Heart is pulling me towards Orthodoxy

[Justin_Mary]

I agree, truth is what is important. I am catholic so I am not completely separated.

Correct. You are not completely separated. Orthodox is. Orthodoxy will continue to develop. So will Catholicism. Your tradition will follow Catholicism or Orthodoxy?

& that’s what I’m saying. Where is truth, who will you follow?

Let me ask you this. If your church were to glorify a Saint tomorrow would he be celebrated in the Orthodox Church?

If not, why would your church celebrate Alexis Toth?

Orthodox in communion with Rome… I’m just having a hard time with that. Your Church does not claim allegiance to any Orthodox Bishop.

If an Orthodox Bishop says Alexis Toth is a Saint then in your mind he is a Saint? Meaning his life is an example of a holy life. Your spiritual life may grow from studying his life & incorporating what you’ve learned into your own.

If a Latin Bishop were to glorify a persona as a Saint, Faustina Kowalski would you see the same possible benefit or would you believe there is no use studying the Latin Saints life since she didn’t follow your tradition?

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

No, it does not mean submission although let’s be clear- submission does not deny one’s importance. Did not Jesus submit to Father when He was meant to? “Thy will, not mine”

Why is it so wrong to submit to Peter of Church, who is in Rome?

New doctrines and new dogmas will come until the end of time and that is a positive development. The faith is constantly being updated.

That is not true- sure, God reveals new things through Saints time to time, but faith stays same. Development of dogma is something that is considered heretical in Catholicism- simply affirming ancient dogma (such as Assumption of Virgin Mary) is fine though.

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.

While true, you should not hold on to that too much, after all Jews could say the same when Jesus came. He came to proclaim new law where they are forgiven but that was not what Old Testament said, they simply did not want to believe in Messiah who came and changed things (which He did, as we are allowed to eat all meat now etc). While not outright Messiahs, Saints surely can have revelations inspired by God Himself. Yet, Christian of first millennium would not feel lost in Catholic Church because those dogmas were believed in Early Church.

There is no reason to take it personally.

If you are Orthodox, I suppose that is fine and of course you have different opinion. It’s just that Eastern Catholics have said before they feel bad for having to defend their Catholicity, when opinion of some Eastern Catholics basically abolishes Orthodoxy/Catholicity of Latins. Either Papal Supremacy is correct or entire Catholic Church (east and west) are wrong and hence not guided by Holy Spirit and hence not Church of Christ. No middle ground there.

If Rome is wrong

Then we should all convert to Orthodoxy, no point in union of Churches.

If Rome is right

Then all should be Catholic, with regard to their tradition but being Catholic and hence right, would be more important.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

The Melkite Patriarch subjected the Roman Pontiff to correction. It earned him the Pope’s enmity, but Rome stood corrected that day.

Of course, Paul corrected Peter too. It’s just that Peter has ability to speak infallibly through his successors, or rather let Holy Spirit speak through them. We should correct authorities who make mistakes, but we should submit to Holy Spirit if case goes as far as to invoke Papal Infallibility. This is however, Catholic position. We, as Catholics, trust that Roman Pontiff is guided by God and hence we trust God to lead him, and we submit to God’s Supreme Providence instead of taking matters to our hands completely and making our own judgment- because men are fallible, but God is not. That is why Supreme Jurisdiction and “No one can judge First See” are both alright, only in this context can they ever be alright.

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.

Dogmas and doctrines of Rome are right and correct and hence do not need correction. Practices though do not have to be, neither private opinions.

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.

Let’s hope and pray they never ever change for worse again, and that Devil will be stopped from attacking Church and fostering schisms in this manner.

 

[Isaac14]

As long as it’s not just “convert to Orthodoxy”, sure.

Interesting you bring that up - “convert to Orthodoxy” is about as likely to be accepted by Catholics as “submit to the supreme immediate and personal jurisdiction of the Pope” is by Orthodox. But if all we’re willing to do is look at things in black and white, we’ll never get beyond this impasse. In my opinion, both Catholics and Orthodox are going to have to be humble and give up some of what we think needs to be held on to. History being less than perfectly clear, there is room for this to happen.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Yes, I realise that.

But if all we’re willing to do is look at things in black and white, we’ll never get beyond this impasse. In my opinion, both Catholics and Orthodox are going to have to be humble and give up some of what we think needs to be held on to. History being less than perfectly clear, there is room for this to happen.

Thing is, if any of these Churches is wrong in DOGMATIC pronouncements, it is entirely wrong and hence compromise has no meaning- it should just join other side. I understand compromises in terms of practice or discipline, or perhaps even doctrinal bindings to other side, but dogma stays dogma. Church of Christ is simply not fallible and hence if proven fallible, Church is not Church of Christ. Orthodoxy on one hand is not bound by that many post-schism dogmatic pronouncements, as there were strictly speaking few, if any. However, Catholicism had many dogmatic pronouncements which we can not disregard. Therefore we are in complicated situation- giving up dogma disregards Catholicism and preserving it favors Catholicism, while holding each side can do it’s own completely and anyhow it wishes disregards unity. Funnily enough, no dogma of Orthodoxy forbids anything Catholic Church teaches, not even Papal Supremacy.

 

[Isaac14]

Got it - Orthodox have to give up everything and just become Catholic. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Justin_Mary]

Got it - Orthodox have to give up everything and just become Catholic. Thanks for clarifying.

So you think ZP gave up everything & became Catholic?

Ziapueblo, did you give up everything?

Babaganush, Salibi… What did you give up?

 

[ziapueblo]

So you think ZP gave up everything & became Catholic?

Ziapueblo, did you give up everything?

I was born and raised Roman Catholic. After ten or so years of strictly looking at the Catholic Church with the lense of Catholic apologetics I learned about the Byzantine Catholic Church. I was like 99% of Catholics, I believed they were Roman Catholics in every way with a “funny” Mass. The more I learned the more I almost felt betrayed. I discovered that Catholic was much more than Roman.

For about 7 years I have been strictly attending a Byzantine Catholic Church.

ZP

 

[Isaac14]

Justing_Mary: My apologies for a snarky comment. My point is since the schism, both Orthodox and Catholics have made dogmatic affirmations that seem to put us ever more at odds. We need to figure out a way to “walk back” or re-understand those in such a way as they don’t put up a barrier between us while walking the tight-rope of remaining faithful to our respective traditions. This separation is such a tremendous wound to the body of Christ, and it’s not going to feel good for either of us while we’re figuring out how to heal and restore communion because each is going to have “give up” something they think is essential. At the same time, this is so very essential. Continuing to assert that we need to submit to the Pope, or that you need to repent and become Orthodox will get us nowhere.

 

[StAugustine]

No friend, it’s not that you shouldn’t be distinctively eastern, it’s that as a Catholic you shouldn’t attempt to be Orthodox.

For example- In the Synodikon of Orthodoxy, will your bishop Anathematize John Bekkos like the Orthodox do? But Patriarch John fought for papal unity.

Will you side with lord Gregory of Cyprus? But he fought against the Latin doctrine and unity with Rome. He was a schismatic.

Will you anathematize Akindynos and Prochoros Kydones? But they fough the innovations of Gregory Palamas and held the traditional patristic teaching.

Will you anathematize Florence and side with Mark of Ephesus?

If you are a Slav, will you accept the reforms of Patriarch Nikon? But what has Nikon to do with the Catholics? Nothing.

So the only answer as I can see it is to be distinctively eastern but not follow the distinctively Orthodox rabbit trails. 13th century in the spirit of John Bekkos.

That’s authentic tradition, not deviations while in schism.

 

[Justin_Mary]

My apologies for a snarky comment.

Appreciated. But unnecessary. I responded to you, you were responding to someone else. Your response to him made sense, I butted in.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Got it - Orthodox have to give up everything and just become Catholic. Thanks for clarifying.

Ideally anyway. Eastern Catholic at that, while maintaining their tradition and enriching Church. Though, some concessions could be made. I understand union is going to be both sides giving up something, but certainly not their identity that is dogmatically defined. Papal Supremacy was never dogmatically opposed in Orthodox Church.

We need to figure out a way to “walk back”

Would disregard much God has revealed to both sides, Church is living garden not dusty museum.

re-understand those in such a way as they don’t put up a barrier between us while walking the tight-rope of remaining faithful to our respective traditions

That sounds great.

Continuing to assert that we need to submit to the Pope

Thing is, I believe Papal Supremacy is simply beneficial to Church and without it, Church is not using gifts from God to fullest. This is not matter of pride whether one has to submit or not, this is merely matter of discipline. If we fail to understand Papacy now, we will never truly understand how it is meant to be used for good of Church. Strictly speaking I do not mean to say Pope should affirm election of every Bishop in East or so, but that infallible statements of Pope should be given more than respectful silence and that he should have authority to intervene if necessary- Rome becoming another Ecumenical Patriarch would be less than beneficial, that system is proven to not work.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

I was like 99% of Catholics, I believed they were Roman Catholics in every way with a “funny” Mass.

I am a convert from basically nothing, I never knew about Eastern Catholics before I converted and thought they are distinct Church or another name for Orthodoxy. I’m not american, but almost everyone I ever mentioned Eastern Catholics to from older generation knows they are Catholic, and Eastern Catholics in my country tend to identify as Catholic first, Eastern second. When they had to choose between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism in Communist times, they became Latin. Their Church is heavily pro-papal and takes obedience to Holy See as one of major identification factors for themselves. I do not believe 99% Catholics believe them to be Roman Catholics with Funny Mass, and if that were case it would be pretty sad. They might not be numerous here, but they are surely respected.

 

[ziapueblo]

Where do you live if you don’t mind me asking?

ZP

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

I dont mind, I live in Slovakia

 

[Salibi]

I’m a Maronite, Justin. We never broke communion. The Maronite Church has no Orthodox equivalent.

 

[Salibi]

You’re Slovak? I could tell you were Slavic, because you don’t use “the” a lot, which I understand is not present in Slavic languages? Apologies, I always thought you were Russian.

I am a student of Russian. A beautiful language!

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Oh yeah, “a” “the” and other stuff like that is not my speciality I don’t speak Russian though, but I can understand it by intuition, as it’s just another Slavic language.

 

[Salibi]

I saw that in Czechia. I believe Czech is mutually intelligible with Slovak, right?

I spoke Russian to the Czechs, they seemed to understand fine.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Yes, though it’s kinda one way tunnel- Slovaks usually understand Czech pretty well even as kids, and can speak it fluently, but Czechs only understand Slovak when older. Might be because half good programs on TV for children in Slovakia are in Czech. We used to be one country after all.