Heart is pulling me towards Orthodoxy

[prayerrider]

To the OP:
As far as Latin, you’re preaching to the choir with me. As far as tradition and small “o” orthodoxy, the RCC is a big tent at present. For example, There are unquestionably those Catholics who are dedicated to overturning Church teachings on rightly ordered human sexuality, Sacramental marriage and God’s design for the human family. One might even note a celebrity cleric cheering such folks on. One might think those folks would leave for TEC or something. Perhaps they’re emboldened and optimistic about achieving their goals. Regardless, I don’t think that’s a reason for orthodox and / or traditional-minded Catholics to throw in the towel and leave. It’s all the more reason to stay, to pray and resist.

As far as the big “O” Orthodox, nothing against them but they’re Eastern, and I’m Western.

 

[Justin_Mary]

With all due respect, Justin, I think you have an idea of Eastern Catholicism that does not exist

With all due respect, that’s exactly what I’m saying.

Or should I say Eastern, since using Orthodox here is problematic.

Understood. & I understand Vatican II encourages Eastern Catholics to hold on to their traditions. & I don’t have a problem with that.

My confusion is how that tradition is defined. & remember I’m not saying how they should practice their faith. I’m just thinking out loud.

Let’s say I’m Byzantine Catholic my church has been United to the Catholic Church for centuries. Why would I venerate a 20th century Orthodox saint?

We all agree there was one church before 1054. Then there was a split. Catholic began to mean one thing. Orthodox another. Let’s say my church reunited with the Catholic Church in1890. Similarly whatever my church is at that point will develop differently than a church that remains apart.

Not that I think Rome = Catholic. I believe Eastern Catholic should be as far from Orthodox as they are from Rome. As many times as an Eastern Catholic says, “Catholcism is not synonymous with Rome, they should say Eastern Catholic is not synonymous with Orthodox.” Or more precisely Russian Orthodox or Greek Orthodox.

I mean the Vatican II encouragement is to return to the traditions of the first century. Not what Orthodox is today. That’s a different animal.

In the same way Orthodox theology & spirituality has changed since my Byzantine Catholic Church returned to communion with the west, their spirituality & theology should have developed differently from both West & East.

Again I’m not trying to say what Eastern Catholicism should be. Or shouldn’t be. Just thinking out loud trying to figure out where we are.

 

[ziapueblo]

My confusion is how that tradition is defined.

Same as the Orthodox only in communion with Rome.

Why would I venerate a 20th century Orthodox saint?

Because they are a Christian that is from your spiritual tradition. Of course, nobody has to.

Similarly whatever my church is at that point will develop differently than a church that remains apart.

Not necessarily. As a certain Austrian college professor who moved onto bigger things put it:

“Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than what had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium . . . Rome need not ask for more. Reunion could take place in this context if, on the one hand, the East would cease to oppose as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millennium and would accept the Catholic Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she had acquired in the course of that development, while, on the other hand, the West would recognize the Church of the East as orthodox and legitimate in the form she has always had.”

–Joseph Ratzinger, “Principles of Catholic Theology” (San Francisco), Ignatius, 1987, p. 199.

“Catholcism is not synonymous with Rome, they should say Eastern Catholic is not synonymous with Orthodox.”

The reason we say this is because our ecclesiastical heritage is eastern, and not just liturgically.

ZP

 

[Justin_Mary]

The reason we say this is because our ecclesiastical heritage is eastern, and not just liturgically.

ZP

I understand this, your heritage is shared. That does not make you Orthodox. You are Catholic. If the Orthodox were to Glorify a Saint today, like Alexis Toth, you’d have no issue including him in your liturgical calendar. But if the Catholic Church would venerate a Saint today, say Faustina Kowalski you’d have an issue because she isn’t Orthodox.

But you tell me you’re Catholic. Here, it is you equating Rome with Catholic.

Now, I know this sounds like I’m one of those guys you’re having to defend your Catholicity to & I guess in a way I am. Not my intention.

Again, in my mind true unity should be found in Eastern Catholic churches. Not Rome, not Orthodox. You do well, I think not conforming to latinization. But as long as you cling to Orthodox that unity won’t be found. The truth had got to be somewhere in between.

 

[Justin_Mary]

“Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than what had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium . . . Rome need not ask for more. Reunion could take place in this context if, on the one hand, the East would cease to oppose as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millennium and would accept the Catholic Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she had acquired in the course of that development, while, on the other hand, the West would recognize the Church of the East as orthodox and legitimate in the form she has always had.”

–Joseph Ratzinger, “Principles of Catholic Theology” (San Francisco), Ignatius, 1987, p. 199

& you keep posting this which in my mind is in line with everything I’ve been saying. Forget what developed in Orthodoxyin the 2nd millennium. Hold fast to what was orthodox in the first millennium.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Very well, I’ll try to present my point- please keep note that this is all based on purely my observation.

When Eastern Catholics rejoined True Church, they would have their own tradition which happened to be Orthodox (of course). Over the years, latinization happened and while it was not necessarily a bad thing (after all, East and West used to draw from each other to enrich each other), later on latinization became not enrichment to East, but something that started devouring Eastern tradition.

After Vatican II’s call to return to their ancient heritage, Eastern Catholics were left confused. Only way they could determine what was or was not latinization was to look to Orthodoxy, or rather that was easiest way. Instead of trying to find what was devouring their tradition, “Latin” became synonymous with “not desirable” concerning Eastern Catholics- now in other extreme, where they try to preserve their tradition and do not risk enrichment from West because it could potentially hinder Eastern tradition.

However, Eastern Catholics have looked to Orthodox and have tried to copy-paste their tradition, believing it was fully authentic Eastern tradition. That might be a bit true, however true is that Eastern Catholics are original Christians from the East- they returned to True Church, unlike Orthodox counterparts. Now yes, many times reasons were political but so was disobedience to Roman Pontiff by Michael Cerularius during 1054.

Eastern Catholics have since copy-pasted many things from Orthodoxy- be it to look and feel more Eastern, to be more attractive for Orthodox or to just renounce latinization that went too far. In those things, many have forgotten there really is still a formal schism going on, and that while charity is desirable, indifferentism is not. With this, some Eastern Catholics have adopted Orthodox ecclesiology where Pope is just “first among equals” with no real power or authority over East, even in times of danger. Ex Cathedra statements wont happen anymore and that’s fine- because if Pope would be called to speak infallibly through Holy Spirit, Orthodox would feel scandalized by one man pronouncing dogma again, and that’s viewed as diminishing authority of East.
–continued–

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Eastern Catholics have, however, recognized need for Papal Primacy and hence supreme jurisdiction of Bishop of Rome over entire Church to preserve it- not to control it. Because East is now trying to be and look fully Eastern, East is also trying to not be Western. I think those two terms are a bit confused, and that main focus should be not on renouncing Western things but to hold on to Catholic faith and let Eastern tradition flow through it.

Hence, authority of Pope is questioned because his intervention makes East feel a bit less relevant- if Western Bishop really has authority over them. However, this is misleading- Pope surely has authority over East, yet it does not diminish East as much as being under Bishop does not diminish laity nor clergy. It is on the contrary great privilege to be under authority estabilished by Christ- be it ordinary Bishop, Patriarch or even Pope of Rome, with supreme jurisdiction. This is Catholic ecclesiology, and to try and replace it with something more “Eastern” which is in-fact only more Orthodox and has nothing to do with being Eastern, is a mistake.

I believe Popes should give more authority to Eastern Churches, I believe people should be more educated about Eastern Catholics to prevent abuses and latinization or anything similar happening in the future- but I do not think Eastern Catholics should become Orthodox- they should become more Eastern, more like Eastern Catholics were pre-schism. Catholic Church of Christ has Her own stance towards Papal Primacy, and it’s members are bound to follow it, otherwise they can not claim it to be True Church of Christ.

Eastern Catholics should hence not adopt something that diminishes authority of Pope, which Saints have professed many times over and over, just to be more pleasing to Orthodox and more attractive. As much as Catholics should not stop believing in transubstantiation to be more appealing to Protestants. West does not require anything more of East than in first millennium- obedience to Church and right of Pope to intervene if he is called by circumstances to do so, and no one should question him about that. Vatican I was led by Holy Spirit as much as Vatican II, they do not contradict each other and they do not erase each other. Western Dogmas of faith are irreformable and Holy Spirit guided Church to pronounce them- First See can not be judged, Papal Infallibility and Supreme Jurisdiction, etc are all proclaimed by Holy Spirit. To willfully renounce them would be to renounce God, and that should not happen IN the Church.

Instead of trying to appeal to people outside of Church with being similar to them and denying our own irreformable truths delivered by Holy Spirit, we should live as Christians and invite them to true Kingdom of Christ, and appeal to them by what is good and true. Apostles did not continue circumcision just to lure more Jews in, nor did they start pronouncing greek gods to be true just to lure more greeks in. There is virtually no reason to call ourselves to deny truth just to look more authentic or so. Truth is most authentic thing out there anyway.

 

[Isaac14]

West does not require anything more of East

Is the East allowed to require anything of the West?

West does not require anything more of East than in first millennium- obedience to Church and right of Pope to intervene

This contradicts the Chieti document which states, “Appeals to the bishop of Rome from the East expressed the communion of the Church, but the bishop of Rome did not exercise canonical authority over the churches of the East.” I’m pretty sure, though, you’ll dismiss this as being non-magesterial and of no consequence. If that’s the case, how do you see Catholic & Orthodox theologians working together to establish common ground and in time reestablishing communion?

 

[Isaac14]

Perhaps @Isaac14 can enlighten us on how saints are recognized in the Orthodox Church?

@Salibi - what ZiaPueblo quoted from the GOAA website seems about right. To be honest, I’m not really sure. I do know that if veneration of someone spreads beyond their home diocese, the church in question will starting looking at them as a candidate for glorification. In my church, the Orthodox Church in America, the two candidates I’ve heard discussion about are Matushka Olga (from Alaska) and Metropolitan Leonty.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Is the East allowed to require anything of the West?

As long as it’s not just “convert to Orthodoxy”, sure. I would be up for union because it would increase number of Eastern Churches in communion with Rome and I would love that. Do you have anything particular in mind?

This contradicts the Chieti document which states, “Appeals to the bishop of Rome from the East expressed the communion of the Church, but the bishop of Rome did not exercise canonical authority over the churches of the East.” I’m pretty sure, though, you’ll dismiss this as being non-magesterial and of no consequence. If that’s the case, how do you see Catholic & Orthodox theologians working together to establish common ground and in time reestablishing communion?

Thing is, if interpreted contrary to my expression, Chieti Document denies Council of Florence and Vatican I which we believe to be divinely inspired. I want full communion, but problem is that as Catholic I believe Papal Supremacy was divinely inspired and dropping that would not help in the end. I like fact our theologians are discussing, but same way I can reject Chieti Document as non-magisterial, Orthodox in history rejected Council of Florence as non-magisterial, Lyons as non-magisterial etc. Neither side believes Chieti was divinely inspired though.

I’d hate to reject work of our theologians working for unity, but at the same time it’s kinda speaking contrary to central point of Catholic Faith (or atleast it’s interpreted that way very often)- that Holy Spirit guides the Church. Saint John Bosco died asking his brothers to protect authority of Pope, always. I would not feel comfortable letting go of it.

 

[ziapueblo]

Thing is, if interpreted contrary to my expression, Chieti Document denies Council of Florence

From EWTN: (emphasis added)
“The Council of Florence was largely a missed opportunity. Most of the Orthodox participants at the Council were not there out of a burning desire for Christian unity, but because their empire was about to fall to the Muslims. The Byzantine Emperor hoped that by establishing reunion with the Catholic Church that the western nations would send military aid.

Thus, the reunion was one of political expedience. Because of this, the Orthodox representatives readily agreed to everything proposed by the Latin representatives. There was no real theological discussion, and no issues were resolved. Nor could there be, for most of the Latin representatives were schooled in scholastic theology, and addressed the Council in Latin, using scholastic terminology that the Orthodox were completely unfamiliar with. According to the accounts that I have read, the Orthodox delegates sat there in bewildered silence, completely unable to comprehend what the Latins were talking about.

The Council itself was really doomed from the very start. As soon as the Orthodox delegates arrived, they were greeted with a demand by Pope Eugene IV: the Patriarch of Constantinople had to get down on his knees and kiss the feet of the pope. This outraged the Orthodox Patriarch, who refused to comply. After a tense standoff Pope Eugene eventually relented, but from that point on things were sour.

Most of the Orthodox delegates wanted to just get the reunion over with as quickly as possible, so that they could secure help for their people.”

ZP

 

[ziapueblo]

Neither side believes Chieti was divinely inspired though.

Yet it is a document that was agreed upon and has spring-boarded talks to the next stage, the second millennium. It is important to note that this document and other like, the Catholic delegation is headed by the Secretary of the Pontifical Commission for Promoting Christian Unity, who is the Vatican’s chief ecumenical officer, and the statement is vetted by the Pope and the Praefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

ZP

 

[ziapueblo]

. . . it would increase number of Eastern Churches in communion with Rome . . .

Historically, Rome is the Church that presides in love, but it is not necessary that all Churches be in communion with Rome, but rather that all Churches be in communion with each other. The Orthodox Churches are injured because they are not in communion with the Church of Rome. But the Church of Rome is equally injured because it is not in communion with the Orthodox Churches. While each particular Church possesses the fullness of the one true Church of God, all are defective because they do not manifest the universality of the Church through mutual sharing of the Eucharist.

ZP

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

here was no real theological discussion, and no issues were resolved.

That’s misinformation, there were serious discussions about Purgatory etc, which Mark of Ephesus won. However, he was silenced by his own emperor in other issues hence theological positions of anti-latin party were not heard. It was hardly without discussions from part of Greeks. Moreover, many Pro-Latin Greeks took position many Eastern Catholics take today about Purgatory, Essence-Energies, etc.

However, Council was still as Ecumenical as Council of Nicea, still inspired by Holy Spirit and while it was missed opportunity, dogmas proclaimed there are binding for all (hence “General” Synod).

it is not necessary that all Churches be in communion with Rome, but rather that all Churches be in communion with each other.

that should be necessary in body of Christ that is made up of love, political schisms should not happen in the Church nor should they be tolerated. It is necessary for Church to be in communion with itself and therefore in communion with Holy Spirit.

But the Church of Rome is equally injured because it is not in communion with the Orthodox Churches. While each particular Church possesses the fullness of the one true Church of God, all are defective because they do not manifest the universality of the Church through mutual sharing of the Eucharist.

That would mean Body of Christ got divided by Satan, Holy Spirit failed to preserve Church from error and both sides are true hence no side is true. All in all, this is what indifferentism teaches and it all goes on to even larger extremes of accusing God of abandoning His Church. Church of Rome is not equally injured, because it still has fullness of Holy Spirit who leads it along with all other Churches that are in communion with it. Those who are not in communion with Rome are not abandoned by God, but neither are they fully incorporated in Church of Christ because that is defined by communion with Rome, as Early Church Fathers stated numerous times. Hence communion with Rome is not optional, nor is it symbolic. Christ’s Church is simply defined by being in communion with His Vicar, who is not Vicar of Church but Vicar of Christ- therefore he is not representative of Church but representative of Christ, who leads Church with Holy Spirit He sent to lead us. Council of Florence is simply dogmatic and binding, because Holy Spirit wished so- otherwise He would have stopped Pope from proclaiming it so, because infallibility of Pope regarding Ecumenical Councils comes from Holy Spirit. If we deny any of above, we are not holding to faith of many Saints who died in full communion with Christ’s Church.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

By your logic, Catholic Church lost as much for not being in communion with Arians as Arians have lost in leaving it, and both sides were equally right and equally guided by Holy Spirit. Perhaps that’s stretch- but then what about Oriental Orthodox? Are they also Church of Christ? Episcopalians, are they also Church of Christ and we are losing as much as they are by severing communion? Oh, and what about Evangelicals? Where does line stop? If only heresy disqualifies, Oriental Orthodoxy and even some Episcopalians are still in game. If Schism (by Catholic canon law, refusal of submission to Roman Pontiff or any competent Church authority, so that would also count Orthodox Church of Antioch being disobedient towards Melkite Patriarch) disqualifies, Orthodoxy is out of game too. You can not be ignorant of Schism and as Catholic, of communion with Pope identifying the Church.

 

[Salibi]

Ziapeublo, as much as I tend to agree with you on many issues, I’m afraid your previous post is contradictory to Catholic teaching. We are the only true Church. Orthodoxy is true only insomuch as it’s similar to us, and maintains our Apostolic faith. Perhaps you meant the loss of the Eastern tradition wounded the Western Church, and vice versa?

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Perhaps you meant the loss of the Eastern tradition wounded the Western Church, and vice versa?

Oh, if that was the case, I misunderstood completely. Of course though, I still consider loss of communion with Church of Christ much more serious loss than loss of Eastern tradition (however serious that is in itself). Though, some Eastern Churches did remain in communion with Rome without schisming anyway.

 

[Babaganoush]

If communion with Rome is everything then diversity doesn’t matter. If diversity has any value then communion with Rome isn’t everything, and there are consequently potential reasons for leaving the church and becoming Orthodox.

From the western perspective all that matters is communion with Rome. 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.

From the eastern perspective we are all a locus of tradition and we are all called to preserve the tradition that was handed down. Union is important but the preservation of tradition is just as important if not more so.

 

[StAugustine]

Diversity lies in manner of expression and approach, not substance.

The eastern Catholics can use all the eastern fathers they want to demonstrate the truth of Catholic dogma.

But it is the truth of CATHOLIC Dogma, regardless of how it is defined, that is to be adhered to and defended.

I would expect an eastern Catholic to be informed by and use Trent. They can reformulate it in an eastern way, but they can’t treat it as irrelevant or pretend it doesn’t exist.

It’s precisely this attitude that gave us the schism in the first place, making my particular expression more important than adhering to the unity of the Church in Truth.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Tradition of Church was born after Church itself, and from how people lived. It was guided by Holy Spirit, but it was Church that was guided. As much as God is infinitely more important than our peers, our peers were still created by God. As much as Church and Truth are infinitely more important than tradition, tradition was still created by Holy Spirit IN the Church. Therefore Truth and communion with Rome (definition of True Church) are both more important than any Rite, be it Western or Eastern. Tradition will change, Church is living thing- but it is defined by unchanging definition of being in communion with Vicar of Christ.