Heart is pulling me towards Orthodoxy

  • Thread starter Thread starter Stuartonian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah, going to an Orthodox Church instead of a Latin Rite Catholic Church seems to be violating Sunday Obligation. I wonder if he/she moved to an area with only Latin Rite churches, if he/she would instead only go to the Orthodox Church and abandon the Church altogether.
 
Again, what does that mean? Will you embrace Akindynos or Palamas? Will you embrace Bekkos or lord Gregory of Cyprus? Will you accept the condemnation of Gregory Palamas, or his exoneration?

Most likely you are a Slavic Byzantine. So what about the practices of the Old Believers? Do you use a lestovka, since that was the prayer rope in use before the union of Brest? Do you follow Avvakum and the zealots of piety and his fight against hellenization of Russian customs? What about the pan-Orthodox synod of 1666?

And what about the Slavic anti-hesychasm? Or will you follow st Paisios velichkovsky? But what about St. Dimitri of Rostov and his devotion to the sacred heart, stations of the cross and the rosary?

Who does your bishop anathematize in the Synodikon of Orthodoxy? Heck, what about the Synodikon of the Holy Spirit meant to be read on the Monday after Pentecost and it’s anathemas?

So how Orthodox will you be?

How eastern is eastern enough? What are legitimate traditions? My personal answer would be let bekkos be your guide and ditch Palamas.
 
Last edited:
The anathemas from the Synodikon on The Holy Spirit- http://www.oocities.org/trvalentine/orthodox/spirit_synodikon.html

“ The Anathemas

So likewise do they who despise and disdain piety receive curses; wherefore, we all in unison, since we constitute the fullness of piety, lay upon them the curse which they have put upon themselves.

To those who do not deign to consent to the unaltered and unadulterated holy Symbol confessed by the Orthodox, that one, I mean, which was evangelically formulated by the First and Second Holy Synods and confirmed by the rest, but who rather amend it and distort it to support their own belief, thereby not only corrupting the synodal traditions of the Holy Fathers and of the holy and God-instructed apostles, but also the definitions of our true God and Saviour, Jesus Christ,

Anathema!

To those who do not confess that the Holy Spirit proceeds and has His existence from the Father with no intermediary in the same manner as the Son is begotten from the Father with no intermediary, according as God the Word Himself taught and as the Church has received from on high through the fathers, and who account as worthless the tradition of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ and accept impious and spurious doctrines which contend that the Son is related to the Father directly and with no intermediary, but that the Holy Spirit is distant and mediated, and who thus alienate the Holy Spirit from the Father’s hypostasis and introduce some sort of interval and boundary between the Father and the All-holy Spirit, and so fall into the gulf of tritheism,

Anathema!”

Is this part of legitimate eastern Byzantine tradition or not?
 
Last edited:
Yes, I can relate well. However, I know that “where Peter is there is the Church”. We do not jump ship into a different one. We instead try to repair any holes or cracks letting water (or smoke, if you catch my drift) into the ship.
The form of the Mass is indeed different from the TLM, but the true dogmas and doctrine that are part of the extraordinary magesterium do not change, regardless of who wants to change them.
While we have a new “approach” it should not be a break from tradition but should be in light of it.

Also, it sounds like you have a Traditional Latin Mass near you. If you are sure it is valid and licit (ie not canonically suspect) but in obedience to Rome, then boom! There you go, tradition. If the priest gives good homilies that’s just extra icing on the cake.
 
DeoVindice1863 said:
Yeah, going to an Orthodox Church instead of a Latin Rite Catholic Church seems to be violating Sunday Obligation.
Click to expand...
The East does Not share the same view on this.
DeoVindice1863 said:
I wonder if he/she moved to an area with only Latin Rite churches, if he/she would instead only go to the Orthodox Church and abandon the Church altogether.
Click to expand...
I, he, would go to an Orthodox Church and I wouldn’t be “abandoning” the faith. Canon 844-2 “Whenever necessity requires or genuine spiritual advantage suggests, and provided that the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, it is lawful for the faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister, to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose churches these sacraments are valid.”

Zp
 
Pray and think rationally and carefully. There are real philosophical, doctrinal, theological differences between the branches of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church. Find your place within it and all will be well with your soul. If a Roman Catholic were to say that you’d be damned or punished for rejecting the pope, than I’d say they’re nuts.
 
The Holy Roman Church “firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

This is what happens if you choose to become a schismatic.
 
Wow that’s actually hilarious 😂🤣😂 . . . Pope Honorius was actually anathematized and condemned by Popes over theological issues. You’re acting as if Roman Catholic have never had disagreements.
StAugustine said:
But what about St. Dimitri of Rostov and his devotion to the sacred heart, stations of the cross and the rosary?
Click to expand...
What’s your point? He’s not the only Orthodox Saint who has had a private devotion to the rosary. There are Roman Catholics that I know who have private devotions to the Jesus Prayer or icons.
StAugustine said:
My personal answer would be let bekkos be your guide and ditch Palamas.
Click to expand...
Interestingly enough we Byzantine Catholics will be celebrating his feast day on the second Sunday of Great and Holy Lent.

ZP
 
It doesn’t seem like the OP has participated in this thread for some days now, but oh well I’ll add my 2 cents worth anyway.

It’s wrongheaded to look at Orthodox liturgical and spiritual tradition and say that it has not changed.

This is a huge misunderstanding I see with many people first becoming acquainted with Orthodoxy. What happens is this: They discover the beautiful Tradition of the East, and they see it as something culturally very different from America, or the West in general, and there is this impression that Orthodoxy is ancient and, therefore, co-equal to “Apostolic Christianity.”

And indeed, Eastern Orthodoxy is rooted in the ancient, apostolic church.

But the liturgical, spiritual, artistic, and culture traditions of the Orthodox Church are VERY much due to development and change, especially in the first millenium. Most of the embellishments people find beautiful in Orthodoxy are actually not INTRINSIC to original Christianity, but instead reflect development in liturgy from fourth century on — Byzantine influence, etc.

Take icons, for example. Byzantine icons look different, mysterious, and very different from Western Christianity. But that doesn’t mean they are essential to the original Church. No, icons developed over time, especially in their later Byzantine style.

So please don’t confuse Byzantine Christianity with “ancient Christianity.”

Liturgy has always had a substantial center, but it has ALWAYS developed in reference to different cultures. The reason why Eastern Orthodoxy doesn’t seem this way is, bluntly, it is stuck in the first millennium. I don’t mean this in a negative sense at all. But be careful to remember that there is no reason why Christian liturgy should have to look like the 7th century in every single respect (for example).
 
Last edited:
With the chaos rampant in Contemporary Catholicism, I genuinely don’t fault people for considering the relatively organized chaos of Orthodoxy.
 
Yes, imitating the Orthodox, I know. That doesn’t make it right. Again, the Slavs condemned hesychasm and Palamas at one point. Why don’t you adhere to this tradition? In fact, are you even capable of finding an authentic eastern tradition apart from the Roman Church’s doctrinal guidance?
 
Last edited:
Francis4 said:
More like you seem to think that you can hide behind ‘Byzantine’ and claim that you don’t have to submit to the authority of the Church. Please give us a break . . .
Click to expand...
Bluntly: It’ more like you fell that you can ignore RCC teaching on the issue simply by announcing “Catholic.”

Everything that @iapueblo has written in this thread can be lifted directly from papal teaching. It’s just that some folks are “more Catholic than the Pope” . . .
Francis4 said:
Hm. . . I hope you find it amusing. . . But reality, well that is another thing.
Click to expand...
This is odd even by CAF amateur apologetics: you are putting “reality” as a counterpoint to “papal teaching.”

While Luther would approve, Rome does not . . .
StAugustine said:
The Holy Roman Church “firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living [. . . ]
Click to expand...
It would be useful to cite your source, as another half millennium certainly changed RCC thinking on this . . . an inexperience reader might think that you were actually quoting current Roman teaching . . .
 
There is no change. Those who change are heretics. Every dogmatic pronouncement of the Roman Church is current and binding in the sense in which it was first proclaimed. Anyone who says otherwise is simply not a Catholic, for they have abandoned its essence- tradition.
 
Oh I am not disapproving of Palamite theology- I am simply presenting that as example of “development” of theology. Same development (not necessarily to Latin way) could happen with Purgatory, but every time any development happens recently, it’s called latinization. Now that makes us ignore scenarios where latinization is problematic (and those surely exist), because we also sum them up with those there latinization is simply just enrichment. After all there are plenty of Eastern things Latin Church took up as their own, why is vice-versa bad? Recovering full identity does not mean fast-forwarding hundreds of years back and remaining there forever, it means being Eastern and it is characteristic of being Eastern to develop knowledge towards God, as it is characteristic of being Latin. If any sui iuris Church embraces Filioque despite being Eastern, it is alright according to Eastern ways and canons, is it not?

And this does not glorify Jansenism or Gallicanism if done by other sui iuris Churches. Heresy in Latin Church is still heresy in Eastern Church. Truth in Latin Church is still truth in Eastern Church. In first centuries Christian Church would adopt each other’s formulations and theological developments to enrich itself, instead of trying to cling onto remaining authentically Jewish. Now that does not mean you should not respect your traditions nor to enforce anything onto them, but embrace tradition as living thing, subject to additions coming with age. Thomism did not exist in Apostolic times either, but Latin Church now benefits from it. We also benefit from many Eastern theologians, so why wouldn’t East ever be able to benefit from Western?

Also, while that’s your decision and frankly has nothing to do with me, fact you rather attend Eastern Orthodox Parish than Latin Catholic one indicates you put tradition before the Church and divide Church into Eastern and Western instead of Catholic and Eastern Orthodox. This sums up what I think is wrong with your assertions about East- you diminish Eastern Catholics by your logic. You make them out to not be Catholic but only Orthodox who acknowledge Rome, you make them to be just the other part of Eastern-Wide Church instead of authentic members of One True Church, and you diminish their right to benefit from Papal Infallibility and Latin Dogmas (I mean theologia prima now), for sake of retaining their “independence”. Independence is what led Adam to first Sin, what led Arians from Church and also what led Eastern Orthodox from Church (those who did, I know Melkite Church never formally broke communion yet was considered Eastern Orthodox). To depend is not bad, in-fact it teaches us to depend on God and His Vicar. Pope is not Vicar of Church, he is Vicar of Christ. Church without communion with Vicar of God does not have perfect communion with God either. This is why only authentic Churches in Middle Ages that formed dogmas and doctrine were Latin Church and Eastern Churches that remained in communion with Rome. Eastern Orthodox were not part of it. Latin Dogmas are irreformable, true and according to will of Holy Spirit.
 
StAugustine said:
Yes, imitating the Orthodox, I know.
Click to expand...
You really are hilarious 😆
StAugustine said:
In fact, are you even capable of finding an authentic eastern tradition apart from the Roman Church’s doctrinal guidance?
Click to expand...
We have are own theology and way of life and it’s not Roman and the Vatican is not only fine with it but encourages it.

Roman imperialism! Gotta love it 😂

ZP
 
Also, I do not mean to diminish statements you and ZP are using but if someone quotes infallible documents from Ecumenical Councils or infallible proclamations ex-cathedra of Popes, and you quote Pope speaking without his infallibility, you lose. Infallible quotes are infallible, therefore there is either wrong interpretation used or what they imply is true.
dochawk said:
another half millennium certainly changed RCC thinking
Click to expand...
this is not about thinking, this is infallible document. If Holy Roman Church professes and proclaims something in Ecumenical Council guided by Holy Spirit, then Holy Spirit guided them to this profession and proclamation. Either there is problem with terminology, or interpretation, or it is truth. Did truth change, or do you imply Holy Spirit lied, or that He was not present as Jesus promised He would be? Careful, this is clearly approach that borders modernism (proclaimed heresy, signed by Eastern Patriarchs too) and indifferentism.
 
Last edited:
ziapueblo said:
Roman imperialism! Gotta love it 😂

ZP
Click to expand...
You are ridiculing statements with improper arguments and thinking you are disbanding them. There is no Roman Imperialism as you stated it, there is however Infallible Vicar of Christ guiding the Church as He was guiding the Church with help Holy Spirit in the past since establishment of Church. And Church has remained infallible as it was, and Lord never left the Church to it’s own demise. This does not deny Church is only Latin, only Roman or anything like that.
Would you agree with bolded out statement, which was professed throughout history and is professed even now by Infallible Catholic Church of Christ? Yes/No?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top