Orthodox Christian feeling like West/East are divorced parents

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jofantioch
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I NEVER suggested that my beloved leave the Latin Church. Where did you get this? Please stop the unloving speech.

I made the original post, btw
 
Note from Moderator:

Considering the thread’s title, could we please drop the tug-of-war over Jofantioch and her husband and instead address her particular concerns?

If you have reason to believe the forum rules have been violated, please report the post to me and do not respond. This bickering is not becoming of anyone.
 
East_and_West said:
Are you sure this is true of the Eastern Orthodox? I am pretty sure they will accept you back if you return with sorrow, repentance, and penance.
Click to expand...
Some of the Orthodox would re-chrismate someone coming back, even if baptized and chrismated Orthodox originally. I have a friend they did that to.
 
Jofantioch said:
Thank you for your words of warning and encouragement. Here are my thoughts.
  1. I became Orthodox to align myself with the church that Christ planted. I didn’t want a cheap imitation.
  2. Christ’s will is NEVER separation. The schism is man-made and therefore not recognized by Christ.
  3. If indeed the Roman Catholic Church is the original church and the Orthodox church is the original church, than they are one. God does not separate.
  4. If a man and woman become “one flesh”, wouldn’t that be a reconnecting of our churches within our family?
  5. All leaders are human, but the holy spirit (given at baptism), isn’t. If my leaders say one thing, but God says another, whom am I to follow? There are Popes who have been unholy and there have been Patriarchs who have been unholy. Ultimately, we need to behave according to what Jesus wants. He is the true head of the church. No?
  6. The tragedies of the Western Church occurred because there were no checks and balances with the East. The same is true of the Eastern Church. The Crusades, the Inquisition, the Dark Ages, Indulgences, etc. were a result of unchecked power in the West and lack of communication with the East. Our churches’ separation makes both churches weaker. All of the sins of the Eastern Church that I’ve read on this site were the result of a lack of checked power and lack of communication with the West. Certainly we can see this. Why are we continuing to honor a separation that is detrimental to the Church of Christ?
  7. As far as marrying my Roman Sweetheart: I love him and want our home to be a peaceful one. I think that my Orthodoxy is more a daily thing than a Sunday thing. I need an icon corner, singing my prayers, censing the house, etc. I’m perfectly happy belonging to a Roman Parish. We’ll see if he will propose.
I know I ranted, but I needed to get this off my chest. As a convert, I am more interested in Christ than heirarchy. Maybe it’s the American in me.
Click to expand...
Ditto. I agree with many of your points here. I also feel that the church in the East and the West are meant to be one, but since ~1054 A.D. they have not appeared so. After all we are all men (male and female), and men are fallible and tend to cause problems, even in the best of things. True charity is needed.

If it were me, I would stay where I was and grow spiritually along with my spouse and follow where that would lead me. This is the hypothetical answer, since I have not yet been in the same situation.

And please do answer Rony’s question about what you mean by “cheap imitation.” What are you referring to? If both the Catholic Church (which includes all the Rites called Catholic because they hold communion with the Bishop of Rome) are the truely the Church, and the Orthodox are too, than there are NO Cheap Imitations. *

Thanks and God Bless,
Rosemary*
 
Thanks for your question, Rony. :coffeeread:

By “cheap imitation”, I am referring to the ever-increasing sects of the Protestants who are constantly “recreating” the First Century Church. In every one of these groups, one hears “this is the way the First Century Christians did it.” These churches are well-meaning, cheap imitations of the real, First Century Church. Our church! 👍

In my original question I mentioned being Evangelical for a while. This church was very Orthodox/Catholic in many ways but lacked the most important one; it did not have Apostolic priesthood and traditions from the actual First Century Church. Later, when I encountered Orthodoxy, I recognized what that Protestant church had so feebly tried to create. :idea: I see that true church in the Latin Churches as well. :highprayer:
 
Thanks for the clarification. I too was puzzled. Now I now know what you are referring to, and I understand. 😃
 
Jofantioch,

Thank you for the explanation 🙂

I agree that Protestantism is a cheap imitation of Apostolic Christianity.

God bless,

Rony
 
There is a school of thought that indicates that the early church was set up as house churches. Much like the ancient schools of philosophy set up through out the world at that time. If you read the ending of the letter of Romans it seems to indicate that there were many house churches in Rome itself. Also if you read the early church fathers you may note that they disagree about certain issues and the Term “Catholic” was an effort to bring all the many house churches into unity with one another. What the Protestants are doing are setting up a version of “house churches” by setting up multiple studies that are group based. Most definately not exactly like the ancient world but how can it? Even the Orthodox and Catholic churches have evolved much since then. What both these ancient churches consider apostolic is the deposit of faith; faithfully transmitted. But there are many issues and beliefs today that Orthodox and Catholics have that the early church didn’t even consider. Even these churches have evolved and don’t resemble exactly the early church.
 
sambos671,

Apostolic Christianity (Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Church of the East) has developed through the ages like a seed into an acorn, some moreso than others. The issue here is not one of heresy, but of original schisms. Even with the Oriental Orthodox and the Church of the East, the recent Christological declarations show that neither the OO are monophysite, nor the CotE are Nestorian.

Apostolic Christianity is like an infant becoming a child and into adulthood. The same human being is there, but does not look the same from age to age. To use Arostotilian/Thomistic terms, the substance is there, but the accidents are different through the ages.

As a Catholic, my urging for the rest of Apostolic Christianity is to continue full forward with the Ecumenical talks so as to achieve the will of Christ in restoring to full communion all the Apostolic Churches, just as it was in the early Church when the local Churches were in full communion with one another.

Protestantism, on the other hand, is a different seed, a different child, a different substance. Protestantism is not the Apostolic Church. It is a cheap imitation of the Apostolic Church, by having contaminated the Deposit of Faith, and lost the Apostolic Succession.

But, we still consider you brethren in Christ by virtue of your baptism, though separated from full communion with us, due to not only the original schisms of the reformers, but also their heresies. Today’s Protestants, however, are simply born into these communities, and are not personally responsible for the original schisms and heresies. Though, they do have the responsibility of working towards the healing of all the fractures in Protestantism, eradicating all the innovations that have crept among them, so as to re-establish full communion with the rest of us and restore among them the fullness of the Deposit of Faith, and Apostolic Succession.

God bless,

Rony
 
ronyodish,

I’m not sure what you’re saying about healing the schizm. Do you mean with in the Protestant churches or returning to the Catholic Faith?
 
I’m not sure what you’re saying about healing the schizm. Do you mean with in the Protestant churches or returning to the Catholic Faith?
Click to expand...
Both.

Uniting the many Protestant communities among themselves by cutting off any erroneous teachings, and restoring any authentic orthodox teachings that were lost, and then enter into full communion with the Universal Church.

I don’t think, however, that it will happen corporately like this because of the vastness and divergences of Protestantism. So, I think that each main community can enter into full communion, one by one (Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, etc.) when the ecumenical talks, between Catholics and them, solves the problems that keep us apart from full communion. Of course, the whole time, individual Protestants can convert if they so desire.

Hopefully by that time, all Apsotolic Christians are in full communion with Rome and with one another, but if not yet, then since Protestantism is a Western phenomenon, then they should enter group by group into full communion with the Western Church (aka Latin Church, aka Roman Catholic Church), which then would automatically bring them into full communion with the rest of the Catholic Church.

If they desire a sui iuris (self-governing, autonomous) status, then the Pope can work with them on the terms of full communion, including the allowance of any acceptable theologies, liturgies, spiritualities, and disciples, just like how currently the Catholic Church enjoys a multiplicity of complementary theologies, liturgies, etc.

God bless,

Rony
 
Ok. I guess. The problem with Protestants is first they are so diverse. They are not able to agree. The first major division is the faiths that are too Roman for the taste of the other denominations such as the Lutherans, and Anglicans. Then there is the Armenianism, Calvanistic divide. Then there is many subdivisions under these such as the followers of Menno Simmons and Jacob Amans, Evangelical, Fundalmentalist, ect… Too many. Each with very strong resentment of the other. I guess there will be a move towards unity in the future but we have a ways to go.

Now I only understand the Roman Catholic church when you mention Catholic. I understand there are eastern Catholics but I believe they submit to the Pope. ( I’m not really knowledge able about it to be truthful) The main difference is language. Then there is the Orthodox and the Copts. Orthodox don’t seem to me very interested in unifying with the Roman Catholic church and the Copts have the one nature problem. So when you said Protestants returning to the Western Church (RCC) and then uniting with the Universal Church I’m understanding that you’re meaning something different than the Church under the Pope in Rome. Or are you saying that the Eastern Catholics will be more in union with Rome? Or are you saying the Orthodox? Sorry if I seem dense on these matters. I’m just clarifing what you mean.
 
Ok. I guess. The problem with Protestants is first they are so diverse. They are not able to agree. The first major division is the faiths that are too Roman for the taste of the other denominations such as the Lutherans, and Anglicans. Then there is the Armenianism, Calvanistic divide. Then there is many subdivisions under these such as the followers of Menno Simmons and Jacob Amans, Evangelical, Fundalmentalist, ect… Too many. Each with very strong resentment of the other. I guess there will be a move towards unity in the future but we have a ways to go.
Click to expand...
Yes, there is a lot of differences. It will not be easy to unite all these groups.
Now I only understand the Roman Catholic church when you mention Catholic. I understand there are eastern Catholics but I believe they submit to the Pope. ( I’m not really knowledge able about it to be truthful) The main difference is language.
Click to expand...
The One Catholic Church is a full communion of 23 sui iuris Catholic Churches that share among themselves these major traditions: Roman, Constantinopolitan, Alexandrian, Antiochene, Armenian, and Chaldean.

All Catholic Church members share these following things in common:
  1. Deposit of Faith (Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition)
  2. Holy Mysteries (Sacraments)
  3. Pope of Rome
They are differentiated by the following things:
  1. Theology
  2. Liturgy
  3. Spirituality
  4. Disciplines
When the term “Roman Catholic Church” is mentioned, then that’s one of the 23 Churches of the Catholic Church. When the term “Catholic Church” is mentioned, then that’s a reference to the whole Church, not just the Roman Catholic Church.
Then there is the Orthodox and the Copts. Orthodox don’t seem to me very interested in unifying with the Roman Catholic church and the Copts have the one nature problem.
Click to expand...
The Apostolic Christians not in full communion with the Catholic Church are:
  1. Eastern Orthodox
  2. Oriental Orthodox (this includes the Copts)
  3. Churches of the East
The Catholic Church says that these three groups are orthodox in faith, and possess apostolic succession which is necessary for the priesthood and the Eucharist. What they do lack is fullness of communion with the Pope of Rome and the rest of the Catholic Church.

The Coptic “one nature” thing has been solved. The Coptic Orthodox Church signed a Christological document with the Pope.
So when you said Protestants returning to the Western Church (RCC) and then uniting with the Universal Church I’m understanding that you’re meaning something different than the Church under the Pope in Rome. Or are you saying that the Eastern Catholics will be more in union with Rome? Or are you saying the Orthodox? Sorry if I seem dense on these matters. I’m just clarifing what you mean.
Click to expand...
When I said Protestants returning to the Western Church (Roman Catholic Church), I meant one of the 23 Churches. When I said Universal Church, I meant the whole Church, the Catholic Church. But, by returning to the Western Church, they **automatically ** become in full communion not just with the Western Church but also the whole Church, the Catholic Church, which includes the 22 other Churches. All 23 Churches are in full communion with the Pope of Rome.

If by that time, the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, and the Churches of the East enter into full communion with the Pope of Rome and the Catholic Church, then the Protestants who enter into full communion with the Western Church will automatically be in full communion with these groups as well.

I hope this helps.

God bless,

Rony
 
Thank you for the explination.

It makes sense to some degree. But honestly it wouldn’t have if I hadn’t been recently studing the early church writings, Eusibius, and David Currie’s book which breaks down the information of the church into 5 Catagories: deposit, dogma, doctrine, discipline, and devotion. Explaining how each plays in. He admits of course that these are furhter broken down by the church into more catagories. Protestants don’t think along those lines or in those terms. Most Protestants lump several sections into one title. Like devotion.

However, can you refer me to sources so I can find out more about the different aspects of the Catholic church? Also is
sui iuris Greek? What does it specifically mean?

Also Protestants will not be reconsiled to each other first. Each is their own authority on scripture and may follow a preferred tennant such as Calvanism. Apart from this there is no Authority to unite them other than scripture but there is no agreement on it. Nothing greater than the individual revelation. So in order for Protestants to reconsile to each other they must recognize a greater authority. So I forsee a reconciliation with the Catholic church before they can reconcile to each other if that makes sense.
 
sambos671 said:
However, can you refer me to sources so I can find out more about the different aspects of the Catholic church? Also is
sui iuris Greek? What does it specifically mean?
Click to expand...
sui iuris, sometimes written sui juris, means self-governing. Each sui juris church maintains its own hierarchy*, may have its own canon laws (subordinate to the CCEO universal Canon Laws for the Eastern Churches), and may maintain its own theological, liturgical, and traditional systems.

Each Sui Iuris church with bishops has vote and voice in the Synod of the Catholic Church, sometimes referred to as the Grand Synod. Also, they have vote and voice in the Council of Eastern Hierarchs.
  • note: a few of the Sui Iuris churches are in severe decline; one is recovering slowly from a 90 year suppression. One lacks any clerics, and probably will not survive. A few have no bishops: the Russian Church Sui Iuris is currently without a Hierarch other than the Pope. Several are metropolitan churches, that is, an archbishop and his synod. A couple are major archiepiscopal churches, having multiple metropolitans, and a synod headed by the “Major Archbishop”, who has nearly as much authority as a patriarchate; the Ukrainians are the prime exemplar. Several are Patriarchates; they are nearly autonomous, save for the grand synod and the pope. They need not even consult the pope for new bishoprics within their traditional lands, nor selecting their patriarch, filling their episcopal vacancies, etc… Exemplar patriarchal churches include the Melkite, Maronite, and Chaldean Catholic Churches.
Each of these 23 sui iuris churches is part of one of the various rites: Roman, Alexandrian, Antiochene, Armenian, Chaldean and Constantinopolitan (Byzantine). (CCEO 28)

Most of the Eastern Churches are Byzantine, that is, of the Rite of Constantinople. Note that the Eastern Orthodox Communion are almost exclusively Byzantine (Tho’ last I checked there were limited groups allow for a hybrid byzanto-roman praxis, the so-called western rite orthodox). The Coptic Orthodox Communion is mostly Alexandrian. The Assyrian Church of the East and the Chaldean (Catholic) Church share the Chaldean rite, despite being in separate communions. Of the various non-Papist communions, the ACE is probably the closest to reunion of some form; already there is agreement for intercommunion of the faithful. Rites have no administrative organization; they are essentially “families” of sui iuris and autocephalous orthodox churches.

Essentially, the Holy Catholic Church is a communion of 23 Churches, some as small as a single parish, others world wide (Roman and Melkite, for example).

Each Catholic is enrolled in a specific Sui Iuris church. I, for example, am enrolled as a Roman, even though I attend and worship in the Byzantine Catholic Metropolitan Church Sui Iuris of Pittsburgh, colloquially known as the Ruthenian Metropolia. I am planning to change my enrollment; I find myself unable to return to Roman praxis; I nearly left the church for the Russian Orthodox at one point, and finding the Byzantine Catholic Church allowed me to remain in union and yet take to byzantine praxis.
 
Also is sui iuris Greek?
Click to expand...
Sui & iuris/juris are Latin words. j is not the appropriate letter in Classical Latin, but reflects the difference between i that is i and the i that is j. Think of the English word jurisdiction and you will realized that iuris is in fact the Latin root. Sui makes it reflexive, and I do believe that it is the reflective pronoun used when referring thing back to yourself. Hence, it means self-governing as explicated by the previous poster.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top