Hypothetical for "Orthodox in communion with Rome."

  • Thread starter Thread starter Agabus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Agabus

Guest
I use the Orthodox in communion with Rome tag rather than “Eastern Catholic” because I’m looking for Eastern Catholics who self-identify as Orthodox.

Here’s my situation: I am theologically Orthodox though at present not chrismated due mostly to my hesitation because of family issues and because of what I am about to say. I live a long way away from my parish and cannot attend often. I also feel a strong – perhaps irrational – attraction to Catholicism, but don’t particularly care for the western rite (the N.O., specifically) and the west’s general philosophical baggage. However, that’s my local option – the nearest Eastern Catholic church is three hours away, and the next closest is six hours away (and so on). Though there is loads of western theologoumenon I’m not really hot on, but at the same time I’m beginning to suspect that communion with Rome and the Holy Father might just be important after all. I am not convinced on this, however.

So, here’s my question – would you still be Catholic if your only option was to become canonically Latin?
 
Mmmmmm I don’t know about that … If you feel drawn to Orthodoxy then go that way. Don’t live between 2 shores, Othodoxy is achenient (God, I cannot spell) Christianity. We 2 just both need to get our acts together & become one again.
 
I use the Orthodox in communion with Rome tag rather than “Eastern Catholic” because I’m looking for Eastern Catholics who self-identify as Orthodox.

Here’s my situation: I am theologically Orthodox though at present not chrismated due mostly to my hesitation because of family issues and because of what I am about to say. I live a long way away from my parish and cannot attend often. I also feel a strong – perhaps irrational – attraction to Catholicism, but don’t particularly care for the western rite (the N.O., specifically) and the west’s general philosophical baggage. However, that’s my local option – the nearest Eastern Catholic church is three hours away, and the next closest is six hours away (and so on). Though there is loads of western theologoumenon I’m not really hot on, but at the same time I’m beginning to suspect that communion with Rome and the Holy Father might just be important after all. I am not convinced on this, however.

So, here’s my question – would you still be Catholic if your only option was to become canonically Latin?
You can always go with one of the Eastern Rites, or the Latin mass. Both beautiful, more traditional (the former, basically exactly the same as Orthodox), more fit for you than Novus Ordo!

It made me laugh when you said you have a “strong - perhaps irrational - attraction to Catholicism.” That’s how God works… sometimes we feel like fools when we act on what we think He’s telling us to do:D It’s a very good way to humble yourself. And working on humility is SO hard, especially in this crazy western culture (I agree on that point as well!)

EDIT: Oh and PS, the literal definition of the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church is :Orthodox in communion with Rome. So you might be onto something.😉
 
When I first started coming to Orthodoxy I lived about an hour drive from the nearest parish, and didn’t have a car. At that time I was planning to move to a place where it would be easier to get to the parish (for completely unrelated reasons), so I spent the time in between just studying the faith.

It’s sad but a fact that with certain regional exceptions, Eastern Christianity is confined to larger cities.
 
I would go online and help to build the New Jerusalem Catholic Church. Check the other thread in this forum. We are calling for a calendar overhaul and a common date for Easter for all of the churches.

Sincerely, Russ

Todays date on the new calendar Fri Nov 9/20
 
Have you looked into Byzantine or Maronite Churches? Both in communion with Rome, but of the Eastern rite.
 
I would go online and help to build the New Jerusalem Catholic Church. Check the other thread in this forum. We are calling for a calendar overhaul and a common date for Easter for all of the churches.

Sincerely, Russ

Todays date on the new calendar Fri Nov 9/20
This so call “New Jerusalem Catholic Church” is not part of the Catholic Church at all. I’ve read some of your posts today and they seem more like proselytism to me, which I believe is prohibited in this forum.

Back to the OP… I’m a Latin Catholic myself, but I’m attracted to the Eastern Rites and theology. Unfortunately, there are no Eastern Catholic Parishes nearby; only Eastern Orthodox within 30 and 40 minutes respectively from where I live.
40.png
Agabus:
So, here’s my question – would you still be Catholic if your only option was to become canonically Latin?
Yours is a very interesting question and I’m looking forward to hearing some actual answers from our Eastern Catholic brethren.
 
This so call “New Jerusalem Catholic Church” is not part of the Catholic Church at all…
The New Jerusalem is what all the churches pray to God for. This New Jerusalem foundation is for all the churches to unite as one in the Kingdom of God on Earth. With the roman gregorian system all the churches are out of whack. This foundation puts them all back into alignment with God. The world is sick because the Roman Gregorian Catholic church system is sick. When the Catholic Church becomes the New Jerusalem Catholic church the entire world will be healed. This is directly from the Spirit of God.

Fri Nov 9/20
 
It’s not for nothing I refer to the Zoghby initiative in my signature.

I would urge EVERYONE to read his book WE ARE ALL SCHISMATICS (originally in French as Tous schismatiques?).
 
… the literal definition of the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church is :Orthodox in communion with Rome. So you might be onto something.😉
This is hardly the case.

The closest thing to it might be the Melkite Catholic church within the patriarchal territory.

I have seen where a Latin priest, concerned that a similar attitude was growing among the Ukrainians (no real danger there), called it “the Melkite disease”.

The “Orthodox in Communion with Rome” is an ideal to be striven for, not a present reality. In other words it does not exist in a tangible way, it is an aspiration, an ardent desire.

I encourage every Latin Catholic to strive for this, right in their own church. Keep your Latin praxis (if you wish) and adopt Orthodox theological norms. There is no real need to go east.
 
It’s not for nothing I refer to the Zoghby initiative in my signature.

I would urge EVERYONE to read his book WE ARE ALL SCHISMATICS (originally in French as Tous schismatiques?).
Having just finished said book, I thoroughly agree with the Zoghby initiative. It’s such a shame I didn’t know about this enigmatic man until after he died. 😦
I encourage every Latin Catholic to strive for this, right in their own church. Keep your Latin praxis (if you wish) and adopt Orthodox theological norms. There is no real need to go east.
I’ve never said it on this forum, but my parents are aware of my feelings and so is one of the local priests, that if it wasn’t for the Orthodox denial of the Immaculate Conception, I would most definitely be Russian or Greek Orthodox. As it is, I’m starting to research Eastern Catholic Rites myself. I just love my Roman Church so much that it’s hard sometimes. 😊
 
… if it wasn’t for the Orthodox denial of the Immaculate Conception, I would most definitely be Russian or Greek Orthodox.
May I suggest that the way you word your objection is a strong indication that you are looking at this particular issue with a thoroughly Latin mindset. It’s not simply one thing, but several preconceived ideas integrally linked.

As such, you might just as well bloom where you are planted (as you seem already willing to to).
… as it is, I’m starting to research Eastern Catholic Rites myself. I just love my Roman Church so much that it’s hard sometimes. 😊
You would not be the first Latin Catholic, and would not be the last either, who migrated into the Eastern Catholic churches. I did so myself, probably for many of the same reasons you have. However, I urge you to consider that if you are (as you seem to be) interiorly Latin, the place to be is in the Latin church. You seem to me to already have a home there.

Since you have stated that you are starting research, I would like to make some book recommendations to you. You may already be aware of these.

The Face of God, by Archbishop Joseph Raya (of blessed memory). This may be difficult to get these days. Don’t pay $40 for it! Try Madonna House [pdf].

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d6/FaceofGodBook.jpg

The Spirituality of the Christian East Vol 1 & 2 by Tomas Cardinal Spidlik SJ. Volume 2 is about prayer.

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51CAeU3jClL.SL110.jpg https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51aXrE3+E4L.SL110.jpg

These are Catholic authors.

The next one might be available through inter-library loan, it is far too expensive for me so I have not read it yet, but I may obtain (borrow) a copy when I return to the States.

The Christian East: Its Institutions and Its Thought, edited by Father Robert Taft SJ

Good luck to you,
Michael
 
I’ve never said it on this forum, but my parents are aware of my feelings and so is one of the local priests, that if it wasn’t for the Orthodox denial of the Immaculate Conception, I would most definitely be Russian or Greek Orthodox. As it is, I’m starting to research Eastern Catholic Rites myself. I just love my Roman Church so much that it’s hard sometimes. 😊
Contrary to Clark Carlton, there is no official Orthodox statement on the Immaculate Conception. It hasn’t been condemned for heresy by any synod or ecumenical council, although the underlying theology is foreign to minds of the early fathers. Again, the concept of “inherited guilt” is not a Catholic teaching.

HOWEVER, the concept of ancestral sin/original sin being transmitted through concupiscence of biological reproduction seems to be an exclusively Latin concept (from St. Augustine), which was pronounced at Trent and restated by the last pope, John Paul II.

I think one can look at the title “all holy” or the pious belief in the sinlessness of Mary (i.e. never chose to sin) outside the prism of Latin theology.
 
I use the Orthodox in communion with Rome tag rather than “Eastern Catholic” because I’m looking for Eastern Catholics who self-identify as Orthodox.

Here’s my situation: I am theologically Orthodox though at present not chrismated due mostly to my hesitation because of family issues and because of what I am about to say. I live a long way away from my parish and cannot attend often. I also feel a strong – perhaps irrational – attraction to Catholicism, but don’t particularly care for the western rite (the N.O., specifically) and the west’s general philosophical baggage. However, that’s my local option – the nearest Eastern Catholic church is three hours away, and the next closest is six hours away (and so on). Though there is loads of western theologoumenon I’m not really hot on, but at the same time I’m beginning to suspect that communion with Rome and the Holy Father might just be important after all. I am not convinced on this, however.

So, here’s my question – would you still be Catholic if your only option was to become canonically Latin?
Wow that last line is a true zinger, hahahaha, Its up to you,

Lets do this, there is Orthodox Catholicism, and Latin Rite(Roman Rite) Catholicism.

There both are Catholic, however the Infallibility is the deal… if you are trying for a sort of Orthodox Loves the POPE mix… I don’t know what to tell you…

The Catechism says, “Byzantine right is so close to Latin Rite that it lacks very little to bring it into complete Fellowship.” You can go into a Latin Rite Church and recieve the Communion. Or at least I have seen One Byzantian receive the Eucharist at a Latin Mass, only later did i question that. See the Schism doesn’t look that big until
you are right up on it, and you realize that their is still quite a bit seperating Eastern Church’s and Rome.

Benjamin
 
I use the Orthodox in communion with Rome tag rather than “Eastern Catholic” because I’m looking for Eastern Catholics who self-identify as Orthodox.

Here’s my situation: I am theologically Orthodox though at present not chrismated due mostly to my hesitation because of family issues and because of what I am about to say. I live a long way away from my parish and cannot attend often. I also feel a strong – perhaps irrational – attraction to Catholicism, but don’t particularly care for the western rite (the N.O., specifically) and the west’s general philosophical baggage. However, that’s my local option – the nearest Eastern Catholic church is three hours away, and the next closest is six hours away (and so on). Though there is loads of western theologoumenon I’m not really hot on, but at the same time I’m beginning to suspect that communion with Rome and the Holy Father might just be important after all. I am not convinced on this, however.

So, here’s my question – would you still be Catholic if your only option was to become canonically Latin?
Yes.

At college the only option I feasibly have is the Tridentine Mass (or the N.O., which I won’t go to on Sundays when I can drive out of town for the real thing), and family issues have complicated my wish to get a canonical transfer to the Byzantine rite, so I am still Catholic and still canonically Latin. This doesn’t need to affect my private devotions or spiritual reading, however; I still consider myself a Byzantine Catholic (at least in desire) and have an icon corner in my dorm and pray the kombologion.

The reasons why I am taking this compromise rather than converting to Russian Orthodoxy are (1) the words of Christ to St. Peter: “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church”, and (2) the absolute necessity of communion with Rome taught by the Greek Fathers - St. Cyprian’s On the Unity of the Catholic Church in particular.

Furthermore, it is more consistent with Russian Orthodoxy to be in communion with St. Peter, who is called the “Source of Orthodoxy” in the office on Thursday of the second week of Great Lent, and called the infallible foundation of the Church in the Russian akathist to St. Peter: “O! St. Peter, prince of the apostles! Apostolic primate! Immovable rock of faith, in recompense of thy confession, eternal foundation of the Church; pastor of the speaking flock; bearer of the keys of heaven; chosen from among all the apostles to be, after Jesus Christ, the first foundation of the Holy Church - rejoice! Rejoice! Never-to-be-shaken pillar of the Orthodox Faith! Chief of the apostolic college!”

And this is what St. Maximos the Confessor said about the Pope:

“If Pyrrhus pretends not to be a heretic, let him not lose his time exculpating himself before a multitude of people, but prove his innocence to the blessed Pope of the holy Roman church - that is, to the Apostolic See - to which belong government, authority, and power to bind and to loose over all the churches that are in the world, in all things and in every way.”

Tertullian, in De Pudicitia, called him the “Sovereign Pontiff, the Bishop of Bishops”. St. Irenaeus said that "It is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church [that of Rome], on account of its pre-eminent authority.”

St. Theodore Studites, appealing to the pope to uphold orthodoxy in the Greek Church, reminded him that it was impossible to even hold an authoritative council without his knowledge. After the Council of Ephesus when the Orthodox Faith was upheld, the Fathers spontaneously proclaimed, “Peter has spoken through Leo!”

And finally, here are the words that St. Ephrem put into the mouth of Christ:

“Simon, My disciple, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church; I have called you the rock, that you might support the whole building. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for Me. If they wish to build what is reprobate, you, the foundation, will forbid them. You are the head of the fountain from which My doctrine issues. You are the head of My disciples, and through you I will give drink to all nations. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the firstborn of My institution, and so that, as the heir, you may be the executor of My treasures. I have given you authority over all My treasures.”

Those are the reasons I am remaining Catholic even though I can not practice the Byzantine Rite as fully as I wish I could.
 
Wow that last line is a true zinger, hahahaha, Its up to you,

Lets do this, there is Orthodox Catholicism, and Latin Rite(Roman Rite) Catholicism.

There both are Catholic, however the Infallibility is the deal… if you are trying for a sort of Orthodox Loves the POPE mix… I don’t know what to tell you…

The Catechism says, “Byzantine right is so close to Latin Rite that it lacks very little to bring it into complete Fellowship.” You can go into a Latin Rite Church and recieve the Communion. Or at least I have seen One Byzantian receive the Eucharist at a Latin Mass, only later did i question that. See the Schism doesn’t look that big until
you are right up on it, and you realize that their is still quite a bit seperating Eastern Church’s and Rome.

Benjamin
Benjamin, there are basically two types of Catholic, Western or Latin Roman Catholics (the most common type) and Eastern-Rite Catholics, who look like Eastern Orthodox in every respect but are in full obedience to and communion with the Pope (and believe just as strongly in papal infallibility). Every Eastern-Rite Catholic is “just as Catholic as the Pope”; we have in fact had over a dozen Eastern-rite Popes (mostly in the 9th century). Since they are just as Catholic as you are, there is no reason why they cannot receive Communion at Latin churches and vice versa.

You seem to be confusing them with the Eastern Orthodox, who are in schism with the Catholic Church and disagree regarding papal supremacy and infallibility (though the akathist and office I cited seem to assume both supremacy and infallibility). The Eastern Orthodox are permitted to receive Holy Communion in Catholic churches because of the identity of faith that we share (it is considered a schism, not a heresy) and the fact that they have all the Sacraments, including that of penance.
 
Reading this thread I’ve become thoroughly confused. One of you claims to be an Eastern Orthodox Christian but in their posts they sound Eastern Catholic; not Eastern Orthodox. In reading other posts I get the idea that the Byzantine Rite is not Catholic; when the poster mentions he leans toward the Byzantine Rite but will remain Catholic. Is not the Byzantine Rite Catholic?

I understand there is the Byzantine Orthodox not to be confused with the Byzantine Rite.

Eastern Catholic are the churches of the East that are in communion with the Catholic Church.

Eastern Orthodox are not in communion with the Catholic Church. They would include Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox and so on.
Anyway that’s how I understand it.
 
I also feel a strong – perhaps irrational – attraction to Catholicism, but don’t particularly care for the western rite (the N.O., specifically) and the west’s general philosophical baggage. However, that’s my local option – the nearest Eastern Catholic church is three hours away,
 
Benjamin, there are basically two types of Catholic, Western or Latin Roman Catholics (the most common type) and Eastern-Rite Catholics, who look like Eastern Orthodox in every respect but are in full obedience to and communion with the Pope (and believe just as strongly in papal infallibility). Every Eastern-Rite Catholic is “just as Catholic as the Pope”; we have in fact had over a dozen Eastern-rite Popes (mostly in the 9th century). Since they are just as Catholic as you are, there is no reason why they cannot receive Communion at Latin churches and vice versa.

You seem to be confusing them with the Eastern Orthodox, who are in schism with the Catholic Church and disagree regarding papal supremacy and infallibility (though the akathist and office I cited seem to assume both supremacy and infallibility). The Eastern Orthodox are permitted to receive Holy Communion in Catholic churches because of the identity of faith that we share (it is considered a schism, not a heresy) and the fact that they have all the Sacraments, including that of penance.
There is no such thing as an “Eastern-Rite”.There are 23 different Catholic Churches in communion with Rome, of those 22 are churches whom historically originated in the Eastern Roman Empire and Middle east. Further, there are several different liturgical traditions or rites that are followed by different churches. Many churches follow the same liturgical rites as others, such as the Ruthenian, Ukrainian, and Melkite churches all follow the Byzantine liturgical tradition.

Which akathist supports papal infallibility?
 
There is no such thing as an “Eastern-Rite”.There are 23 different Catholic Churches in communion with Rome, of those 22 are churches whom historically originated in the Eastern Roman Empire and Middle east. Further, there are several different liturgical traditions or rites that are followed by different churches. Many churches follow the same liturgical rites as others, such as the Ruthenian, Ukrainian, and Melkite churches all follow the Byzantine liturgical tradition.
Those 22 churches are what I meant by the Eastern rites.
Which akathist supports papal infallibility?
The akathist to St. Peter.

“O! St. Peter, prince of the apostles! Apostolic primate! Immovable rock of faith, in recompense of thy confession, eternal foundation of the Church; pastor of the speaking flock; bearer of the keys of heaven; chosen from among all the apostles to be, after Jesus Christ, the first foundation of the Holy Church - rejoice! Rejoice! Never-to-be-shaken pillar of the Orthodox Faith! Chief of the apostolic college!”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top