Heart is pulling me towards Orthodoxy

  • Thread starter Thread starter Stuartonian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I have been through this with EO before and it never gets anywhere because to EO’s apologists, the Latin Church is heretical, is a barrier to there ever again being an Ecumenical Counsel, and has no business being anywhere other than in the City of Rome and a small bit of countryside around it. I’ll grant, some of the EO acknowledge the validity of Catholic baptism, but nothing else.

And that “Byzantine Catholics are second class” myth is just a malicious slander, and the EO should abandon it for the good of their souls. I have discussed Orthodoxy with a large number of Catholics and not a few EO. Catholics bear no ill will toward Orthodoxy and actually believe there could someday be a reconciliation. With the Orthodox of Constantinople, I would say there is some possibility of that. With the Moscow Patriarchate, there is none in this generation.
 
ziapueblo said:
We’re not? Come to my parish you wouldn’t even guess that we are in communion with Rome.
Click to expand...
Superficially, that might be true, just as a Mass in Viantiane might give the same impression.
ziapueblo said:
They may have broken Eucharistic communion they are not divided dogmatically their issues are more political than anything else.
Click to expand...
I agree, and that’s part of the problem with unity in Orthodoxy. With some notable exceptions, it’s territorial, imperialistic, nationalistic and political. I’m not saying there’s no good in it at all, but that’s extremely bad, and there’s no end in sight.
 
Last edited:
Ridgerunner said:
I have been through this with EO before and it never gets anywhere because to EO’s apologists, the Latin Church is heretical, is a barrier to there ever again being an Ecumenical Counsel, and has no business being anywhere other than in the City of Rome and a small bit of countryside around it. I’ll grant, some of the EO acknowledge the validity of Catholic baptism, but nothing else.
Click to expand...
That’s not my experience with the EO at all.

Maybe you’re just finding what you’re looking for?
And that “Byzantine Catholics are second class” myth is just a malicious slander
Click to expand...
Ok bud. 👍
Catholics bear no ill will toward Orthodoxy
Click to expand...
The ones on this forum must be the only ones, then. 🙂
With the Orthodox of Constantinople, I would say there is some possibility of that. With the Moscow Patriarchate, there is none in this generation.
Click to expand...
That’s a fair statement. But Russian Orthodoxy is a very nationalist beast. I wouldn’t judge the rest of Orthodoxy off just the Ruskies.
 
Vonsalza said:
That’s not my experience with the EO at all.

Maybe you’re just finding what you’re looking for?
Click to expand...
A few years ago there were virtually unending flame wars going on in her on that subject. Probably tougher moderators are what ended it. But one does have to dig in most of the time to learn, e.g., that the 'official" EO view is that the Pope isn’t even a legitimate priest and could not, therefore, be the “bishop of Rome” in the event of reunion. An EO bishop would have to be appointed, all Ecumenical Councils would have to be voided after the second-to-last one the EO attended as acknowledged participants. Now, I’ll grant that not all EO claim Catholics would have to be re-baptized. Most are sort of neutral on the subject, and some accept Catholic baptism but no other sacraments.

Don’t just deal with this superficially. I used to think the same things most CAtholics think about EO. But the more one learns, the more one realizes we’re as far away from reunion as we ever were. Farther, really, than it was initially.
Vonsalza said:
That’s a fair statement. But Russian Orthodoxy is a very nationalist beast. I wouldn’t judge the rest of Orthodoxy off just the Ruskies.
Click to expand...
You can’t ignore them. They’re easily half the total number of Orthodox worldwide. Among the EO, it’s even higher.
 
Ridgerunner said:
A few years ago there were virtually unending flame wars going on in her on that subject.
Click to expand...
Pfft. They’ve been going on for a millennium. And if not for Islam and Spanish (and to a smaller degree French and Portuguese) colonialism, it’s very very likely that Rome would have never obtained the control over broader Christendom that it enjoyed for much of the last 500-1000 years.
the 'official" EO view is that the Pope isn’t even a legitimate priest
Click to expand...
There is no “official” EO view on that. One popular Orthodox view is that when the pope submits to collegiality as the authority over the Church, his office should suffer some years of penance where instead of being first among equals, he’s last. When it’s over, the Roman bishop will resume the primacy.
You can’t ignore them.
Click to expand...
I’m not trying to. But I recognize that among the Orthodox, the Russian Church is but one 14.
 
Last edited:
ziapueblo said:
Are you saying that Divine Liturgy at my Byzantine Catholic parish is superficially Orthodox?
Click to expand...
No. I’m saying the appearance would have been very similar, but that similarity does not mean Byzantine Catholicism is the same thing as, say Eastern Orthodoxy.
 
You’re right. It is problematic, but for Pope Francis himself.
 
We don’t know what would have happened but for French, Spanish, Portugese colonialism, or for that matter, English or Dutch. What we do know is that almost certainly there would have eventually been contact between Europe and the Americas and, if so, much would have been the same. And English colonialism in, say, Africa, does not explain the millions of Catholics there. Nor does English colonialism in the Middle EAst explain the almost total lack of converts there.
Vonsalza said:
One popular Orthodox view is that when the pope submits to collegiality as the authority over the Church, his office should suffer some years of penance where instead of being first among equals, he’s last. When it’s over, the Roman bishop will resume the primacy.
Click to expand...
A cynical position designed to prevent reunion. There are others so unlikely to be acceptable to Latin Catholics that they can never happen.
Vonsalza said:
I recognize that among the Orthodox, the Russian Church is but one 14.
Click to expand...
But half the Orthodox on earth are under the Moscow Patriarchate. That’s a very big deal. And not all the Orthodox are EO, so Moscow’s percentage among EO is undoubtedly higher still.
 
Ridgerunner said:
We don’t know what would have happened but for French, Spanish, Portugese colonialism,
Click to expand...
The only point there is that Catholicism owes much to Islam which silenced the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch, who had a long standing historical habit of defying papal “authority”.
In short, Islam silenced the primary credible objectors to papal supremacy.

Spanish, French and Portuguese colonialism is the reason why Roman Catholicism is so popular in places outside of Europe.

Not trying to attack your faith, man. These are just true things everyone should realize.
And English colonialism in, say, Africa, does not explain the millions of Catholics there.
Click to expand...
No. French colonialism explains it.
A cynical position designed to prevent reunion.
Click to expand...
I was just evidencing that there is no “official” Orthodox view on the office of the papacy other than it has left proper Orthodoxy.
But half the Orthodox on earth are under the Moscow Patriarchate. That’s a very big deal.
Click to expand...
Sure. And if the global Orthodox Church operated on the basis of direct election, the Russians would rule the Church.

Fortunately…
And not all the Orthodox are EO, so Moscow’s percentage among EO is undoubtedly higher still.
Click to expand...
The Oriental Orthodox have suffered from centuries of Muslim dominion. One upon a time Christianity was pretty evenly split among Latins, Greeks and Non-Chalcedonians (OO).

Few OOs remain as their lands stood directly in the way of the earliest Muslim Conquests.
 
Last edited:
Vonsalza said:
The only point there is that Catholicism owes much to Islam which silenced the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch, who has a long standing historical habit of defying papal authority.
In short, Islams silenced the primary credible objectors to papal supremacy.
Click to expand...
It wasn’t really Islam. Early Arabic Islam failed to take the eastern empire, though it did take a lot of it due to divisions within Orthodoxy and ethnic squabbles. What sealed the empire’s doom was the warmaking power of the Turks, particularly including their use of cannon (which the Greeks did not have) to knock holes in the walls of Constantinople. The Turks could have been pagans like the Mongols and still been as powerful.

French colonialism does not explain the Catholic majority in Nigeria, the near-majority in Uganda and Kenya, all former British colonies. Nor does it explain the 4% of Catholics in former French Senegal.
 
AlNg said:
Is there unity between the SSPX and the charismatic Catholics or the Catholics that allow dancing at Mass?
Click to expand...
From the SSPX point of view there is unity. They do not claim to be schismatic. You might be thinking of the SSPV who really are schismatic. Nor does the Church claim the SSPX is schismatic either. I have never met a charismatic Catholic who is not strongly faithful to the Church, and I have known a fair number. I don’t know much about dancing at Mass. I have never seen it and don’t know where it exists. But to my understanding, that doesn’t make one schismatic.
 
Last edited:
Ridgerunner said:
. I don’t know much about dancing at Mass. I have never seen it and don’t know where it exists.
Click to expand...
Examples…


Do you say that there is unity and no disagreements at all between the SSPX and charismatic Catholics? Do you see any difference at all between the liturgy of the SSPX, the older Tridentine Mass said in Latin, and some of the newer Masses said today? Example of a Mass such as the SSPX celebrates:

 
Last edited:
I’ll reiterate something I said, and then I’ll probably have to go on to other things. I have no beef with Byzantine Catholicism. I have never been to one of their liturgies, but I have seen videos of it. In my opinion, those are beautiful and conducive to worship. I do know that every once in awhile, the ARchdiocese of St. Louis allows Byzantine liturgies in the Cathedral Basilica. Since that Cathedral is very much Byzantine in style and décor, that must be a beautiful event. Maybe one of these times my wife and I will go to one.

But Eastern Orthodoxy is another thing altogether. it really is territorial and nationalistic. Since it is dominated by the Moscow Patriarchate, that’s not a good thing for Russia’s neighbors, like Ukraine. Orthodoxy is very divided within itself in a lot of ways. But the most serious is probably territorial.
 
Do you say that there is unity and no disagreements at all between the SSPX and charismatic Catholics? Do you see any difference at all between the liturgy of the SSPX, the older Tridentine Mass said in Latin, and some of the newer Masses said today?

I don’t think SSPX and charismatic Catholics have a whole lot of contact, but I would say that when it comes to doctrine there is probably no difference. I am highly doubtful that the weird dancing stuff you showed is “charismatic”. The charismatic Catholics (and the parishes to which they characteristically go) are every bit as orthodox (small “o”) as SSPX. Charismatic catholics I have known are not into doctrinal deviationism at all. They do have that “tongues” thing, and emphasize the “praise” part of worship more than most. But they’re not schismatic at all.
 
Ridgerunner said:
I am highly doubtful that the weird dancing stuff you showed is “charismatic”
Click to expand...
I do not claim such. I only claim that it is difficult to see the similarity between the Masses celebrated at the SSPX and some of the newer Masses celebrated today.
 
Ridgerunner said:
It wasn’t really Islam. Early Arabic Islam failed to take the eastern empire, though it did take a lot of it due to divisions within Orthodoxy and ethnic squabbles.
Click to expand...
What are you even talking about?

Within 30 years of Muhammad’s death Arabia, Egypt, the Levant and Persia were under the Caliphate… Alexandria (and its patriarch) was quickly under their rule and Antioch would fall just a bit later…
French colonialism does not explain the Catholic majority in Nigeria, the near-majority in Uganda and Kenya, all former British colonies. Nor does it explain the 4% of Catholics in former French Senegal.
Click to expand...
We’re almost 200 years further down the turnpike from the French reintroduction of Catholicism to sub-Saharan Africa, so of course there have been developments in the last two centuries…

Still originated with French colonialism as a matter of historical fact…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top