Eastern Catholics defending Orthodoxy vs Roman Catholics

  • Thread starter Thread starter OraProNobis333
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Alexandria2020 said:
40.png
OraProNobis333:
I know many Eastern Catholics consider themselves Orthodox in communion with Rome (and while this is likely a simplistic characterization, I do not find fault with it).
Click to expand...
not the Chaldeans, SyroMalabars, and Maronites. As we don’t have a counterpart Orthodox church. OO or EO.

now in India, the average SyroMalabar laity calls themselves “Roman Catholic Syrian Christian”, just bcs they consider themselves to be that much Catholic.
Click to expand...
Chaldeans and Syro-Malabar correspond to The Assyrian Church of the East or Ancient Church of the East. There is no Orthodox specifically corresponding to the Italo-Greek Catholic Church (a.k.a Italo-Albanian).
 
Oneness in faith, while indispensable, has never been considered the sole definition of the Church in our common tradition. That is just a variation of the Protestant faith alone. Schism is a real thing in the unanimous tradition of East and West. By definition, schism is not a breaking of faith, but of communion with the authorized bishop and his flock. If the opposite is true, why do EOs even care about jurisdictions at all never mind Rome’s?

The different Latin rites were still united in the unity of the Church. That’s not a real comparison. That kind of diversity is good. The Eastern Catholic Churches are a testament to this. If anything, the EOs are more uniform in that respect.

The Catholic Church does not deny a communal aspect to salvation for those who are not visible members of the one Church (even among Protestants, one must baptize another and knowledge of Christ must come from another). Sacraments being available to such good faith “wayfarers” is a testament to God’s providence despite sins of separation committed in the past. Likewise, the sacrifice itself being offered, despite the worthiness or lack thereof of the priest, has merit as well for the whole world, since it is the same as Christ’s. All these things properly belong to the Church of Christ, even if they were taken elsewhere by those who separated in the past.

We say the separated Churches cannot be identified as the one Church of Christ–a visible body–but rather that through these elements that properly belong to that one Church, the Church is present to those who partake of them in good faith.

But again, we can’t ignore Christ’s will for that full, visible unity among those born again through baptism. Being on good terms with one another and can be a good means to that end, but it shouldn’t be the end. The leadership of the Catholic Church and those of all the Orthodox Churches seem to understand this as they each seem to tirelessly try to work and pray for it.
 
Last edited:
Visible unity is necessary as it is Christ’s will that we all be one, but it is not absolutely necessary for salvation. The Orthodox Churches have operated independently from Rome since the mutual split in 1054ad and both have become self sufficient. This is unfortunate as it makes it harder to push both sides toward unity. The Eastern Catholic Churches are very unique. They agree with many Roman pronouncements on paper, for the sake of unity, but then either ignore it or continue to teach the Orthodox understanding of said issue. For starters, I don’t know any Eastern Catholics who wouldn’t be overjoyed if a future pope sought to re-examine the dogmatic pronouncements of Vatican I. Most Eastern Catholics see Vatican I as a mistake, a gross overreach of authority that no previous Roman Pontiff ever sought. They sympathize with the Orthodox, generally, and stand with them on many issues theological and spiritual. Of course this is not true everywhere, as many Eastern Catholic Churches are still suffering from forced latinizations (the Maronites being the best example of this). But once the Eastern Catholic Churches have finished shaking off latinizations and fully embrace their Orthodox heritage, I think we will see that it is entirely possible to be Orthodox and be in communion with Rome. Eventually though, for this to happen, Rome will need to rethink it’s understanding of papal primacy (what the Orthodox consider supremacy) going forward.

I think this is already in progress. Pope Francis has done much to diminish the singular authority of the papacy, overhauling the curia and kicking a lot of power back down to local synods of Bishops (just as the Early Roman Church and Eastern Churches did/still do). This has infuriated the TLM crowd and used to cause me such distress. But once I realized that I couldn’t, in faith, consider myself a traditional Catholic if I was only willing to follow those traditions back to the Middle Ages/High point of Roman Catholicism, I saw that the Eastern style of governance was the universal model the Church operated on until Vatican I. So Rome has a lot to answer for and correct in order for unity to be restored. It’s not just the Orthodox who need to change their positions to get with us, it’s going to require changes and concessions on both sides (without Truth being sacrificed). Once the Eastern Catholics are fully Eastern, I think they will help serve as the bridge to restore unity between Eastern and Western Christendom and the Body of Christ will be whole again.

The only real authentic ecumenism exists between Catholics and Orthodox. As these are the only true/sacramental Churches. The tens of thousands of protestant religions don’t require ecumenism, but evangelization. They aren’t part of the Body of Christ yet.
 
Most definitely…I’ve tried getting the people (teachers and students) at my kids’ Catholic school interested in the East and mostly it’s a “that’s nice” type of response…no real interest; just a pat on the head.
Alexandria2020 said:
especially the heavily latinized ones. they are more or less a hybrid church- half Latin and half eastern.
Click to expand...
yep…and the sad thing is that a lot of them like it that way. And I’ve found that a lot of curious RCs like that as well…best of both worlds and all that nonsense.
 
We’ve had/have Orthodox commune in our church as well. I’m not sure how or if they return to the Orthodox church and commune there also…I believe they were all OCA.
 
The Eastern Orthodox are not visible one/united with the Roman Catholic Church, yet the Orthodox retain valid life giving Sacraments. If an Orthodox Christian confesses their sins and dies in a state of grace, they have full assurance of their salvation, despite not being united to Rome in a visible way. This is only true of Orthodox (as no other church has all 7 Sacraments).
 
OraProNobis333 said:
The Eastern Orthodox are not visible one/united with the Roman Catholic Church, yet the Orthodox retain valid life giving Sacraments.
Click to expand...
You know, that’s actually something I never understood about the Roman position - how do they reckon that we have Christ’s body (the Eucharist) but aren’t considered in Christ’s body (the Church)? We’re apparently not in His body and yet His Body is in us when we receive it in Liturgy.

Actually, how is it possible in their opinion that a group outside “The Holy (Catholic) Church” can still have the most holy and unifying thing in the world, God? When they receive their eucharist and we receive ours (which they claim is also valid), wouldn’t they believe we’re united because we’d all be in Christ at the same time?

(Obviously we Orthodox have a completely different view of the scenario, though)
 
Last edited:
It does not seem to me that much of anything from the Roman side separates Orthodoxy from Latin Christianity. I think it’s the other way around. The Latin Church recognizes the validity of Orthodox orders and sacraments. That is not reciprocated by Orthodoxy, which maintains that even Latin baptisms and marriages are invalid.

The Latin Church accepts the structures of Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy does not accept those of the Latin Church.

The Latin Church accepts the “right” of Orthodoxy to be anywhere in the world. Orthodoxy holds that the Latin Church is rightly restricted to the City of Rome and the countryside around it, but has no jurisdiction or right of presence anywhere in Asia, the Americas, or most of Europe.

The Latin Church does not expect Orthodoxy to depose its bishops and Patriarchs if ever there is reunion. Orthodoxy expects the Pope to resign and be replaced by an Orthodox Patriarch.

Now, to my understanding, Eastern Catholicism does not hold any of that, but accepts Latin Christianity as it is. I think it’s a very big mistake to equate Eastern Catholicism with Orthodoxy except in the outward appearance of its liturgies, prayers, architecture, and vestments.
 
“Ridgerunner said:
It does not seem to me that much of anything from the Roman side separates Orthodoxy from Latin Christianity. I think it’s the other way around. The Latin Church recognizes the validity of Orthodox orders and sacraments. That is not reciprocated by Orthodoxy, which maintains that even Latin baptisms and marriages are invalid. Many Orthodox Churches recognize the validity of Roman Catholic Sacraments. I would even say most. The only Orthodox I’ve seen arguing against it were some, not all, Russian Orthodox.

The Latin Church accepts the structures of Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy does not accept those of the Latin Church. I would need you to explain this more clearly before commenting on it.

The Latin Church accepts the “right” of Orthodoxy to be anywhere in the world. Orthodoxy holds that the Latin Church is rightly restricted to the City of Rome and the countryside around it, but has no jurisdiction or right of presence anywhere in Asia, the Americas, or most of Europe. Can you support this with anything authoritative? I’ve never encountered this at all.

The Latin Church does not expect Orthodoxy to depose its bishops and Patriarchs if ever there is reunion. Orthodoxy expects the Pope to resign and be replaced by an Orthodox Patriarch. This is not true. Rome would expect Orthodox Bishops/Patriarchs to resign any post where their diocese would overlap a Catholic counterpart

Now, to my understanding, Eastern Catholicism does not hold any of that, but accepts Latin Christianity as it is. I think it’s a very big mistake to equate Eastern Catholicism with Orthodoxy except in the outward appearance of its liturgies, prayers, architecture, and vestments.
Click to expand...
Eastern Catholics themselves (at least Byzantine Catholics) identify themselves as Orthodox. I think all Eastern Catholics would associate themselves more with Orthodox in spirituality and theology than they would with Roman Catholicism. The Eastern Catholics are not just Roman Catholics with different vestments and a different sounding Mass.
 
OraProNobis333 said:
Eastern Catholics themselves (at least Byzantine Catholics) identify themselves as Orthodox. I think all Eastern Catholics would associate themselves more with Orthodox in spirituality and theology than they would with Roman Catholicism. The Eastern Catholics are not just Roman Catholics with different vestments and a different sounding Mass.
Click to expand...
I do know several ECs who think this way (I am one of them) but I also know a few who identify more with Latin Catholicism (in as much as they quote post schism Popes and don’t actively dislike the latinizations etc)
 
Last edited:
Indeed, but those Eastern Catholics that “want” latinizations aren’t faithfully embracing their own traditions and liturgical identity. Without wanting to sound antagonistic, I would suggest any Eastern Catholic who likes latinizations to change canonical Churches and become Roman Catholic, and vice versa. Having discovered Eastern spirituality, I am feeling inexorably drawn to Eastern Catholicism/Eastern Orthodoxy, hence why I am in the process of changing canonical churches and leaving the Roman Catholic Church for the Byzantine Catholic Church (Ruthenian specifically).
 
Not readily to hand. But at one time here on CAF there was extensive discussion with Eastern Orthodox, some quite learned, about those things. It’s just a fact. But here’s one source.

http://www.orthodoxengland.org.uk/rcsacs.htm

It can get very confusing. Some Orthodox have different views of it, but there is a significant amount of disunity in Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy holds that doctrinal certitudes can only be determined by declaration of an ecumenical council. But, since Orthodoxy considers the Seat of Rome vacant, no ecumenical council can be held, because unanimity is required.

As to territoriality, any Orthodox explication of it seems turgid to a Latin, but here’s one source, seemingly written by a Greek source, likely the monks of Mt. Athos. The Greeks and the Russians have their differences, but the Russian Orthodox are far and away the largest segment of Orthodoxy. There are issues connected with that, as the dispute over Ukraine by the Greek and Russian churches as well as the “schismatic” Ukrainian Orthodox church.

https://www.patriarchate.org/-/terr...-phenomenon-of-ethnophyletism-in-recent-yea-1
 
I would certainly not push an Eastern Catholic to become Latin, or vice versa. I believe there actually are different “mindsets” among them, and both are worthy of reverence. I am no expert, but it seems to me the Eastern Churches are more contemplative and mystical, almost hypnotic in their liturgies and decor. Latin Catholicism is as practical as a Roman centurion. Literal, direct, methodical, orderly and at least somewhat militant. (though not as militant as it used to be)

I consider myself Latin in blood and bone. I do admire eastern liturgies and prayers but for me, it’s a sort of “liturgical tourism” as I imagine a Latin Mass would be to a Byzantine. I would feel greatly out of place joining an eastern church, though I imagine I would be sort of tentatively welcome. But to a Latin, those churches really are “foreign” in many ways, just as the Latin church probably is to them… Personally, I would encourage an eastern Catholic to remain with his/her Church and cherish its liturgies and traditions.
 
I would welcome a hybrid approach in one’s personal prayer life. We have a latin-esque altar at home and are building an icon corner. Even becoming a Byzantine Catholic and adopting Eastern prayers and devotions, I will continue praying the rosary and wearing the Brown Scapular. At a parish level, these two should never mix. Our Ruthenian Church has the congregation praying the rosary before the start of the Liturgy. While I advocate for the recitation of the rosary at home, in public and at Roman Churches, it simply does not belong in an Eastern Catholic Church. Granted, those who do so are disgruntled TLM Catholics who have found safe harbor in the East rather than attending a novus ordo Mass. But this is not good. It’s disrespectful to the valid Eastern traditions and rich treasury of grace the East has accumulated over the last two millennia.
 
Vico said:
Chaldeans and Syro-Malabar correspond to The Assyrian Church of the East or Ancient Church of the East.
Click to expand...
True, but the average SyroMalabar laity is Latin at heart and spirituality. They would have no idea about the Assyrian Church or East Syriac spirituality. Sure the liturgy is a Malabar version of the Divine Liturgy of Addai and Mari (with words of institution added in). But that’s about it. Some latinized eparchies make the Mass look just like the Novus Ordo (trimmed down liturgy too)
 
Last edited:
Alexandria2020 said:
40.png
Vico:
Chaldeans and Syro-Malabar correspond to The Assyrian Church of the East or Ancient Church of the East.
Click to expand...
True, but the average SyroMalabar laity is Latin at heart and spirituality. They would have no idea about the Assyrian Church or East Syriac spirituality. Sure the liturgy is a Malabar version of the Divine Liturgy of Addai and Mari (with words of institution added in). But that’s about it. Some latinized eparchies make the Mass look just like the Novus Ordo (trimmed down liturgy too)
Click to expand...
Liturgical revision is a matter for the Patriarchal church. It appears that it is not opportune to revert.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top