Eastern Catholics defending Orthodoxy vs Roman Catholics

  • Thread starter Thread starter OraProNobis333
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
I can sort of understand why the SyroMalabars want to be latinized. As their counterpart really is the historic Church of the East (which I think both OO and EO Orthodox consider to this day to be kinda heretical). So they would rather be more Latin-like than try to get back into their East Syriac roots. It really comes down to an identity crisis ( as the SyroMalabar Church has 2 factions within it - pro-Latin and pro-Syriac ) and no Major Archbishop so far has been able to bring these 2 factions together/united.
 
Liturgical revision is a matter for the Patriarchal church. It appears that it is not opportune to revert.
I think Rome approved a liturgical revision during the 80s. And once the church became a major archepiscopal church with its own synod in the 90s, the synod was able to make terms with the Liturgy and all that.

They divided up the Mass to 3 forms. The Raza is the full form only employed in solemn occasions. Then a trimmed down version called solemn mass which is employed on Sundays. And the shortest version which is employed on weekdays. The heavily latinized eparchies do not have the Raza Mass.

Mass = Qurbana in the SyroMalabar context.

The Syro Malabar Church has 4 Archeparchies in India headed by Metropolitan Archbishops. 2 of the Archbishops are pro-Syriac. While the other two are pro- Latin. The interesting thing is the most pro -Syriac Archeparchy (Changaneshery) does the Mass fully ad orientem. While the Ernakulam Archeparchy (most pro Latin) does the Mass fully versus populam. While Palai eparchy does the Mass versus populam during the Liturgy of the word, and ad oroentem just before consecration (this is called 50-50 - and approved by synod).

The reason (my theory) why Ernakulam Archeparchy is very heavily latinized is because they are right next door to a strong Latin Catholic population ( Archdiocese of Verapoly). So since the Latin Sunday Novus Ordo Mass is just 30-40s mins or so. The Ernakulam Archeparchy has tried to mirror their liturgy to the Novus Ordo format ( so as members won’t fly off the Latin Church).

This is the situation in the SyroMalabar Church. So the laity themselves get confused due to the lack of unity within the church.
 
Last edited:
“The Holy Catholic Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ, is made up of the faithful who are organically united in the Holy Spirit by the same faith, the same sacraments and the same government”.
Is the SSPX a Catholic Church or not?
 
Yes, the SSPX have always and everywhere been part of the Catholic Church.
 
Yes, the SSPX have always and everywhere been part of the Catholic Church.
They are not under the government of the Pope as they are disobedient. I thought you claimed that in order to be Catholic you have to be under the government of the Pope? They refuse to accept the government of the Pope in some annulment situations and they refused the government of the Pope in the ordination of their bishops. here is a statement: " The orders being given us clearly express that they are being given us in order to oblige us to submit without reserve to the Second Vatican Council, to the post-conciliar reforms, and to the prescriptions of the Holy See, that is to say, to the orientations and acts which are undermining our Faith and destroying the Church. It is impossible for us to do this. To collaborate in the destruction of the Church is to betray the Church and to betray Our Lord Jesus Christ." The SSPX claims that VII undermines their faith and they will not submit without reserve to VII. So how can the SSPX be under the government of the Pope if they refuse to submit without reserve to VII?
 
Refusing to submit to errors does not negate one’s Catholicity. The SSPX were never at any point schismatic. They have never left the Catholic Church. Their position is that of being canonically irregular. They are valid priests and bishops offering valid Sacraments who lack a diocese of their own. Their Bishops haven’t been “assigned” anywhere (due to disagreements with Rome on its adoption of modernist errors-at least how they and many others see it). Their bishops are essentially in jurisdictional limbo. And they will remain so until they reach an agreement with Rome. But hear me friend. They are entirely Catholic. They have never “not” been a part of the Catholic Church.

Also, you may have confused me with another poster. I never claimed one must be under the government of the pope to be Catholic.
 
you may have confused me with another poster.
I did. Sorry for that. It was my mistake. But you responded to my question about a quote from the other person. I was quoting Genesis315 who said: ““The Holy Catholic Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ, is made up of the faithful who are organically united in the Holy Spirit by the same faith, the same sacraments and the same government”.”
Do you disagree with that, because it is a decree of the Church, no? How can the SSPX be united to the Catholic church if it does not accept the government of the Catholic Church ? at least according to that decree? Is it true that the SSPX obeys the Pope or does it refuse to accept unreservedly the declarations and implications of VII ?
 
Last edited:
Both. The SSPX acknowledge Pope Francis as their Pope. They pray for the Holy Father at every Mass. I spent a month at a large SSPX chapel in North Idaho. The priests taught the Catholic faith clearly, without ambiguity. But in the time there, I never once heard anything remotely close to bashing Pope Francis. Not from the priests. Not from the laity. A lot of concern of this or that encylical or off the cuff remark, but nothing declaring him an anti christ or heretic (which is what I was expecting prior to going there since, in my ignorance, I bought into the anti sspx rhetoric going around). But the first thing I noticed when walking through the front doors of the Church was a big painting of Pope Francis. They accept that the Second Vatican Council was a legitimate council. They contest some of the things the council allegedly teaches and reject much of the errors being spread “in the spirit of vatican 2” after the council concluded. So the SSPX are within the fold of the Roman Catholic Church, they always have been. And whether or not they are disobedient is a matter of perspective. John Paul II saw them as disobedient and excommunicated yet-to-be-recognized St Marcel Lefebvre and the Bishops he ordained. Yet Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI saw that this was a mistake and lifted the excommunications on all the Bishops except the late Marcel Lefebvre (who had already passed on to his eternal reward). And between Pope Benedict and Pope Francis, all the SSPX Sacraments (which were always valid) have now become licit (in the eyes of the Roman hierarchy, though the SSPX makes a solid argument citing canon law that their sacraments were always licit as well). But for those that simply refuse to acknowledge the SSPX, there’s no reason to be concerned anymore as even in the eyes of the Roman hierarchy they are completely licit.
 
And whether or not they are disobedient is a matter of perspective.
I thought that the SSPX themselves claim that they are disobedient, No?
Getting back to the subject of the post, the Eastern Orthodox say that their official name is the Orthodox Catholic Church. They claim that they maintained the same faith as it was in 1054 when Rome was united to them. Then Rome decided to make changes in the faith and left the Catholic Church, so the Orthodox Catholics felt that they had the right and duty to disobey the Vatican Pope. Look, even some higher level Roman Catholics of today seem to be saying that some official declarations made after 1054 are no longer applicable.
https://www.usccb.org/committees/ec...lioque-church-dividing-issue-agreed-statement

" * that the theological dialogue between our Churches also give careful consideration to the status of later councils held in both our Churches after those seven generally received as ecumenical.
  • that the Catholic Church, as a consequence of the normative and irrevocable dogmatic value of the Creed of 381, use the original Greek text alone in making translations of that Creed for catechetical and liturgical use.
  • that the Catholic Church, following a growing theological consensus, and in particular the statements made by Pope Paul VI, declare that the condemnation made at the Second Council of Lyons (1274) of those “who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son” is no longer applicable."
 
Last edited:
Right. So the Roman Catholic Church is starting to recognize some of the errors she made in history? The Eastern Catholic Churches never used the filioque, so they won’t have a problem with this. Personally I see this as a good thing.
 
I would welcome a hybrid approach in one’s personal prayer life.
This may work for some people but for others (myself included) i think it starts a sort of spiritual schizophrenia of sorts. This is especially evident in things like Holy Days of Obligation and fasting/feasting periods. I tried this early on in my journey but eventually gave up and resorted to all eastern things.
 
My experience with Eastern Catholics is that they fully identify themselves as 100% Orthodox, who just happen to agree with the things necessary for being in communion with Rome. So they are completely Orthodox Christians who choose not to remain separated in communion. That’s where I get confused why Roman Catholics tend to look negatively upon Eastern Orthodox but accept Eastern Catholics, when they two are essentially the same thing (not exactly the same thing).
Eastern Catholics are not in schism. Eastern Orthodox are a schismatic part of the Catholic Church.
Eastern Catholics accept Papal Supremacy. Eastern Orthodox do not accept it.
 
I know the branch theory (excluding Anglicanism since they haven’t had valid Holy Orders in centuries and centuries) is not popular among traditional Catholics or conservative Orthodox (especially the Russian Orthodox), but is becoming steadily more accepted, thanks to the work of JPII and Pope Francis as well as the Ecumenical Patriarchs over the last one hundred years.
Branch theory defies Church is “One”. Branch theory has been condemned by both Orthodox and Catholic authorities. If indeed Catholic Church is not One True Church then it is wise to run as fast as possible because if Church has been wrong, it is not true Church of Christ but it is deceiving people. Therefore if Branch Theory is correct, Catholicism is not part of True Church or Branch of it- it is simply heretical sect.

On a side note, there are very good arguments and reasons against Branch Theory. First, it has never ever been believed before, is form of indifferentism and is hardly Apostolic Doctrine. If indeed Branch Theory is possible then Christians simply forgot Apostolic Doctrine for thousand years and that simply isn’t possible if you believe Church is infallible and guided by Holy Spirit. You mentioned Pope John Paul II but he clearly affirmed that there is no Church of Christ outside of communion with Rome (but there are some elements of True Church present outside it). In the end, Branch Theory isn’t even a valid theory because if you apply it to history it means Church has always been wrong in her treatment of Schismatics (and that applies to pre-Schism too). It also means St. Paul was wrong because he warned us against Schism and appealed for all to follow same authority.

And lastly, if applied in your phrasing of Branch Theory that only valid Sacraments and Faith are needed, there is certain problem. Is Papal Infallibility valid? No = Catholics aren’t True Branch of the Church. Yes = Orthodox aren’t True Branch of the Church. And there is also a problem that any Bishop ever can just always Schism and because he has valid Sacraments he is also leader of Branch of True Church. It’s plain nonsense if applied into practice. All it does it ignores problems instead of solving them.
How can we help our brothers and sisters in the Roman Church see the Orthodox as brothers in the faith and not schismatic/heretical/etc?
Technically your question regarding Schismatics is “How can we help our brothers and sisters in the Roman Church see the Orthodox as brothers in the faith and not those who are not in formal communin with them?”. That is impossible unless you plan on deceiving people because Schism is real. If Schism is real, we have to acknowledge it. Orthodox shouldn’t be viewed as heretics, that much is true.
 
Last edited:
Have you any sources to back up these assertions?
This letter proves last point. First point is proven only by practice of some Churches (not Orthodoxy at large) to rebaptize Catholics (and also do Chrismation anew).

and second point sounds like misinterpretation of something… but perhaps it is meant to say that Latin Church should have more Patriarchates and it being global isn’t Orthodox model? Just throwing out ideas.
Eastern Catholics themselves (at least Byzantine Catholics) identify themselves as Orthodox.
That’s the sad part. Being Eastern Catholic from Catholic viewpoint means to be authentically Eastern Apostolic Christian much like Pre-Schism Eastern Churches were. If Eastern Catholics embrace their identity and tradition and filter through what is and isn’t Schismatic (prime example being condemnation of John Beccus) then latinizations themselves would disappear too. It’s a self-refuting statement to categorize as Orthodox when you aren’t.
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?
Pharisees who rejected Son of God still maintained authority until it was taken from them. Sacraments work thanks to Christ not thanks to Priest, Bishop, Patriarch of Pope. It is that reality where while disobedient, Orthodox are provided means of salvation for greater good of their soul. In our view, Eucharist as Sacrament is property of Catholic Church and Orthodox are simply partaking in it unlawfully but are partaking in it nevertheless (and that unlawful part gets reduced thanks to invincible ignorance or misinformation). After all, Christ allowed himself to be Crucified by Jews who didn’t accept Him. Judged by humans that are beneath him and we know by historical accounts that He allowed himself to be received by unrepentant sinners. Given that, it wouldn’t be that surprising if someone in Schism can have valid Eucharist…
(Obviously we Orthodox have a completely different view of the scenario, though)
Isn’t Orthodox view basically “we can say where Church is but not where it is not?” or in other words that Orthodox Church isn’t concerned with validity of Sacraments outside the Church? That doesn’t solve the problem just ignores it sooner than it can emerge.
 
Last edited:
This is only true of Orthodox (as no other church has all 7 Sacraments).
Also true of Sedevacantists who deny that there is valid Pope now, deny Vatican II (so they only celebrate Older Liturgies that are fully in Latin). It isn’t true that Western Christians outside Catholicism lack Sacraments…
That’s where I get confused why Roman Catholics tend to look negatively upon Eastern Orthodox but accept Eastern Catholics, when they two are essentially the same thing (not exactly the same thing).
Because of Schism. If I refused to obey Pope I wouldn’t be in a very good standing with Catholic Church. If my Bishop schismed from Rome he wouldn’t be in a very good standing with Catholic Church. Same applies to everyone who is in Schism.
 
while disobedient, Orthodox are provided means of salvation for greater good of their soul. In our view, Eucharist as Sacrament is property of Catholic Church and Orthodox are simply partaking in it unlawfully but are partaking in it nevertheless
The problem I have with that interpretation is:
  • We already have the Eucharist
  • But the RC Church is saying, “But you’re still incomplete (!) - you also need the Pope.”
  • As if even while possessing Jesus Himself we are somehow still deficient (?!) until we have the Pope (?!!)
Which is nonsense: if we have Jesus, we are complete. He lacks nothing. We don’t need anything else.
 
Last edited:
Which is nonsense: if we have Jesus, we are complete. We have it all. We don’t need anything else.
Indeed…this is what has made me comfortable with the idea of going to Orthodox services and even becoming Orthodox in the future (officially that is, as I already consider myself Orthodox in my heart 🙂 ).

John 6:51 (Douay-Rheims)
I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.
 
Last edited:
  • We already have the Eucharist
  • But the RC Church is saying, “But you’re still incomplete (!) - you also need the Pope.”
  • As if even while possessing Jesus Himself we are somehow still deficient (?!) until we have the Pope (?!!)
If you flip that around, it means that Eastern Orthodox attitude towards Oriental Orthodoxy is illogical. That Russia’s attitude towards Ecumenical Patriarchate is illogical etc. Why is there even a need for formal unity of the Church and hierarchy or common faith if Eucharist would be all that is needed? Why is there need for other Sacraments if Eucharist is sufficient?
Which is nonsense: if we have Jesus, we are complete. He lacks nothing. We don’t need anything else
We receive Him, but do we have Him? As I said, one can (is able to physically, not that it is allowed) receive Eucharist even if one does not believe - does that make such person complete? Satanists can steal Eucharist and receive it- does that make them complete? Valid Eucharist is a great thing but don’t mistake grace with Salvation.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top