In between Catholic Church and Orthodox Church

[Cavaradossi]

Actually, the Filioque was employed in the Spanish Church to combat Arianism and it did in fact serve to bat down Arianism in the West. It did not extinguish the heresy but Nestorianism and Monophysitism heresies in the East were never totally destroyed either.

But how can you say that, when your own Church’s mutual dialogues with the Churches which were traditionally called Monophysite and Nestorian indicates that none of them actually teach Monophysitism or Nestorianism?

 

[ConstantineTG]

I’ve often encountered Catholics that want to convert to Orthodoxy because they are tired of the sexual abuse problem or because they feel the Novus Ordo Missae is boring. For example, for a while, I went to an Orthodox Church. I met a guy there that converted to Orthodoxy because of the sexual abuse problem in his former parish. He still believed in Catholic doctrine, i.e. papal supremacy, the Immaculate Conception, etc. A reason like this is not a good reason to convert to Orthodoxy.

I agree. There are sexual abuse problems as well with Orthodox clergy. There are other good reasons to convert to Orthodoxy, this is not one of them.

If someone feels the Novus Ordo Missae is boring, and they feel attracted to the Divine Liturgy, I would encourage them to look into the Eastern Catholic Churches. Again, converting to Orthodoxy because the N.O. Mass is boring is not a good reason.

Sure, I can’t argue with this. In fact, I wouldn’t even advice them to go to the Eastern Catholic Church. For one, the EC is not some sanctuary for disaffected Roman Catholics. ECs and Orthodox have all their problems, if one changing only to run away from a problem, well, they have nowhere to go. Everyone has problems.

I could never encourage someone to convert away from Catholicism. If someone is beginning to loose their faith, and they want to convert to Orthodoxy, I would suggest to them that they look into the Eastern Catholic Churches to be sure that converting to Orthodoxy is truly what they want. There are Latin Catholics that became Eastern Catholics solely because they thought the Divine Liturgy is more interesting and spiritually fulfilling. There are Latin Catholics who attend Byzantine Catholic churches because they prefer the Divine Liturgy over the N.O. Mass. True, there are doctrinal differences between Eastern Catholics and Orthodox Christians. That is why one should pray hard and learn the differences between the two before making the decision to convert.

I know of Latin Catholics that became Eastern, and then converted to Orthodoxy. I just encourage anyone wanting to convert to Orthodoxy to make sure they’re doing it because they believe in Orthodox doctrine, and not because the Novus Ordo Missae is boring.

I’m not asking you to ask people to convert out of Catholicism. But I’m telling you it is a bad idea to tell people to go to Eastern Catholicism if they said they want to become Orthodox. They are just not the same.

In fact, don’t tell people to convert one way or another. Conversion is only made by God. We can only tell people what we believe in, what our faith is. Where they should go is none of our business.

 

[Surnaturel]

But how can you say that, when your own Church’s mutual dialogues with the Churches which were traditionally called Monophysite and Nestorian indicates that none of them actually teach Monophysitism or Nestorianism?

Because the modern ‘miaphysite’ position that our churches have made peace with is not the same formulation that has existed throughout the history of the Church. A multitude of strains and interpretations have been put forth over the last ~2000 years by the separated OO churches.

 

[RyanBlack]

Simply put; Who approved the councils findings? I rest my case.

And who were the bishops who put forth the findings of the two councils in question before they were approved by the Bishop of Rome? Oh, yeah-Eastern. Furthermore, the First Council of Constantinople, which completed the work of the First Council of Nicaea in extinguishing Arianism in the East, was initially a local council of the East, and wasn’t considered an ecumenical council until after Arianism had ceased to be a problem in the East.

Hello! the subject is about the Eastern Arian heresy. We are not discussing Western heresies.

I wasn’t discussing western heresies either. I mentioned them for the sake of making a point. One that so far you have either failed to grasp or you are intentionally ignoring since it doesn’t serve your anti-eastern agenda, and I rather suspect the latter is the case. So, once more, given that certain Roman Catholic triumphalistic, anti-Eastern bigots love to say such absurd things as “The Eastern Church constantly fell into heresy and had to be set straight by the Pope,” as they: 1) overlook or are ignornat of the plain historical fact that the eastern heresies of the Arians, Apollinarians, Pneumatomachoi, Nestorians, Eutychians, and Monothelites were refuted by councils held in the East, which had overwhelming eastern majorities, where the overwhelming majority of the theological reasoning was done by eastern bishops (the Tome of Pope St. Leo being an important exception), 2) overlook or are ignorant of the fact that the West had several of its own heresies (Sabellianism, Novatianism, Donatism, and Pelagianism, just off the top of my head), and 3) overlook or are ignorant of the glaring fact that Arianism plagued the West for far longer than it did the East, it is little surprise that the Orthodox respond to such by downplaying the role of the Bishop of Rome in defeating Eastern heresies (which in some cases, actually was a rather minor role) or deny it entirely. If you can’t see that this is not a matter of attempting to change the subject to western heresies, I really don’t know what else to say.

Yes Iam all of the above and more when Orthodox or anyone else misinforms my Catholic faith to be what it never is.

I know the Catholic faith fairly well. I have nowhere in these exchanges with you misrepresented the Catholic faith.

Experts have said that one can always tell when one is loosing a debate and has nothing else to say to the facts presented, when the looser reverts to insults and character bashing. Thank you for the blessings

The insulting and character bashing I’ve noticed in this thread has been directed towards the Orthodox and the ancient eastern church, by you.

I will be gladly humbled by any first year theology student here to refute the historical facts that I have presented here. I have not found one yet. You object to them, but have not refuted them with facts. Are you a first year theology student? I would welcome your refutation with facts. Not with insults please and thank you.

No, I am not a first year theology student. I have two graduate theological degrees (one in historical theology) and a total of about 5 1/2 years of graduate theological education. You haven’t found a fact to refute the so-called “historical facts” you have presented to them because you’re not looking for anything that doesn’t fit into your anti-eastern Latin triumphalism.

Retreat? Insulting? Show me where I have done one of these to which you judge me? As far as historical inaccuracies, don’t stone the messenger, they are not my writings of history.

Your posts are riddled with anti-eastern polemic and Latin triumphalism, which are by their very nature insulting to eastern Christians, Catholic and Orthodox alike.

Probably because the post was addressed to the second person in the dialogue, you entered the conversation third person and picked up on your own assesments that contradict what was an ongoing dialoque between first and second persons. And you insult me and blame me for your late entry and misunderstandings of an established dialogue?

You have repeatedly spoken of Arianism as “their (the Orthodox’s) heresy.” Furthermore, you have repeatedly spoken of the Orthodox as heterodox. Only after I called you out on it did you attempt to explain that you weren’t blaming the Orthodox for the Arian heresy. Then, after attempting to clarify that, you went right back to calling the Orthodox heterodox. I’ve only made reasonable inferences from what you’ve actually stated when I conclude that your intent is to bash the Orthodox

Please Pray for me;

Peace be with you

Peace to you as well.

 

[marimagi]

I can really relate to your dilema. I was baptised/confirmed into the RCC in 1977, but left and was confirmed into the Orthodox Church in 2001. Currently, I am again Communing at the RCC, but love and believe in the validity of both Churches.

I went over to the OC, because I was tired of seeing the post Vatican II Church treat the Mass with what I believed to be, a lack of appropriate dignity, respect and reverance. The OC church I subsequently attended showed so much reverance for the Liturgy and especially the Real Presence, I could feel the significance of my approach towards Him at Liturgy, as if approaching the living Christ who walked the Earth 2000 years ago. Unfortunately, I visited a Greek Orthodox Church in my neighborhood where the priest actually made announcements regarding the upcoming youth Disneyland trip, just prior to distributing the Body and Blood of Christ. It seemed that even the OC Church was not untouched by modernism.I began to wonder if anyone cared about the dignity of the Real Presence, or if I was crazy or too prideful to expect them to. It did not help when my OC priest was later defrocked for having an extramarital affair.

For personal reasons too complicated to explain here, I stopped going to any church at all for awhile, When I needed to return, I struggled with the question of which one to return to. For quite awhile, I went to the OC, left after the homily, and ran up the street to attend Mass at the RCC.

Ultimately, I made a home in the RCC again. I did it primarily because it is more congruent with the Western calendar. Living in an area where RCs are in the vast minority, I felt that trying to live an Orthodix life made it even more difficult to practice the numerous days of holy significance.

Like you, I don’t care that the Churches do not agree in terms of the procession of the Holy Spirit. As I told my Orthodox priest, “I don’t care how He proceeds, only that He does.” Personally, I believe both Churches to be fully Apostolic and fully True. I believe that the schism was caused due to the challenges of a society separated by distance, culture and misunderstanding. I hope (as does the papacy,) that one day, unity will be restored. Until then, I think it might be a matter of which “culture” and which practices within your own culture, you find most relevant.

I know that hard-line Catholics will say that it is about the primacy of the Pope, but this is my opinion.

Good luck to you in your very hard struggle.