situation ( the GOC vs. the SSPX along with the other issues that we brought up such as the very many Catholic churches that are not in communion with the Catholic church of the Vatican) but you just can’t see it as equal or closely compared with what you are presenting against the Orthodox, and you also don’t see that we have the Bishops that can and will come out and say what is right and what is wrong,. and they (our Bishops)do when they see there is a need for that. And you are neglecting the fact that the Orthodox Church is very sympathetic and sensitive when it comes to dealing with schism and other Orthodox Churches, we are not hasty about rushing into such declarations especially when it is not dogmatic and it is over a Calender for heaven sakes.

GOD bless you all †††

 

[ChristMK]

From a pastoral standpoint I’ve seen similar things in my parish. I know of one couple in which the father is Catholic and the mother is Orthodox where the young children are allowed to receive in both parishes. I also know of one instance in which it was recommended that a person not convert to Orthodoxy because it was causing a tremendous strain in the couple’s relationship. They were both Catholic.

We have many Orthodox/Catholic intermarriages in our parish and each case is considered individually and with pastoral discretion. There are lots of situations in which the canons are not applied strictly.

Yours in Christ
Joe

That is comforting to hear,Joe. I am from the MOC(Macedonian Orthodox) so it is a very small church,there are no Eastern Catholic Macedonian churches in the US and very very few in Macedonia. See, the priest told him that it would be a sin if he converted to Orthodoxy also and it’s interesting because people convert to Orthodoxy ALL the time! Plus,the infants are not Christians yet before they are baptized so if Orthodoxy allow those to convert to their faith why can’t infants? So it’s a matter of the two religions having two viewpoints about this,which is what is causing the two among other things to not reunify. To say it’s a sin is coming from the Catholic Church,but not the Orthodox Church it seems,who is to say also who is right and who is wrong? That’s the thing.

At one point his aunt was able to get married in the MOC and she remained Eastern Catholic I believe,her sons got baptized in an Orthodox Church. Something must have changed since then,she got married years and years ago.

 

[Cecilianus]

The canons are for things to be identified, AND, you can be identified who you are by them , if you delete them and you made up others that are in contradiction to the previous ones … then, this is an identity change.

Here where we split.

I don’t understand why, Ignatios. The Church wrote the canons (on the authority vested in her by God); as the author, she has the authority to modify them. The disciplinary canons do not form the identity of the Church; the unchanging substance of the Faith does. (Though I don’t think we should play fast and loose with them.) The canons serve a purpose, rather than being an ultimate end in themselves. At one time, there was a serious risk of Christians converting to Judaism - so it was forbidden to enter synagogues. There is still a serious risk of Christians converting to Protestantism in America, and if the canonists had their heads on straight, the 1983 Code wouldn’t have omitted the ban on attendance at Protestant services. There is no such risk, on the other hand, of the Pope converting to Islam or Judaism, and as the public head of the Church, he represents us extending a gesture of friendship - which we hope will lead to conversion - towards the Jews and Muslims he visits during their worship.

lol, Okay.

I said “*your point I understand *” :
I understand that your point is that without having someone to come out and say this is wrong and this is right, such as the Pope in your case, there is no way for you to tell what is what.

I said “but your concept of perceiving things one way, that I don’t understand” :

Here , what I am saying is, that I am giving a parallel situation ( the GOC vs. the SSPX along with the other issues that we brought up such as the very many Catholic churches that are not in communion with the Catholic church of the Vatican) but you just can’t see it as equal or closely compared with what you are presenting against the Orthodox, and you also don’t see that we have the Bishops that can and will come out and say what is right and what is wrong,. and they (our Bishops)do when they see there is a need for that. And you are neglecting the fact that the Orthodox Church is very sympathetic and sensitive when it comes to dealing with schism and other Orthodox Churches, we are not hasty about rushing into such declarations especially when it is not dogmatic and it is over a Calender for heaven sakes.

GOD bless you all †††

Thanks for clarifying this. My point is that the “non-canonical” churches in schism with the Greek Orthodox also have bishops who condemn the Orthodox, and the only way for an outsider to tell who are the “real” Orthodox is which group is bigger. But there are no serious contendants for the Papacy other than Benedict XVI; you’d have to be kind of nuts to think that some guy in a farmhouse in Kansas is the real pope instead, so we know that the other “Catholic” churches are heretical since they reject Pope Benedict XVI.

 

[Cecilianus]

Let me just chime in that this example is not the same. I’m Serbian Orthodox, and we’ve always been on the old calendar (Julian). We are not separate from any other Orthodox Church canonically in any way. You’re comparison of Old Calendarists and the EO with the Lutherans and the Catholic Church is false as the Lutheran’s are not in communion with the Catholic Church.

I’m guessing you must be referring to the the Greek Old Calendarists?

I don’t know what he was referring to, but just to clarify, whenever I mentionted them I was referring to the Greek Old Calendarists, which would make his analogy true.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

Actually that’s HH Moran Mor Ignatius Zakka I (Iwas) who is Patriarch of Antioch of the Syriac Orthodox Church.

Thanks!

 

[Madaglan]

I don’tThanks for clarifying this. My point is that the “non-canonical” churches in schism with the Greek Orthodox also have bishops who condemn the Orthodox, and the only way for an outsider to tell who are the “real” Orthodox is which group is bigger. But there are no serious contendants for the Papacy other than Benedict XVI; you’d have to be kind of nuts to think that some guy in a farmhouse in Kansas is the real pope instead, so we know that the other “Catholic” churches are heretical since they reject Pope Benedict XVI.

It’s not the only way.

Yes, for the Latin Catholics, there is no serious contender for the Papacy other than Benedict XVI (conclavist elections of popes being shady), but conclavists are not the only traditionalist Catholics.

Something that “fringe” groups in both Catholicism and Orthodoxy have in common is their tendency to break down into more extreme groups, each which is similiar in its strict commitment to preserving tradition, yet condemns other groups of like persuasion. In the Catholic Church, we see this with the SSPX, from which broke away priests who would create the SSPV, from which more priests broke away into sedevacantism/independent Catholicism. We see the same breakdown amongst the Florinites and Mathewites in relation to the Orthodox Church.

 

[aspirant]

Please note that THE ORTHODOX CHURCH has been through several editions in the nearly 40 years since its first publication, with frequent changes.

True that. I’ve got more than one edition myself.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

Re Calendar and other issues, here’s my experience with ROCOR (Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia). They will not set foot in New Calendar churches, except for extreme cases of necessity. Now that ROCOR reunited with the Moscow Patriarchate, I’m still 110% sure the Russians from ROCOR will stay away from any New Calendar churches. Regarding the Moscow Patriarchate, I am under the impression that Russians attending the MP’s churches also regard the New Calendar Churches as fallen away from true Orthodoxy, on account of their use of the New Calendar, pews in church buildings, and musical instruments (organ). All these are a big NO-NO to Russians. My involvement with an Orthodox community involving mostly Russians, but also Greeks, started when I met a Russian Orthodox woman in New Orleans. Even though there is a Greek Orthodox and an Antiochian Orthodox church in New Orleans, these folks did not attend those churches, and drove instead about once a month to the state of Alabama, almost 3 hours away, to the nearest Old Calendar church of ROCOR. On the other Sundays of the month, they would simply stay at home rather than attend a New Calendar church. Since I grew up in Romania, I asked them what’s their opinion about the Romanian Orthodox Church. They immediately asked which calendar it follows, and hearing that it’s a New Calendar Church, they quickly pronounced their sentence - the Romanian Orthodox Church has also fallen away from true Orthodoxy. A ROCOR priest gave me a printout of an article from the

orthodoxinfo.com/default.aspx

website, according to which the annual miracle of the Holy Fire confirms that the correct day of Pascha is the one based on the Old (Julian) Calendar. But they say that the fixed (non-moveable) Feasts should also be based on the Old Calendar, and that a miracle occurred on the day of the Feast of Exaltation of the Cross, according to the Old Calendar, in the year (1924 or so) in which the EP of Constantinople first tried to impose the New Calendar. A cross appeared in the sky while the Orthodox faithful who rejected the EP’s orders, were celebrating that Feast on the day on which it fell according to the Old Calendar schedule.

Old Calendar Orthodox reject this Catholic innovation of the New (Gregorian) Calendar, not only in the Catholic Churches, but also in the New Calendarist EO Churches. And my impression is that Russians as a whole (the largest EO Church regarding membership numbers) reject the New Calendar, will not attend or take Holy Communion at New Calendar churches, and priests of ROCOR (maybe MP also?) will tell their faithful to stay away from New Calendar Churches. It’s not a formal breaking of communion pronounced by the Moscow Patriarch and the former Metropolitan of ROCOR, but as a practical matter they are not in communion with New Calendar Churches. They also strongly reject the pews and use of musical instruments, other than human voice, by the New Calendar Churches. These are two more reasons why they regard them as fallen away from true Orthodoxy, and why the Old Calendar EO will shun New Calendar EO churches.

Here’s a good synopsis of Old Calendar Churches:

cnewa.org/ecc-bodypg-us.aspx?eccpageID=53

 

[StevieD]

I can’t speak for the Orthodox leaders. All I know is what I have read on here, as posted by Orthodox people.

There are some exceptions, I’ll grant, but I would say that very few Orthodox have any interest at all in reunification. Generally speaking, Catholics have been taught to respect the Orthodox churches, and most desire reunification. I don’t think either thing has been taught to most Orthodox.

It isn’t all a matter of doctrine, either. Certainly, the authority of the Pope is an almost insurmountable obstacle for the Orthodox. But it goes beyond that. Orthodox consider Catholics “heretical”; a sort of renegade sect that has had unwarranted and illicit councils. To many Orthodox (I’m not sure if it’s “most”) even Catholic baptisms are doubtful. All other sacraments are considered invalid. Many, or perhaps most, Orthodox consider Catholics no more members of the “true Church” than Catholics think of Mormons in that way.

But beyond that, territoriality is a serious issue with at least some Orthodox I have met on here. Basically, the Orthodox consider that the Catholic Church can be worthy of reunification only if it becomes Orthodox in every way. Among other things, that would reduce the “jurisdiction” of the Pope to the City of Rome and some outlying areas in Italy. To be even the bishop of Rome, the Pope would either have to be deposed or somehow converted and re-apppointed by the Orthodox bishops. Otherwise, he’s “just a guy”. The Catholic Church would have to retreat from all the rest of the world. Territoriality is a serious issue between Orthodox themselves, but as between them and the Catholic Church it’s an absolute barrier.

Now, as a Catholic in America, I could not possibly accept being told that to be a member of the True Church I would have to reject my priest, my bishop, my liturgies, my marriage and perhaps even my baptism, and see the Catholic Church banished totally from this country. I would return to the hedgerows like my Irish ancestors before I would do that.

So, while one can think of reunification as a desirable thing, and one must think it, I am pretty sure it will never happen in my lifetime. Before I read the posts of Orthodox on here, and I have read a lot of them in other threads, I thought maybe it could happen. I no longer do.

This is as good a summary of the situation as I have ever seen. The most important point is that (for all their talk of superficial differences and temporary territorial disputes) the unity of Orthodoxy is substantially impaired and they appear to have no determination to face these internal issues and resolve them. The exercise of of charity and self examination that this would require from them might put them in a situation where external unity might become a possibility.

 

[trophybearer]

This is as good a summary of the situation as I have ever seen. The most important point is that (for all their talk of superficial differences and temporary territorial disputes) the unity of Orthodoxy is substantially impaired and they appear to have no determination to face these internal issues and resolve them. The exercise of of charity and self examination that this would require from them might put them in a situation where external unity might become a possibility.

Interesting… my Antiochnian priest was recently invited to concelebrate at the ROCOR church here.

 

[Ignatios]

I don’t understand why, Ignatios. The Church wrote the canons (on the authority vested in her by God); as the author, she has the authority to modify them.

The Church has the authority to modify them in what sense? if it is to remove them and replace them by something that would contradict them, then one might question, the origin of their inspiration, could GOD inspire the Church to do one thing only to contradict itself later, our GOD is not the GOD of confusion.
But to modify them in a sense to expand them to cover a new situation that it arise after, than this good and fine.

The disciplinary canons do not form the identity of the Church; the unchanging substance of the Faith does.

What is the purpose of the Canons? to guard the Faithful. to guard the faithful from what? from becoming lost. and how do one might become lost? through loosing his Faith. SO yes in a way, we identify the Church by her Canons ALSO, since the Canons are to ensure that no one get out of the faith, in which the Church is identified by.

(Though I don’t think we should play fast and loose with them.)

You sound one of the Old Calendarists here…loool… I say AAAAAAAAAAAmen to that.

The canons serve a purpose, rather than being an ultimate end in themselves.

Agreed, and as I explained above the purpose of them, if I can put it an analogy, the Canons are the fence which it keep the sheep from wondering outside the boundaries of the Faith of The Church, and once you are within those boundaries you are identified with the Church.

At one time, there was a serious risk of Christians converting to Judaism - so it was forbidden to enter synagogues. There is still a serious risk of Christians converting to Protestantism in America, and if the canonists had their heads on straight, the 1983 Code wouldn’t have omitted the ban on attendance at Protestant services. There is no such risk, on the other hand, of the Pope converting to Islam or Judaism, and as the public head of the Church, he represents us extending a gesture of friendship - which we hope will lead to conversion - towards the Jews and Muslims he visits during their worship.

Cecilianus, we cannot venture in the Canons as we please or as we see fit to our mind, as you said the Canons were written by the Church on the authority vested on her by GOD, therefore we must stick only to the bases that they were written on, So we cannot make up things to justify them nor to disqualify them, let us take a look and see what we got:
**-If any Clergyman, or Layman, enter a synagogue of Jews, or of heretics, to pray, let him be both deposed and excommunicated.
(Ap. cc. VII, XLV, LXXI; c. XI of the Oth; c. I of Antioch; cc. VI, XXXII, XXXIII, XXXVII, XXXVIII of Laodicea.).

Interpretation.
The present Canon reckons it a great sin for a Christian to enter a synagogue of Jews or of heretics in order to pray. “For what portion hath a believer with an infidel?” (II Cor. 6:15), according to the divine Apostle. For if the Jews themselves are violating the Law by going into their synagogues and offering sacrifices, in view of the fact that the offering of sacrifices anywhere outside of Jerusalem is forbidden, according to the Law (as is attested by divine St. Justin in his dialogue with Tryphon, and by Sozomenus in his Ecclesiastical History, Book 5, ch. 21, and by St. Chrysostom in his second discourse against the Jews), how much more is not that Christian violating the law who prays along with the crucifiers of Christ? Moreover, it is also to be emphasized that any church of heretics, or any religious meeting of theirs, ought not to be honored or attended, but rather ought to be despised and rejected, on the ground that they believe things contrary to the beliefs of orthodox Christians. Hence it is that the present Canon ordains that if any clergyman or layman enters the synagogue of the Jews or that of heretics for the sake of prayer, the clergyman shall be deposed from office and at the same time be excom¬municated on the ground that he has committed a great sin, but as for the layman he is to be excommunicated only, since, inasmuch as he is a lay¬man, he has sinned to a less degree than has the clergyman, in so doing, and because as a layman he is not liable to deposition and cannot therefore be deposed. Or, to speak more correctly, as others interpret the matter, the cler-gyman that enters a synagogue of Jews or heretics to pray shall be deposed from office, while any layman that does the same thing shall be excommunicated. Read also the interpretation of Ap. c. VII and that of Ap. c. XLV.

**

continue…

 

[Ignatios]

Thanks for clarifying this. My point is that the “non-canonical” churches in schism with the Greek Orthodox also have bishops who condemn the Orthodox, and the only way for an outsider to tell who are the “real” Orthodox is which group is bigger. But there are no serious contendants for the Papacy other than Benedict XVI; you’d have to be kind of nuts to think that some guy in a farmhouse in Kansas is the real pope instead, so we know that the other “Catholic” churches are heretical since they reject Pope Benedict XVI.

This is the way that an insider view it, the way I view it or the way many RCs or protestants or others who came to the Orthodox Church looked at it, is, by questioning what is the true teaching of the Church and not which Church is bigger, or which teaching is the genuine one, or is the Pope is right or the other side is right etc… in another word, to think of the Pope, authority and the largest number first, then, you are RC before you become one.
But what is important, in our side, that everyone in every archdiocese knows his Bishop and knows his Church, and that is the most important thing in regard to this matter.

let me ask you this, and if you didn’t experience it, try to do so first, how many RC do not know their Bishops but they do know the Pope? is this something good or bad?

GOD bless you all †††

 

[sidbrown]

That is comforting to hear,Joe. I am from the MOC(Macedonian Orthodox) so it is a very small church,there are no Eastern Catholic Macedonian churches in the US and very very few in Macedonia. See, the priest told him that it would be a sin if he converted to Orthodoxy also and it’s interesting because people convert to Orthodoxy ALL the time! Plus,the infants are not Christians yet before they are baptized so if Orthodoxy allow those to convert to their faith why can’t infants? So it’s a matter of the two religions having two viewpoints about this,which is what is causing the two among other things to not reunify. To say it’s a sin is coming from the Catholic Church,but not the Orthodox Church it seems,who is to say also who is right and who is wrong? That’s the thing.

At one point his aunt was able to get married in the MOC and she remained Eastern Catholic I believe,her sons got baptized in an Orthodox Church. Something must have changed since then,she got married years and years ago.

You mentioned the Macedonian Orthodox Church, but I read from another Orthodox that there was some problem with this Church as to its recognition? I don;t know too much about it, but it would be nice to have some discussion on what is going on. Thanks.