Heart is pulling me towards Orthodoxy

  • Thread starter Thread starter Stuartonian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The problem is that the union is the result of the pope and the western bishops confirming the eastern churches as they are with the tradition and faith that they have. The east isn’t forced to subscribe to western theology.

Was it just a trick to turn the east into the west over time? A step by step transformation of what we believe into what you believe? I assume that you also think the east should add the filioque as well.

Also it seems that you think this is about some petty geto attitude in which the Greeks are only going to read Greek saints as if they don’t have any arguments for what they believe. Just a matter of personal preference. If that were the case then there is no reason for us to maintain our traditions.

I’ve read parts of the council of Trent and have no problems with it for the most part, but I also have no need to integrate what it says into what I believe or the way I think.
 
This is the same thing as above. You think the eastern Christians are just petty people with a ghetto mentality.

Your approach to the relationship between the individual and the universal church is a very western approach. It is a very top down and hierarchical approach. In the end it leads to the dissolving of the eastern churches into the west. We didn’t accept union with the west so that we could become part of you.

The east has a more bottom up approach. Starting with the local, and proceeding toward the universal.

I would also argue that it has lead to many of the problems of the west. No one has any responsibility for any of the problems. Just push it up the chain. And then the top pushes it back down. In the end no one claims responsibility.
 
Last edited:
You can rest assured that the Melkite Church will not be dissolved into the western tradition so long as @ziapueblo is alive😂
 
Babaganoush said:
Was it just a trick to turn the east into the west over time? A step by step transformation of what we believe into what you believe? I assume that you also think the east should add the filioque as well.
Click to expand...
Not entirely- but in the first Church, you would not see someone saying “but that’s Latin way of expressing it, we do not care” or vice versa. Thing is, because Latinization was done not to enrich East but to replace it’s tradition, East is not very suspicious of anything Western and hence they deny even things that could enrich them. Some Latins have same approach to Eastern things that could enrich West. In the end, that isolationist policy of traditions is simply not gonna last. We hold to our own but we do not ignore anything that is other. If Filioque is not false, adding it to Creed should be about every Church’s tradition- yes I understand it sounds heretical in Greek, but does it sound heretical in Church Slavonic? If so, why do Slavic Latin Catholics use it and Eastern Catholics don’t? I don’t see a point other than looking more authentically Eastern, or vice-versa, looking more authentically Western (if Filioque indeed sounds heretical in Church Slavonic or any Slavic language for that matter).

I do not think Eastern Christians are just petty people with ghetto mentality, I simply think Eastern Churches are universal in character same as Latin Church is, and hence many privileges but also duties stem from it.
Babaganoush said:
We didn’t accept union with the west so that we could become part of you.
Click to expand...
Of course not, yet submission to Roman Pontiff does not mean becoming part of us. You did not accept union to become part of Latin Church, but you accepted union to become part of Catholic Church (which has many traditions, Eastern or Western, by default). No one is supposed to take our tradition as their own or vice-versa, it’s just that Truth is true, Holy Spirit does not lie and established authority actually possesses authority. That’s all. If Pope were Eastern, I’d act same way. I simply don’t like notion of Eastern Catholic Churches being autocephalous Churches of Catholicism while Latin Church is also another autocephalous Church with primacy- we are much more united than that, that is why Roman Clergy (College of Cardinals) also includes Eastern Catholic Cardinals, not just Latin. If Rome was not above sui iuris Churches, then there would be no reason to get Eastern Cardinals in- or there would be Latin Bishops in every Eastern Catholic Church. That is not the case, hence it points to universal character of Rome, Bishop of Rome, and also entire Catholic Church with Her hierarchy and members.
 
When I converted and heard about what latinization did to Eastern Catholics, I was very sad and even outraged. I would not want East to abolish… being East. Yet, I do not want Catholics to abolish being Catholic either. Papacy is a gift to the Church, established authority, not obstacle to unity of Church or anything like that. Papacy has been defined by Holy Spirit’s revelations in many Ecumenical Councils, which also includes Vatican I. Those are all irreformable dogmas of faith that are simply revealed by God, hence not respecting them or not taking them into account while doing something that denies them implicitly, is not a good idea.
 
Last edited:
I don’t mind Latinizations. I’m a Latinized Maronite. I understand why some people are offended by it, however. The East is just as Catholic as the West.

I think we should speak of Orthodox reuniting with Catholics rather than returning to the Catholics, since it’s making it seem as if the Apostolic Church was only Western (Catholic) and this is confusing lots of people. Let’s establish that the East was once Catholic and is called to be Catholic again, but not Western.
 
Apostolic Church was not only Western, but True Church was always Catholic Church which remained Catholic Church. I understand reuniting is more politically correct term, but as Catholics we kinda believe it’s them returning to True Church rather than creating some new Syncretic Church of two. Maronites are exact example of East being Catholic and always remaining Catholic. Thanks to Maronites and other Churches who never left communion with True Church, Catholic Church was NEVER only Western. No one should consider that to be true either.
 
OrbisNonSufficit said:
Perhaps that’s stretch- but then what about Oriental Orthodox? Are they also Church of Christ?
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church acknowledges the Oriental Orthodox as having apostolic succession and the Eucharist.
OrbisNonSufficit said:
Episcopalians, are they also Church of Christ and we are losing as much as they are by severing communion?
Click to expand...
The Episcopalians do not have apostolic succession. Evangelicals do not have apostolic succession. Eastern and Oriental Orthodox do! Both are “True Churches” and “Sister Churches!”
OrbisNonSufficit said:
. . . submission to Roman Pontiff . . .
Click to expand...
I am under my bishop, not Rome. Just as you are under your bishop. Roman Catholic Vatican 2 ecclesiology, thanks to the Melkite Catholic Patriarch and Bishops, is closer to the historical ecclesiology. The Bishops are the heads of their dioceses and are in communion with the Pope and the Pope is the head of the Church in the setting of a Council. That’s much better than what Vatican 1 said.

ZP
 
Yes, that’s true, but to maintain Catholicity in an overwhelmingly Orthodox world, the Maronites had to Latinize, and did so willingly.
 
ziapueblo said:
The Catholic Church acknowledges the Oriental Orthodox as having apostolic succession and the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
Yes, but that itself is not enough to be fully Church of Christ built upon the Rock of Peter that Christ estabilished, not the question I asked. If indeed all communions with valid Apostolic Succession are Churches of Christ, there is no reason for any Bishop who does not like ecclesiology of his superiors to not just split off and establish his own full true Church.
ziapueblo said:
Pope is the head of the Church in the setting of a Council. That’s much better than what Vatican 1 said.
Click to expand...
Yet, Vatican I is Ecumenical, infallible council. Vatican 2 can not undo that. Current stance is that Pope can be conciliar, and does not have to be. He can excercise his power freely however he wishes to, and if he wants to, he can be monarchical in nature too. Simply speaking, no limits are ever put on Pope, according to both Vatican I and Vatican II. Vatican II can not erase Vatican I.
 
Last edited:
East borrowing from West and West borrowing from East was a common thing pre-schism. It’s just that when it’s forced or when it abolishes one’s tradition, it’s not very licit thing. I agree that forced latinization is bad, but being overwhelmingly anti-latin to not seem any close to Latin Catholics at all is a stretch too.
 
Only problem I have with anti-papal polemics from East are that it makes me, Latin Catholic, who is required to firmly believe in Vatican 1, a fool. I am supposed to believe Pope has supreme, immediate power over all baptized that he can always freely exercise and can be infallible, can be monarchical and no one is to judge Him or His See (that also includes decisions of Ecumenical Councils convened by Pope therefore). Yet, that is not true because East can bypass that rule and therefore I am required to not believe in truth. That is a contradiction and therefore either Latins and those who accepted Vatican I (that includes many Eastern Catholic Chuches) are all plainly wrong, or a group of Eastern Catholics that adopted Orthodox ecclesiology are. I take my chances with the second one.
 
Primacy does not mean supremacy. Communion does not mean submission.

ZP
 
There is a certain amount of speaking past each other in these discussions as there are in all important discussions. It is hard to communicate what we believe in a way that the other person can understands because we come from very different perspectives and situations.

These conversations always reveal two very different approaches. Tradition develops according to the west. New doctrines and new dogmas will come until the end of time and that is a positive development. The faith is constantly being updated.

From the eastern perspective, there may be developments but they aren’t necessarily seen positively. They came because there were heresies that arose and the only way to preserve what was handed on was through a definition. It is about preserving and submitting to the faith that was given to us. Whereas you might feel a need to integrate what every pope teaches into your view of the world, I feel no need. If it helps me to explain to someone what I already believe or what has been believed for 2000 years then I will use it.

For me this isn’t about being eastern or western, it is about being authentically Christian. And what is authentically Christian doesn’t need developed or changed. The Christian of the first millennium was the same as the Christian of this millennium.
 
There is no reason to take it personally. We could all take it personally and all feel like fools. We have different approaches and all we can do is discuss it and hopefully come to some mutual understanding. As I said above this isn’t about being eastern or western, it is about being Christian and that is the same for us as it was for the first millennium.
 
Last edited:
Babaganoush said:
If Rome suppresses an eastern tradition then those who were subjects of that tradition should faithfully go along with whatever the pope determines. The union of Brest’s declaration that the eastern churches aren’t to be forced to change their traditions or submit to western traditions doesn’t matter.
Click to expand...
If…

We’re arguing something that isn’t. If

If Rome is wrong there are ways to address the issue & set Rome right. There are several examples of that.

If Rome is right, then we should follow.

Truth is what’s important.

Even if we believe Rome is merely 1st among equals how are we living that truth if we are completely separated? & if we aren’t living truth, what are we doing?
 
Currently Rome has a positive approach to the eastern churches but that wasn’t the case until very recently. Until the second half of the last century the east was expected to submit to western traditions. Attitudes change whether for better or worse. Currently they are better.

There are no ways to set Rome right from a western perspective. Rome is right and what is required is submission of intellect and will. No one can judge the Roman pontiff on earth. Only God can judge him.

I agree, truth is what is important. I am catholic so I am not completely separated.
 
The Melkite Patriarch subjected the Roman Pontiff to correction. It earned him the Pope’s enmity, but Rome stood corrected that day.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top