Does a convert to Eastern Catholicism need to affirm post schism doctrines and dogma?

[Nine_Two]

To be blunt, how about hard headed? I wonder why the Catholic Church feels the necessity to rebuild the bridge to the Orthodox, while the Orthodox wants to keep the gap. Pride perhaps? The Catholic Church at least is trying to extend an olive branch, isn’t that the Christian thing to do?

Nice bridge. “Submit to us and we’ll let you keep your disciplines.”

I think you’re right, there is some pride there.

 

[crazzeto]

Would a convert to Eastern Catholicism need to affirm, for example, the Latin teachings on purgatory, treasury of merit and indulgences? Would he need to affirm papal infallibility? How about recent Marian dogmas (e.g. the immaculate conception)?

All Catholics should affirm properly the full doctrinal teachings of the Church. You cite “Latin teachings on purgatory”, I would suggest that there is the doctrine of purgatory, and then there is a latinized understanding of it. All Catholics affirm Purgatory, not all Catholics believe that you are purified through fire (though what other purification is cited I have no idea). There may even be debate as to purgatories status as a “place” or “state”, ultimiatly these become symantics. Purgatory is doctrine, indulgences are doctrine, papal infalibity is also doctrin, and yes the Marian dogmas.

One can not look to the Eastern Catholic Churches as a way of being Catholic with out having to “deal with” such doctrines. You should study them in full, especially via council and other documents which define the doctrines in the first place and fully understand them.

From there you can put them into a Eastern v. Western context.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Nice bridge. “Submit to us and we’ll let you keep your disciplines.”

I think you’re right, there is some pride there.

Right, so submitting to what the Orthodox wants when the Orthodox doesn’t want a concession is not prideful? Prideful or not, the Catholic Church has already found common ground between the doctrines that were divisive. I don’t see the Orthodox making such moves.

 

[dcointin]

In the second largest predominantly Orthodox nation on Earth, Ukraine, the largest Orthodox Church is the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Kyivan Patriarchate) which is in communion with Not One Other Orthodox Church because Politics enters too easily into Orthodoxy and allows for the inanity of having a body of some 14 million Orthodox Ukrainians not being in communion with any of the other world’s Orthodox.

Alveus, are these 14 million Ukrainian Orthodox “heretics”, “schismatics”; are they even considered Orthodox? They hold all the right beliefs and praxis and have history. The fact that they are not in communion or recognized by anyone else is a political issue not religious. I mean the Second largest Orthodox populace in the world cannot even get Autocephaly while Orthodox countries and populations many times smaller even have Patriarchs never mind Autocephaly. Ceasaropapism exists in today’s Orthodox world. This is a problem for Orthodoxy.

I am well aware of issues in the Eastern Catholic Churches; but the Eastern Orthodox have their share of problems too.

I wish this could be resolved of course but I am trying to be adamant at not trying to create strife. I am no High Petrine but language entirely dismissive of Eastern Catholics to me seems possibly unaware of why and how and for what reasons we are where we are and why we remain. If anything the Catholic Church does recognize the Orthodox as a Sister Church; Sadly, I don’t believe the feeling is mutual.

There was another similar situation which has since been reconciled, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR). Orthodox Wiki describes the situation:

“Until the reconciliation with Moscow in 2007, the ROCOR was in relative Eucharistic isolation from much of the Orthodox world, not always exchanging full communion with the majority of Orthodox jurisdictions. It maintained good relations, intercommunion, and concelebration with the Church of Serbia, the Church of Jerusalem, and the Church of Sinai.”

orthodoxwiki.org/ROCOR

There’s a ROCOR parish close to where I live, and while I was still an inquirer I visited it several times and spoke with the priest. The practice and piety of the parish was very traditional, and there was some extremely faithful people there, but I eventually decided not to become involved in part because of its lack of communion with other Orthodox churches. To this day when the area parishes come together for pan-Orthodox celebrations, the ROCOR parish never participates. I honestly don’t know if they would commune me since I’ve heard that some traditionalist priests refuse to recognize non Orthodox baptisms, and I was baptized Lutheran and chrismated into Orthodoxy.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Forgive me if my words seem harsh, but this “live-and-let-live” comes to a head eventually. The Melkites are not Orthodox, and they need to stop pretending that they are.

I wouldn’t say they were harsh.

I would go more for “hateful”.

But thats just me.

 

[Alveus_Lacuna]

I wouldn’t say they were harsh.

I would go more for “hateful”.

But thats just me.

Oh, please. I don’t hate Melkites at all. Don’t be so dramatic. I’m just tired of this new paradigm of “Orthodox in communion with Rome.” There is nothing “hateful” about saying that the Melkites are not Orthodox. It is just a simple fact. They subscribe to the Vatican’s innovative dogmas, and they are not in communion with our churches.

 

[josephdaniel29]

Oh, please. I don’t hate Melkites at all. Don’t be so dramatic. I’m just tired of this new paradigm of “Orthodox in communion with Rome.” There is nothing “hateful” about saying that the Melkites are not Orthodox. It is just a simple fact. They subscribe to the Vatican’s innovative dogmas, and they are not in communion with our churches.

It’s certainly no more “hateful” than placing us in the “Non-Catholic” religions section.

I’ve always found the Orthodox in communion with Rome thing a little unusual. At one point I thought I’d have a little fun and change my religion profile to read “Catholic in communion with Constantinople.” I wasn’t sure how well that would go over with the powers that be.

In Christ
Joe

 

[josephdaniel29]

That the Most Holy Theotokos never sinned in life - that is something both East and West believe and the East celebrates her Conception as a feast day, meaning that she was a saint at her Conception. Would Orthodox agree with that? Yes and no. But as an Eastern Catholic - I don’t care.

Alright Alexander you know good and well the fact that we celebrate the Conception of the Theotokos doesn’t mean we believe she was conceived without original sin. We celebrate the Conception of John the Baptist on Sept 23. Do we believe he was immaculately conceived as well?

In Christ
Joe

 

[Hesychios]

At one point I thought I’d have a little fun and change my religion profile to read “Catholic in communion with Constantinople.” I wasn’t sure how well that would go over with the powers that be.

In Christ
Joe

I think it’s a grand idea.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Oh, please. I don’t hate Melkites at all. Don’t be so dramatic. I’m just tired of this new paradigm of “Orthodox in communion with Rome.” There is nothing “hateful” about saying that the Melkites are not Orthodox. It is just a simple fact. They subscribe to the Vatican’s innovative dogmas, and they are not in communion with our churches.

Your rant was nasty.

But I have to say, I do agree with you on the “Orthodox in Communion with Rome” issue. That is why I call myself a Byzantine Catholic.

 

[crazzeto]

Alright Alexander you know good and well the fact that we celebrate the Conception of the Theotokos doesn’t mean we believe she was conceived without original sin. We celebrate the Conception of John the Baptist on Sept 23. Do we believe he was immaculately conceived as well?

In Christ
Joe

No one believes that John the Baptist was conceived immaculetly, the scriptures are quite clear as to when he was filled with the Holy Spirit… Apples and oranges

 

[josephdaniel29]

No one believes that John the Baptist was conceived immaculetly, the scriptures are quite clear as to when he was filled with the Holy Spirit… Apples and oranges

Then you can’t use the fact that there is a feast for the Conception of the Theotokos as implicit evidence that we believe she was conceived without original sin.

In Christ
Joe

 

[mardukm]

I’ve always found the Orthodox in communion with Rome thing a little unusual. At one point I thought I’d have a little fun and change my religion profile to read “Catholic in communion with Constantinople.” I wasn’t sure how well that would go over with the powers that be.

Well, that would be completely inappropriate because we all know that Orthodoxy does not define itself by communion with a particular see.

In the early Church, if there was a question of orthodoxy, there is more appeal to communion with Rome than to any other See.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Oh, please. I don’t hate Melkites at all. Don’t be so dramatic. I’m just tired of this new paradigm of “Orthodox in communion with Rome.” There is nothing “hateful” about saying that the Melkites are not Orthodox. It is just a simple fact. They subscribe to the Vatican’s innovative dogmas, and they are not in communion with our churches.

“Innovation” does not necessarily mean one is not orthodox or Orthodox. As an Oriental, I can point to several “innovations” within EO’xy that I don’t find in the early Church; but I have no problem calling you Orthodox because I respect your developments in doctrine.

I don’t call you Catholic not because you are Orthodox - I don’t call you Catholic because you cannot accept the Traditions of the other Churches who are equally Orthodox - your paradigm is truly not universal, only local (I don’t write that in a mean spirit at all - forgive me if it comes across as such).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Nine_Two]

Right, so submitting to what the Orthodox wants when the Orthodox doesn’t want a concession is not prideful? Prideful or not, the Catholic Church has already found common ground between the doctrines that were divisive. I don’t see the Orthodox making such moves.

Submitting to the Orthodox means recognizing all the Orthodox Churches as Self-headed and free to administer themselves through a common faith.

As many Catholics argue the only real difference is ecclesiastical, absolutely there is nothing prideful in asking the Roman Catholic Church to “submit” to the idea that there is no master Bishop.

 

[Nine_Two]

It’s certainly no more “hateful” than placing us in the “Non-Catholic” religions section.

I’ve always found the Orthodox in communion with Rome thing a little unusual. At one point I thought I’d have a little fun and change my religion profile to read “Catholic in communion with Constantinople.” I wasn’t sure how well that would go over with the powers that be.

In Christ
Joe

I was going to do the same thing, but then I thought people would interpret it to mean I was Byzantine Catholic, so I thought about adding a bunch of Orthodox cities, but ran out of space.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

“Innovation” does not necessarily mean one is not orthodox or Orthodox. As an Oriental, I can point to several “innovations” within EO’xy that I don’t find in the early Church; but I have no problem calling you Orthodox because I respect your developments in doctrine.

I don’t call you Catholic not because you are Orthodox - I don’t call you Catholic because you cannot accept the Traditions of the other Churches who are equally Orthodox - your paradigm is truly not universal, only local (I don’t write that in a mean spirit at all - forgive me if it comes across as such).

Blessings,
Marduk

Which “innovations” do you see in modern Orthodox Christianity that were not present in the Early Church? Do the Orthodox admit this?

If true, doesn’t that contravene the Orthodox claim to represent the authentic, orthodox faith of the Early Church?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Submitting to the Orthodox means recognizing all the Orthodox Churches as Self-headed and free to administer themselves through a common faith.

As many Catholics argue the only real difference is ecclesiastical, absolutely there is nothing prideful in asking the Roman Catholic Church to “submit” to the idea that there is no master Bishop.

Sorry, what I meant was the Orthodox wants the Catholic Church to abandon her beliefs and submit to what the other Orthodox wants, the same way an Orthodox would see as unifying with the Catholic Church as submitting to her instead of unification. I think the problem here is why we have a 1000 year stalemate is one side believes they are right and won’t compromise to the other. Its pride on both sides. But I believe the Latin Church has made more concessions in the last few decades to make it more appealing to the Orthodox to unify. I don’t see the same effort from the Orthodox though, maybe I am missing something.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

Personally I believe that if Rome wants Orthodoxy to take its efforts at reunion seriously, then it must rethink the way it treats the Eastern Catholic Churches. The Orthodox look to us Eastern Catholics to see what a reunited Church will be like. While I may disagree with Alveus on his position that it is not possible for Eastern Catholics to be fully Orthodox and fully in communion with Rome, he does, perhaps inadvertently, demonstrate much of Orthodoxy’s attitude towards reunion. Why should they re-enter communion with a Church when they can pretty much count on being micro-managed by an overly-centralized Church that doesn’t even share the same theological tradition? Why should they re-enter communion when they can pretty much count on having to fight tooth and nail to maintain the traditions, theology, spirituality, disciplines, etc. that they have kept since the Apostolic times? Look at we Eastern Catholics. For too long we have had to apologize to Rome for our traditions, theologies, spirituality, etc., and for too long we have sought “permission” to restore within our Churches that which is rightfully ours; granted, however, that the momentum for restoration never came from Rome, but has always come from within the Eastern Catholic Churches (one need only look at the reforms set in motion by Metropolitan Sheptytsky, or look at the history of the Melkites). It is only when this momentum for complete restoration hit obstacles from within, opponents to restoration from other Eastern Catholics, that these movements turned to Rome to settle the disputes.

That being said, I do believe that, in the event of reunion, Orthodoxy will have much to be grateful for with regards to Eastern Catholics, especially those Eastern Catholics who cling to the authentically Eastern or Oriental theologies, traditions, spiritualities, disciplines, etc., despite all the opposition they get from within their own Churches, from Rome, and from Orthodoxy itself. While Orthodoxy and Rome spend decades discussing reunion, the Eastern Catholic Churches have been living union daily for centuries, with all its divine beauty and all the ugliness brought about by human sinfulness. We are the ones doing the “grunt-work” to pave the way for reunion; and often-times that way is paved with the blood of our own martyrs, murdered by both our Orthodox mother Churches and our Roman sister Church. But still we look forward to the day that we will be rejoined with our mother in a new union when both Rome and Orthodoxy will share the one Loaf and the one Cup of salvation. When that happens our job will be done, and we Eastern Catholic Churches will simply disappear. May God grant that this happens sooner rather than later.

ICXC + NIKA,
Phillip

This is very helpful. Thank you. You are right: the treatment of Eastern Catholics is a model of how Rome would treat Anglicans and others that could conceivably be united with the Roman See.

 

[josephdaniel29]

Sorry, what I meant was the Orthodox wants the Catholic Church to abandon her beliefs and submit to what the other Orthodox wants, the same way an Orthodox would see as unifying with the Catholic Church as submitting to her instead of unification. I think the problem here is why we have a 1000 year stalemate is one side believes they are right and won’t compromise to the other. Its pride on both sides. But I believe the Latin Church has made more concessions in the last few decades to make it more appealing to the Orthodox to unify. I don’t see the same effort from the Orthodox though, maybe I am missing something.

The difference is we are not asking you to accept a single dogma that the Western Church didn’t hold in common with us during the first millennium of the Church.

But if, on the contrary, it is plainly demonstrated, as those of the Latins themselves, who love the truth, also acknowledge, that the Eastern and orthodox catholic Church of Christ holds fast the anciently transmitted doctrines which were at that time professed in common both in the East and the West, and that the Western Church perverted them by divers innovations, then it is clear, even to children, that the more natural way to union is the return of the Western Church to the ancient doctrinal and administrative condition of things; for the faith does not change in any way with time or circumstances, but remains the same always and everywhere, for ‘there is one body and one Spirit.’ - The Patriarchal Encyclical of 1895