From to Catholicism to Orthodoxy

[floresco]

Yes, and the actual teaching of the Church is that the Orthodox Churches are true and valid Apostolic Churches.

I am reasonably sure that this expression does not appear in Church teaching. I cannot think of a context in which the word “valid” would be used to describe a church. Perhaps you are thinking of “true particular Churches”.

 

[floresco]

That is very true. Floresco seems to think it is an all-or-nothing deal.

What I think (which is what I have said repeatedly) is that we have to limit our statements on this topic to Church teaching using the same words and expressions used by the Church. I think that my command of English is adequate for you to have understood this from my posts. I am puzzled as to why you persist in arguing with a position that I do not hold.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

You still don’t get it, your bishop is your authority in Orthodoxy. The early church fathers made this very clear. A for the holy synod and Peter the Great, you’re mixing your history up. Synods have always had the power to depose their primates. This even happened with several bishops of Rome during the so-called saeculum obscurum in the tenth century (and some of those popes were even deposed by new regimes when a new Italian family would come into power). What Peter the Great did was abolish the office of patriarch. Since the Orthodox do not believe that primatial structures are divinely ordained, it really isn’t a problem. While it definitely isn’t a high point in Orthodox history, I’d be careful what you mention, since the history of the papacy is filled with similar intrigue.

I don’t have a problem with you believing in any of that stuff, nor is it my intention to start a debate with you on papal authority in this thread, which we obviously disagree upon. I do have a huge problem, however, with the amount of misinformation you’ve spread about Orthodoxy in just this thread alone (inflating the power of patriarchs to make them look like little popes, making polemics about churches being out of communion when they are actually in communion, etc.). It would be nice if you would stop doing that.

As an Eastern Catholic, I agree. That post contains much misinformation about Orthodoxy and I apologise to our Orthodox brothers and sisters for it. I don’t share those views and many posters here don’t either. That post is an unfortunate - and outdated - Catholic triumphalist position that is based on a lack of knowledge of the Orthodox Church and the current ecumenical relations between Rome and Orthodoxy. It is also rude and discourteous. I’ve seen more courtesy extended by Latin Catholics to Atheists and Buddhists here.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Anyone who has been declared a Saint is inside of the Church. We cannot deduce from this anything about the Orthodox Church in general. We have to stick to what the Church has explicitly taught. This is not a matter for people who do not have advanced training in theology to be speculating about.

Well, Rome does indeed recognize St Gregory Palamas as a saint, even thought he was Orthodox and never in union with Rome. If we go to Catholic Online Saints we will find both of these Saints there as well as others.

So the Roman Catholic Church can and does acknowledge Saints sanctified outside her visible boundaries.

In fact, the Eastern Catholic Churches, which are Orthodox Churches that have come into communion with Rome, have kept all of their Orthodox Saints in their calendars which they venerate with Catholic veneration and with Rome’s approval. Sts Volodymyr and Olha, Sts Boris and Hlib, Sts Anthony and Theodosius and the more than 200 Fathers and Saints of the Kyivan Caves Lavra-Monastery and others - these are all Saints that were canonized by the Orthodox Church and never by Rome. The first six I’ve outlined have been in the Roman Canon of Saints for a very long time.

The existence of a cult of a Saint, irrespective of that Saint’s actual church membership when he or she was alive, can and does continue in the Catholic Church which has Arian and other Saints from even heretical groups in its calendar.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

The people I know are some formerly ROCOR (Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia) priests and laity within the reunited Russian EO Church. Priests in the reunited Church keep instructing the faithful, after ROCOR’s reconciliation with the Moscow Patriarchate in 2006, not to attend or commune in Greek and Antiochian EO Churches that use the New Calendar. The Russian faithful I know, will rather drive close to three hours to attend Divine Liturgy two states and more than 100 miles away (some even drive 400 miles to the closest Old Calendar church) in a ROCOR church under the umbrella of the reunited ROCOR-MP, rather than attend the New Calendar Greek EOC some 10 minutes away in the city, or the New Calendar Antiochian EOC which is also right there in the city some 20 minutes away.

Please see also posts #61 and 62 in this thread forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=663730 , regarding ROCOR’s position on the New Calendar EO Churches after its reconciliation with Moscow. In short, ROCOR did not change any of its beliefs or policies.

.

I wonder how is it working in practice, in Ukraine. The former Metropolitan of Kyiv under the authority of the Moscow Patriarch, decided to become autocephalous. Now he is the Patriarch of the UAOC - Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church. But the Moscow Patriarch excommunicated the Patriarch of the UAOC. In effect, I’ve read recently that the Ukrainian EO Church is split into three: we have this UAOC whose Patriarch has been excommunicated by Moscow, we also have a second Moscow-independent EO Church in Ukraine which is not in communion with Moscow, and third, we have an EOC with a Metropolitan still loyal to Moscow. According to what I’ve read, one of the Ukrainian Presidents used to attend alternatively the services of the Moscow-independent autocephalous UAOC, and the services of the Metropolitan loyal to Moscow.

It’s quite an interesting concept and totally foreign to Catholicism, that someone would attend one Sunday the services of a Metropolitan loyal to Moscow, and next Sunday would attend service at the new Kyiv Patriarch who has been excommunicated by Moscow. Since my “Moscow” is Rome , there’s no way I would attend Mass one Sunday in a Catholic Church loyal to Rome, and next Sunday in a Church whose head has been excommunicated by Rome.

To my mind, that’s what the unity of the Church means - all Catholic Churches are in communion with each other and none of the Catholic clergy within the Church are under excommunication by some other bishop or by the Pope. And I perceive the EO Churches as fractured, precisely because we have situations like these, where the Kyiv Patriarch is not recognized and has been excommunicated by the Moscow Patriarch, yet both insist to be within Orthodoxy.

Or, take the case when the Moscow Patriarch broke communion with the EP of Constantinople, and Moscow dropped the EP from the diptychs - this happened during the 1990s. Here we had the spiritual leader of world Orthodoxy (this is the EP’s own claim, from its own website, however the claim is hotly disputed by the Moscow Patriarch) out of communion with the Patriarch of the largest EOC, the Russian Orthodox Church! :bigyikes:

I perceive these things as lack of unity within the Eastern Orthodox Churches, but I understand that my EO brothers and sisters do not necessarily agree with me. After all, that’s why they choose to be Orthodox, while I choose to be Catholic.

Your information about the Ukrainian Orthodox situation . . . President Yuschenko attended the services of ALL the Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches in Ukraine but was himself of the UOC-KP.

You really have no idea about the background to the Ukrainian religious situation, except what is written in the press, which is simply, well, simplistic.

As for Latin Catholicism - you mean you don’t acknowledge the struggle between liberals and conservatives within Latin Catholicism? I find that much more disturbing than jurisdictional squabbles.

A major problem I have with online chat forums is that the information presented tends to be rather superficial. This post has demonstrated that to the nth degree.

Alex

 

[neokarny]

The people I know are some formerly ROCOR (Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia) priests and laity within the reunited Russian EO Church. Priests in the reunited Church keep instructing the faithful, after ROCOR’s reconciliation with the Moscow Patriarchate in 2006, not to attend or commune in Greek and Antiochian EO Churches that use the New Calendar. The Russian faithful I know, will rather drive close to three hours to attend Divine Liturgy two states and more than 100 miles away (some even drive 400 miles to the closest Old Calendar church) in a ROCOR church under the umbrella of the reunited ROCOR-MP, rather than attend the New Calendar Greek EOC some 10 minutes away in the city, or the New Calendar Antiochian EOC which is also right there in the city some 20 minutes away.

Please see also posts #61 and 62 in this thread forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=663730 , regarding ROCOR’s position on the New Calendar EO Churches after its reconciliation with Moscow. In short, ROCOR did not change any of its beliefs or policies.

There are indeed walled-off, so-called “ROCOR” parishes, but the actual ROCOR itself is in full communion with the rest of Orthodoxy.

The first problem with what you say in your post, as well as the other, is that the ROCOR hierarchs have always, and still, reject communion despite having some kind of “unity.”

orthodoxwiki.org/ROCOR_and_OCA#Parishes_concelebrate
This, as well as its references and links, shows full-well that there is perfect hierarchical concelebration and communion between the ROCOR, MP, and OCA (and thus the rest of Orthodoxy) hierarchs and laity.

pravoslavie.us/ROCOR.htm
This site even goes on to say that “The signing took place on the May 17, 2007, followed immediately by a full restoration of communion with the Moscow Patriarchate, celebrated by a Divine Liturgy at the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour in Moscow, at which the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Alexius II and the First Hierarch of ROCOR concelebrated for the first time in history.”

It is impossible for the hierarchs to concelebrate with the rest of New Calendar Orthodoxy, while somehow rejecting communion and supposedly not changing policies. The sheer act of concelebration, regardless, is a sign of perfect communion. There would be zero concelebration if there was some sort of schism or excommunication.

Further, I know first-hand that communion between us (New Calendar) Antiochians and the ROCOR is alive and well. My Antiochian parish frequently communes and concelebrates with the local ROCOR monastery (Hermitage of the Holy Cross) and the local ROCOR parish (Christ the Savior). In fact the local Greek (New Calendar) parish concelebrates and communes with the ROCOR monastery/parish often as well.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I am reasonably sure that this expression does not appear in Church teaching. I cannot think of a context in which the word “valid” would be used to describe a church. Perhaps you are thinking of “true particular Churches”.

What I think (which is what I have said repeatedly) is that we have to limit our statements on this topic to Church teaching using the same words and expressions used by the Church. I think that my command of English is adequate for you to have understood this from my posts. I am puzzled as to why you persist in arguing with a position that I do not hold.

Then answer this, why is it when Protestants who are validly baptized, when they become Catholic they become Roman Catholics? If they want to be Eastern Catholics they have to make a canonical transfer. And the same for Orthodox, they instantly are ascribed to their equivalent Catholic Church even if they desire to be Roman Catholics. Again, they have to transfer canonically?

If they Church doesn’t recognize that they are already a part of the Church, albeit in an imperfect communion, why is their canonical ascription already decided before they even “join” the Catholic Church?

 

[neokarny]

the Catholic Church which has Arian and other Saints from even heretical groups in its calendar.

This has me curious. Can you give me any examples if it’s not a bother? Thanks!

 

[Padraig1972]

The more that is written in this thread, the more my respect for our orthodox brothers and sisters in faith grows (yes: i do admire them) and become more and more curious.

God forgive me, if this is an act of not being loyal to you…

 

[Vouthon]

The Catholic Church believes that all who are validly baptized are members of the Church and joined to her by at least imperfect communion. Baptism comes in three forms: *baptism by water, baptism by blood and baptism by explicit or implicit desire. /I]

All Orthodox and Protestants who are validly baptized are incorporated as members of the Catholic Church, and brought into partial communion with her. For Protestants it ends there, and so they are like infant babies who have only received baptism. They do not come into fuller communion with the Church. Orthodox however, receive valid and true Confirmation and Holy Eucharist - they are in even fuller communion with us though still imperfect!

The Catholic Church furthermore teaches that non-Christians are incorporated into the Church through baptism by implicit desire, thereby becoming spiritual although not bodily members of the Church (which only happens through water baptism).

ANYONE who is Baptised in the name of the Holy Trinity is a part of the Catholic Church.

It is a true fact.

Although they are not perfectly united they are united to the Catholic Church.

In terms of non-Christians Blessed John Paul II explained in that there is a grace offered to all that does not make them members of the Church but nonetheless substantial, spiritual members inn some way less than formal way - but members nonetheless.

So if non-Christians are members without water baptism then how on earth can Floresco claim that Orthodox are outside the Body of Christ? It is ludicrous*

 

[L_piperatus]

There are indeed walled-off, so-called “ROCOR” parishes, but the actual ROCOR itself is in full communion with the rest of Orthodoxy.

The first problem with what you say in your post, as well as the other, is that the ROCOR hierarchs have always, and still, reject communion despite having some kind of “unity.”

orthodoxwiki.org/ROCOR_and_OCA#Parishes_concelebrate
This, as well as its references and links, shows full-well that there is perfect hierarchical concelebration and communion between the ROCOR, MP, and OCA (and thus the rest of Orthodoxy) hierarchs and laity.

pravoslavie.us/ROCOR.htm
This site even goes on to say that “The signing took place on the May 17, 2007, followed immediately by a full restoration of communion with the Moscow Patriarchate, celebrated by a Divine Liturgy at the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour in Moscow, at which the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Alexius II and the First Hierarch of ROCOR concelebrated for the first time in history.”

It is impossible for the hierarchs to concelebrate with the rest of New Calendar Orthodoxy, while somehow rejecting communion and supposedly not changing policies. The sheer act of concelebration, regardless, is a sign of perfect communion. There would be zero concelebration if there was some sort of schism or excommunication.

Further, I know first-hand that communion between us (New Calendar) Antiochians and the ROCOR is alive and well. My Antiochian parish frequently communes and concelebrates with the local ROCOR monastery (Hermitage of the Holy Cross) and the local ROCOR parish (Christ the Savior). In fact the local Greek (New Calendar) parish concelebrates and communes with the ROCOR monastery/parish often as well.

I’m happy to hear that ROCOR priests in your area concelebrate with New Calendar Greek and Antiochian EO Churches. This is specifically NOT the case with the ROCOR priests and laity I know. These priests specifically DO NOT concelebrate with New Calendar priests, and these layfolks specifically DO NOT attend New Calendar churches. I’m talking about priests and laypeople belonging to ROCOR, in good standing, AFTER the reunion of ROCOR with the MP in May 2006.

I’m not trying to contradict your experiences. If you say that ROCOR concelebrates with New Calendar Churches where you live, I believe you and I’m happy to hear it because I’m not one to enjoy seeing the divisions and infights within Orthodoxy. However, sadly, I had a totally different experience with ROCOR and the laity (Old Calendar followers of Russian and Greek heritage) I met while attending with ROCOR, both before the reunion of 2006 and AFTER the reunion with the MP in 2006.

 

[L_piperatus]

So here’s my dilemma: should I pray that she doesn’t convert or should I pray that God lead where ever He deems fit? If I pray the latter and she converts, how am I supposed to know I’m in the right denomination?

Look at the fractured nature of Orthodoxy, with EO Churches and Patriarchs going in and out of communion with each other. This can’t possibly be the “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic” Church we confess in the Creed.

Going by the amount of flak I’m taking for insisting on this, I must have touched upon a nerve with some posters. But yeah, look at the Moscow Patriarch going in and out of communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. Negotiations in Switzerland to bring back Moscow into communion with Constantinople, after Constantinople’s recognition of the Estonian autonomous EOC against Moscow’s wishes, and Moscow stopping to commemorate the EP in the diptychs. Look at the ongoing Old Calendar-New Calendar controversy, not only with ROCOR, but in Greece, Romania, and Bulgaria as well, with the Church of Greece and the monks on Mount Athos at a standoff. Look at the situation in Ukraine - the EO Church in Ukraine split into three, with one Patriarch (the Kyiv Patriarch, former Metropolitan of Kyiv under Moscow’s jurisdiction) being excommunicated by another one (by the Moscow Patriarch).

I don’t have to go too far to see the disunity within Orthodoxy - only to my native city in Romania. In a city where Serbs and Romanians (two Orthodox nations) used to live together for 800 years, they went out of communion with each other during the 20th century, because the Romanian EOC adopted the New Calendar, and the Serb EOC did not. In my native city, we have two EO churches set 100 yards apart from each other - a Romanian EO church that follows the New Calendar, and a Serbian one that follows the Old Calendar. Two EO churches within 100 yards of each other, out of communion with each other. That is a testament to the fractured nature of Orthodoxy.

Meanwhile, in the same city, we have Catholic churches easily accommodating multiple Catholic Masses in multiple languages. One of the Catholic churches I attend there has services in Romanian, Hungarian, German languages. There was no need to build a separate Romanian Catholic church, a Hungarian Catholic church, and a German Catholic church, within 100 yards of each other. We are Catholic, that is we are universal, and one church building can accommodate multiple nations and multiple languages, because we are one, despite our differences in language. The Catholic Marian shrine used to have services in 6 or 7 different languages, when it had pilgrims speaking that many different languages. But the Eastern Orthodox Romanians and Serbs had to construct two separate churches for themselves, within 100 yards of each other.

Also, btw, my ROCOR (Russian, Old Calendar) acquaintances told me that if I converted to Orthodoxy, I would be expected not to attend the Romanian EO Church, because that’s a New Calendar church.

Look at what has been going on historically. The Metropolitan of Moscow Isidore deposed and jailed by the Russian Tsar, because his delegation accepted the Union of Florence (1439), to restore unity with the Catholic Church. That’s how the Patriarch of Moscow came to be - the Tsar deposed and threw into jail the Metropolitan of Moscow under Constantinople’s headship, and proclaimed that Moscow was now an independent autocephalous Church with its own Patriarch appointed by the Tsar, independent of Constantinople. Than, Constantinople refused to accept this new Moscow Patriarch for a full century, but it caved eventually and accepted it.

Look at how the entire delegation but one from Constantinople, headed by Patriarch Joseph II, with some 23 Metropolitans and countless Byzantine scholars in attendance, almost unanimously accepted the Union of Florence - only one bishop, Mark of Ephesus, rejected the Union from the Byzantine side. Yet as they returned to Constantinople, the monks, priests, and laity at home revolted and rejected the Union agreed to by their leaders.

These are not signs of the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic” Church of the Creed. The EO Church is not One, and not Catholic. It is not One because there’s no unity in it, and it’s not Catholic because it’s not universal (Catholic means universal).

Christ prayed at the Last Supper “that they may be one”. Well, if you want to find the Church whose members are “one”, that’s NOT the fractured Eastern Orthodox Church. That Church is the Catholic Church, in unity with Peter’s successor the Pope.

 

[Vouthon]

I would like to add this into the discussion:

``Where the Bishop is, there let the multitude of believers be;
even as where Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church’’

***- Saint Ignatius of Antioch, 1st c. A.D (c. 35 - c. 108),
early church father

---

Jesus is fully present in the Orthodox Eucharist. And they have valid orders with valid Episcopate - and so in Orthodoxy we have Bishop with multitude of the faithful and Jesus fully present in the Eucharist. The only “wound” is schism from Rome. And so we have the Catholic Church in Eastern Orthodoxy - except that they are currently in imperfect communion, but they are in communion even if imperfect unlike fully Catholic particular Churches in full communion with Rome (ie Latin rite, Byzantine rite etc.) and so the Church of Christ is present in the Orthodox Churches as he is in no other.

 

[Aussie_ukie]

Constantine TG also stated that " I guess, in a very loose way, the way most (if not all) Traditional Catholics see the SSPX regardless of their irregular status is the same way Eastern Catholics see the Orthodox. And for Eastern Catholics it goes much deeper than just the Liturgy".

                              I guarantee you there are more than a few Ukrainians, Romanians, Maronites, etc, who would thoroughly reject that analysis. They do not look to the Orthodox as there model, nor do they feel there church is lacking or missing something.

well Im a Ukrainian Greek Catholic and I do feel my church is lacking something… Independence, Freedom from the Latinizations, freedom from having to explain to every catholic I meet why I cross myself differently, I lack the unity of other like minded Christians. in my humble opinion Rome was not the right answer for the Ukrainians, but as I was born into it, I shall stay. but if my church ever wanted to be Independence from the Papal church Id be the first to show the flag!

…and frankly Ive looked at the ecclesiology of both the Catholics and the Orthodox, both have points in their favor and if you look hard enuff you can find passages in both scripture, church fathers and Councils to back up both models. however the Orthodox model is clearly the older and is shared by both Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Christians which shows that not all the christian world agreed with Rome’s definition of itself even in the earliest years of the church.

 

[L_piperatus]

I would add that another shortcoming of Eastern Orthodoxy, or a departure if you will, from the structure set up by Jesus Christ, is the ability of the laity to overthrow and depose their bishops and to overrule their bishops’ decisions, as exemplified by what happened to Metropolitan Isidore in Russia, and to the delegation of the Patriarch and Metropolitans from Constantinople, after the Union Council of Florence.

The way I see Jesus Christ’s actions setting up a Church headed by 12 Apostles and their leader Peter from among them, nowhere did Christ authorize the laity (the people from outside this circle of twelve) to overthrow, depose, and overrule the Apostles. Quite the contrary - Christ said to the 12 Apostles that on judgment day, they were going to sit on 12 thrones and judge the 12 tribes of Israel.

So, how did we go from the ecclesiastical structure, from the chain of command set up by Jesus Christ, to this inverted chain of command found in Eastern Orthodoxy?

 

[Aussie_ukie]

I would add that another shortcoming of Eastern Orthodoxy, or a departure if you will, from the structure set up by Jesus Christ, is the ability of the laity to overthrow and depose their bishops and to overrule their bishops’ decisions, as exemplified by what happened to Metropolitan Isidore in Russia, and to the delegation of the Patriarch and Metropolitans from Constantinople, after the Union Council of Florence.

The way I see Jesus Christ’s actions setting up a Church headed by 12 Apostles and their leader Peter from among them, nowhere did Christ authorize the laity (the people from outside this circle of twelve) to overthrow, depose, and overrule the Apostles. Quite the contrary - Christ said to the 12 Apostles that on judgment day, they were going to sit on 12 thrones and judge the 12 tribes of Israel.

So, how did we go from the ecclesiastical structure, from the chain of command set up by Jesus Christ, to this inverted chain of command found in Eastern Orthodoxy?

well lets look at how much authority Peter really had, we can do that be examining his role in the council of Jerusalem. when HE DID NOT preside of the council…why not? cause it was not his canonical Territory. the Spiritual Authroty left to peter by Christ is undeniable, but what is also undeniable is that Peter does not have Supreme authority or jurisdictional power over the church. if so, Peter himself would have presided over the council and it would have been Peter who made the decision, but it was not, it was James who presided (due to his rank of Bishop of Jerusalem) and it was James who union with the church universal resolved the debate.

and it was this model in the form of the Ecumenical councils that continued to define the faith for the next 1000 years!

 

[neokarny]

I’m happy to hear that ROCOR priests in your area concelebrate with New Calendar Greek and Antiochian EO Churches. This is specifically NOT the case with the ROCOR priests and laity I know. These priests specifically DO NOT concelebrate with New Calendar priests, and these layfolks specifically DO NOT attend New Calendar churches. I’m talking about priests and laypeople belonging to ROCOR, in good standing, AFTER the reunion of ROCOR with the MP in May 2006.

I’m not trying to contradict your experiences. If you say that ROCOR concelebrates with New Calendar Churches where you live, I believe you and I’m happy to hear it because I’m not one to enjoy seeing the divisions and infights within Orthodoxy. However, sadly, I had a totally different experience with ROCOR and the laity (Old Calendar followers of Russian and Greek heritage) I met while attending with ROCOR, both before the reunion of 2006 and AFTER the reunion with the MP in 2006.

You neglected to comment on the first half of my post, which was far more important than my anecdotal part. I emphasized that the ROCOR hierarchs have concelebrated, and continue to concelebrate, with New Calendarist hierarchs. Thus the ROCOR you are in contact with are acting in direct opposition to ROCOR’s hierarchs, and are either walled-off or schismatic groups.

The groups you are in contact with are either schismatic Old Calendarist churches that are not canonically ROCOR, even if they claim to be, or on the odd chance that they are canonically ROCOR, then they are borderline schismatic walled-off bodies that are by no means reflective of the ROCOR position on anything. This second point is demonstrated wonderfully by the concelebration of their hierarchs with New Calendarist hierarchs.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

This has me curious. Can you give me any examples if it’s not a bother? Thanks!

Yes, among the Arians were: St Nicetas the Goth (Sept. 15), St Sabas the Goth, (April 12), St Elpidius the Courtier (Nov. 16), St Artemius the Dux Augustalis of Egypt (Oct 20).

St Elesbaan, King of Ethiopia (Oct. 27), the Hymerite Martyrs with St Aretas (Oct. 24) and St Eutuchius of Carrhae (March 14) were Miaphysites. The Bishops S. Flavian II of Antioch and St Elias of Jerusalem (both July 4) signed the Henoticon of Emperor Zeno and died in exile under excommunication. St Achatius of Amida (April 9) was a Nestorian/Assyrian.

As Fr. Holweck in his Dictionary of Saints (1924) wrote:

“… they are all to be found in the Roman Martyrology. The gallant battle they fought for Christ and their glorious triumph caused the ancient Church to overlook the defect of their orthodoxy. Besides, of the Saints of Syria, Mesopotamia, Russia, Abyssinia etc., many were orthodox i.e. Catholic, but are venerated only by the heretical or schismatical religious bodies of their home countries.”

Alex

 

[Cavaradossi]

Look at the fractured nature of Orthodoxy, with EO Churches and Patriarchs going in and out of communion with each other. This can’t possibly be the “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic” Church we confess in the Creed.

Going by the amount of flak I’m taking for insisting on this, I must have touched upon a nerve with some posters. But yeah, look at the Moscow Patriarch going in and out of communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. Negotiations in Switzerland to bring back Moscow into communion with Constantinople, after Constantinople’s recognition of the Estonian autonomous EOC against Moscow’s wishes, and Moscow stopping to commemorate the EP in the diptychs. Look at the ongoing Old Calendar-New Calendar controversy, not only with ROCOR, but in Greece, Romania, and Bulgaria as well, with the Church of Greece and the monks on Mount Athos at a standoff. Look at the situation in Ukraine - the EO Church in Ukraine split into three, with one Patriarch (the Kyiv Patriarch, former Metropolitan of Kyiv under Moscow’s jurisdiction) being excommunicated by another one (by the Moscow Patriarch).

You have been corrected several times on the Ukraine issue, by multiple posters. At this point you are wilfully lying.

I don’t have to go too far to see the disunity within Orthodoxy - only to my native city in Romania. In a city where Serbs and Romanians (two Orthodox nations) used to live together for 800 years, they went out of communion with each other during the 20th century, because the Romanian EOC adopted the New Calendar, and the Serb EOC did not. In my native city, we have two EO churches set 100 yards apart from each other - a Romanian EO church that follows the New Calendar, and a Serbian one that follows the Old Calendar. Two EO churches within 100 yards of each other, out of communion with each other. That is a testament to the fractured nature of Orthodoxy.

The Serbs and Romanians are in communion.

Meanwhile, in the same city, we have Catholic churches easily accommodating multiple Catholic Masses in multiple languages. One of the Catholic churches I attend there has services in Romanian, Hungarian, German languages. There was no need to build a separate Romanian Catholic church, a Hungarian Catholic church, and a German Catholic church, within 100 yards of each other. We are Catholic, that is we are universal, and one church building can accommodate multiple nations and multiple languages, because we are one, despite our differences in language. The Catholic Marian shrine used to have services in 6 or 7 different languages, when it had pilgrims speaking that many different languages. But the Eastern Orthodox Romanians and Serbs had to construct two separate churches for themselves, within 100 yards of each other.

Evidently you are not aware of the fact that there is a separate Romanian Catholic Church.

Also, btw, my ROCOR (Russian, Old Calendar) acquaintances told me that if I converted to Orthodoxy, I would be expected not to attend the Romanian EO Church, because that’s a New Calendar church.

They were wrong.

Look at what has been going on historically. The Metropolitan of Moscow Isidore deposed and jailed by the Russian Tsar, because his delegation accepted the Union of Florence (1439), to restore unity with the Catholic Church. That’s how the Patriarch of Moscow came to be - the Tsar deposed and threw into jail the Metropolitan of Moscow under Constantinople’s headship, and proclaimed that Moscow was now an independent autocephalous Church with its own Patriarch appointed by the Tsar, independent of Constantinople. Than, Constantinople refused to accept this new Moscow Patriarch for a full century, but it caved eventually and accepted it.

Not quite.

Look at how the entire delegation but one from Constantinople, headed by Patriarch Joseph II, with some 23 Metropolitans and countless Byzantine scholars in attendance, almost unanimously accepted the Union of Florence - only one bishop, Mark of Ephesus, rejected the Union from the Byzantine side. Yet as they returned to Constantinople, the monks, priests, and laity at home revolted and rejected the Union agreed to by their leaders.

You should study your history. There was a lot of intrigue that happened at Florence. You simplify things to far in order to make unfair caricatures.

These are not signs of the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic” Church of the Creed. The EO Church is not One, and not Catholic. It is not One because there’s no unity in it, and it’s not Catholic because it’s not universal (Catholic means universal).

Christ prayed at the Last Supper “that they may be one”. Well, if you want to find the Church whose members are “one”, that’s NOT the fractured Eastern Orthodox Church. That Church is the Catholic Church, in unity with Peter’s successor the Pope.

Two can take cheap shots like that. If your papal organizational scheme is so good, how come in the fifteenth century there were three competing popes at one point? Should one have rejected the Catholic Church then, because of its disunity? What about the Protestant reformation, when a bunch of former Catholics broke off, themselves claiming to be the reformed Catholic Church, should one have rejected the Roman Catholic Church then, because of her disunity? If you no to these questions, then I would recon you would have to be engaging in hypocrisy, because that is essentially your same reasoning for your savage, unjustified, and half-truth filled attacks on Orthodoxy.

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

Considering what she *could *be converting to, I’d not worry.

My very very close friend is very close to converting to Eastern Orthodoxy.
We are pen pals and used to be lovers of Catholicism. In fact, we used to be discerning religious life together.

Nonetheless, we have let time pass, and I found out recently that she’s most likely converting. That makes me very sad, and I don’t know how we’ll bond when the very thing that brought us together was Catholicism and the fascination with it.

So here’s my dilemma: should I pray that she doesn’t convert or should I pray that God lead where ever He deems fit? If I pray the latter and she converts, how am I supposed to know I’m in the right denomination? I mean, really. She REALLY knew the Catholic Church, yet she’s leaving. I don’t understand it, and she doesn’t want to explain it.

Gah. What do you suggest? Again, please suggest, and don’t tell.