Gifts from the East--What Orthodox love about Catholics

  • Thread starter Thread starter PilgrimMichelangelo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I meant that there are few Orthodox parishes and priests around in comparison. Catholics can easily go to confession just about anywhere.

Also, while they do offer confession in Orthodox parishes, it isn’t always advertised and it can sometimes be difficult to go to confession in certain parishes. For example, I’m Antiochian, and have been advised to confess quarterly unless I absolutely need to do it more often. I know plenty of people in my parish seem to only confess maybe once or twice a year tops. Not all priests are confessors. There are at least two additional priests that are attached to my parish, but only the Protos can hear confessions. Also, there are sometimes other issues that can get in the way of someone going to their parish priest for confession.
 
Thanks for the clarification. What is a Proto? Sorry for my ignorance (rather inexcusable).
 
The assigned priest of a parish- not any additional attached priests.
 
Isaac14 said:
This reflects my own weakness, but I appreciate that when something requires 10 words to say, that’s what Catholics do. Orthodox, on the other hand, will find a way to use 50 or 100 words.
Click to expand...
There’s nothing the Latin Church does in ten minutes that we Byzantines can’t do in an hour!
 
CoffeeFanatic said:
The assigned priest of a parish- not any additional attached priests.
Click to expand...
I heard that in some traditions (Antiochian being one of those), Priests receive some kind of vestment and that symbolizes them being confessors. Is that a misinformation and is Protos always only one who can hear confessions, or can other authorized Priests do so? In Catholicism, every Priest can hear confession as long as he is in not outside his jurisdiction. I was very surprised that Orthodoxy does not have it same way.
 

I do not know for sure, but it seems at least in my Antiochian diocese the priest must receive the blessing of the Bishop before hearing confessions. Some priests are liturgical priests only until they have proved themselves spiritually mature enough to hear confession. Again, please take this with a grain of salt, knowing that it is from two instances I have seen or heard about and I may be totally wrong.
 
PilgrimMichelangelo said:
I do not know for sure, but it seems at least in my Antiochian diocese the priest must receive the blessing of the Bishop before hearing confessions. Some priests are liturgical priests only until they have proved themselves spiritually mature enough to hear confession. Again, please take this with a grain of salt, knowing that it is from two instances I have seen or heard about and I may be totally wrong.
Click to expand...
Thanks, that was probably what I was talking about 😃
 
Most Orthodox Priests are, at least from my experience, entrusted with hearing confession, although I think it is more common in the Greek tradition (which includes Antioch, for example) to have Priests without the permission to do so. Among the Greeks, Priests often wear a epigonation as a sign that they may serve as confessors.

I also think it is less common among Orthodox to confess to different Priests. It is not unusual to stick with one who has been given the time to get to know you, in order to establish trust and avoid confusion from getting contradictory advice etc. I even have some pious friends who only confess when visiting another country, because the Priest there have known them for many years and they trust him.

I was told by a Catholic Priest that he needs the Bishop’s blessing to absolve certain sins, such as abortion, although they established the praxis of just sending the Bishop a formal letter telling that it came up in confession.

Edit: I can see now that someone got ahead of me. 😊
 
Last edited:
Isaac14 said:
I don’t mean to sound trite, but I really appreciate that Catholics are on time.

This reflects my own weakness, but I appreciate that when something requires 10 words to say, that’s what Catholics do. Orthodox, on the other hand, will find a way to use 50 or 100 words.
Click to expand...
Kind of interesting thing to say. I trust no one will take offense to this, but I was recently on a thread in which someone was talking about going from Latin to Byzantine Catholicism. I said I am Roman in blood and bone culturally and while I admire much about Byzantine ways, attempting to be Eastern would be a sort of “spiritual tourism” for a person like me, though it might be exactly right for someone else.

It is interesting how very ancient ways have continued into our own time. Latin propensity toward simplicity, brevity and practicality is Roman. Straight lines and shaved faces. 🙂 Mysticism and an astonishingly detailed ornateness in all things is Greek, or at least Byzantine Greek if not Classical Greek.

A few years ago I saw an ancient map of how Eastern Christianity was divided from Western Christianity geographically, and the boundaries are not much different now.
 
Isaac14 said:
I don’t mean to sound trite, but I really appreciate that Catholics are on time.
Click to expand...
One thing I’'ve noticed, is that I’ve never seen observed in a Byzantine Catholic liturgy leave early, save to get to work on time or get the hall ready for the social!
Isaac14 said:
Orthodox, on the other hand, will find a way to use 50 or 100 words.
Click to expand...
Wait a minute, what kind of wimpy Orthodox are these that don’t even hit 250? :crazy_face: :roll_eyes: 🤣
 
Ridgerunner said:
It is interesting how very ancient ways have continued into our own time. Latin propensity toward simplicity, brevity and practicality is Roman. Straight lines and shaved faces. 🙂 Mysticism and an astonishingly detailed ornateness in all things is Greek, or at least Byzantine Greek if not Classical Greek.
Click to expand...
Most of the time I like the richness and depth that comes from our prolific use of words, but on occasion I just want the service to be done.

My catholic wife has commented that we make it very apparent what we’re celebrating any particular day, whether it’s a saint or feast or what have you.
dochawk said:
Wait a minute, what kind of wimpy Orthodox are these that don’t even hit 250? :crazy_face: :roll_eyes: 🤣
Click to expand...
Slacker American Orthodox, that’s who. 😉
 
What I admire about orthodox the most is that you didn’t try to change your liturgy like us!
 
Isaac14 said:
Slacker American Orthodox, that’s who. 😉
Click to expand...
I can’t speak for them, but in our nee ruthenian liturgy, we manage to call Judas a traitor three times in the space of four words!
imo said:
What I admire about orthodox the most is that you didn’t try to change your liturgy like us!
Click to expand...
🤣 :crazy_face: :roll_eyes:

That’s not right. Major changes were made as recently as the fourth century!

:crazy_face: 🤣
 
Last edited:
Grew up in the OCA (Orthdox Church in America, which is descended but independent from the Russian Orthodox Church). My dad is a priest. He gave confession anytime someone wanted it. He rarely talked to the Bishop, so there was no special permission given for each confession. Once he was ordained, and was given a parish, that was the permissions. Perhaps the Antiochians do it differently.
 
The reality is, if you love Catholicism, then you should leave the Orthodox Church and become Catholic. If you prefer or love Orthodoxy, then why worry if your parish is firmly against the Catholic tradition? Everyone has the right to their own viewpoint.

But in reality, I would be wary of ANY church that has such vast and great wealth (thinking Catholic church here), but certainly applies to any Orthodox, and Protestant churches which have wealth. Jesus said with great difficulty will a rich man enter the Kingdom of God, but He also said with God all things are possible. In Revelation, the Laodicean church was reproved by God, because though they thought they were rich, God said in spiritual matters they were poor. That’s a clear warning that riches and wealth are very easily misused in churches. They cause corruption and misuse of power since leaders are very unaccountable in many instances. The history of almost all denominations is filled with many examples of leaders who were corrupted by power and money. Are these not the very people the Lord will say to, “Depart from me you workers of iniquity, for I never knew you”. Even though they will say to the Lord did we not do many things in Your Name?"

I see such things in the Protestant church also. Many leaders arise, and have large, wealthy churches, and people listen to them. And their ideas are generally accepted, even if they are theological wrong or unsound. Because people like big churches, and power and money. 2 Timothy 4, For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears ; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

You know how the church should use riches? The Acts of the Apostles has the prime example. The church did NOT accumulate wealth from the people, and did not require wealth from people. People gave willing and not under compulsions, because God loves a cheerful giver. Instead, people gave money to help their fellow Christians. If they saw someone in need in their church, they would give them help. I am not saying that the local church doesn’t need any money. But neither should the local churches primary mission be to accumulate lots of money to build ever bigger buildings to massage the ego of the senior priest/pastor/bishop. It should be to seek and save those who are lost. That fundamentally incompatible with many large building projects.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top