Orthodox-turned-Catholics: Why did you convert?

[Javl]

No it’s not.

Eastern theology and Western theology are polar opposites a lot of the time. Even the reason for Christ’s death are different.

Sorry, but I disagree. Read up on your history, especially before the schism. If any Church comes into communion with Rome it agrees with all that the Western ( Roman ) Church teaches. This includes tenets, doctrines, Dogmas, etc. The joining church may keep its culture, liturgy, etc., but its beliefs reflect those of the Catholic Church. It accepts the magisterium.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[dvdjs]

Actually, I think SMM has justified herself incontrovertibly…

Can Dvdjs provide ANY evidence that she has not?

I am afraid that his ‘say so’, without quoting sources just doesn’t suffice.

First, I would like to understand your sense of incontrovertible justification.
After all, SMM had first only argued by authority (of Lord Acton), then gave a bibliography. There was no specific justification anywhere at all.

Secondly, I summarized the evidence against her position, and gave references to the thread in which I worked through her bibliography - the stuff you clipped off from your quote of my post.

Have a look. Search the references, yourself. If you find something that I missed, great, I would be happy to learn more.

 

[Andrew_Phillip]

Sorry, but I disagree. Read up on your history, especially before the schism. If any Church comes into communion with Rome it agrees with all that the Western ( Roman ) Church teaches. This includes tenets, doctrines, Dogmas, etc. The joining church may keep its culture, liturgy, etc., but its beliefs reflect those of the Catholic Church. It accepts the magisterium.

***Clearly, this is incorrect. Many Rites in full communion with Rome, do NOT accept all of this.

For example, take a look at the Union Treaty of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church with Rome at Brest.

It specifically identifies Purgatory as one issue that argument between the Rites should be avoided. There is an agreement to disagree if you like.

---

 

[dvdjs]

Javl;6179274:

Sorry, but I disagree. Read up on your history, especially before the schism. If any Church comes into communion with Rome it agrees with all that the Western ( Roman ) Church teaches. This includes tenets, doctrines, Dogmas, etc. The joining church may keep its culture, liturgy, etc., but its beliefs reflect those of the Catholic Church. It accepts the magisterium.

---

It specifically identifies Purgatory as one issue that argument between the Rites should be avoided. There is an agreement to disagree if you like.

---

“We shall not debate about purgatory, but we entrust ourselves to the teaching of the Holy Church.” There was an agreement to accept the teachings of the Church, with trust, and without dispute.

Having said that, “accept” does not imply that Latin teachings replace our own. The “culture” of the Eastern church specifies its lex orandi, which is, ultimately its lex credendi. We may “accept” Latin doctrine, not dispute it, not debate it, not disparage it, and still not use it, as we have our own ways, our “culture” for teaching, the essence of the faith. And for that matter we may find it useful, for example, in catechesis. But that is up to us.

PS AP, have you checked the references?

 

[Alethiaphile]

This type of gobbledygook is why I don’t think I could ever become an Eastern Catholic. If a teaching is true, it should be taught, if not, it should be avoided. It really is that simple. Joe

 

[dvdjs]

This type of gobbledygook is why I don’t think I could ever become an Eastern Catholic. If a teaching is true, it should be taught, if not, it should be avoided. It really is that simple. Joe

I am sorry that don’t you get my point, and take to perjoratives.

Consider this: suppose, that the teaching is true. While it would be catechized as such, do you think we would also consider re-doing liturgical texts - not just the creed, but hymns, troparia, etc. - to embed the idea in the lex orandi? What would be the point?

I am chemist by profession. There are a myriad of concepts that in chemistry that I do not dispute, debate, or disparage, but still do not use. If a concept were suspect and important, I would work to sort out the truth, and if it were found to be false I would work to root it out. On the other hand, there are no shortage of ideas that, even though (provisionally) true, I just don’t use, and I just don’t care about. This is not gobbledygook: it is what life looks like, once one gets beyond textbooks.

As to the filioque, I honestly don’t care. I have chanted the Creed with it and without it. My insight into the Trinity remains the same: sadly very limited. For better or worse, my understanding of the Trinity is not the biggest obstacle to my theosis. I like what was said at Brest:

Since there is a quarrel between the Romans and Greeks about the procession of the Holy Spirit, which greatly impede unity really for no other reason than that we do not wish to understand one another - we ask that we should not be compelled to any other creed but that we should remain with that which was handed down to us in the Holy Scriptures, in the Gospel, and in the writings of the holy Greek Doctors, that is, that the Holy Spirit proceeds, not from two sources and not by a double procession, but from one origin, from the Father through the Son.

Really not much to add to that.

 

[Nine_Two]

Doctrine is a very different concept from chemistry. If all doctrine is believed than it should be taught as such. I must agree with Alethiaphile, this doublespeak that Eastern Catholics engage in boggles my mind.

 

[dvdjs]

Doctrine is a very different concept from chemistry.

How so?

If all doctrine is believed than it should be taught as such

This sentence is hard to understand. I think that all doctrine accepted as true should be taught as true. Whether or not that truth impacts and aspect of a life lived in the faith is another matter. One thing I am quite confident about, as Christ made it clear how we will be judged, our judgment does not immediately depend on our textbook knowledge of theology.

I I must agree with Alethiaphile, this doublespeak that Eastern Catholics engage in boggles my mind.

I’ve said this too Andrew P, and I will say it to you. If you want to criticize my thinking personally fine. I may be wrong, but I cannot imainge that it is acceptable to be critical of Eastern Catholics as a whole. And it certainly makes zero sense to do so on the basis of my remarks. And I have to ask about you use of “doubletalk”. This is “language constructed to disguise or distort its actual meaning”. So what is, IYO, my actual meaning, and what is the disguise. I thought I was being very open.

 

[Andrew_Phillip]

**If a Church gets into the business of agreeing to disagree with it’s Supreme Authority, as Eastern/ Byzantine Catholics do with their Authority - Rome, then it starts to “pick and choose” what is the Truth, and what is not the Truth.

This is an enormous risk for the Church to take.

The EOC has always placed enormous emphasis on not only believing and accepting the revealed Truths of God - but doing the duty of the Church on Earth, and teaching them - evangelising and spreading the word to all men. That is what Jesus Christ instructed us to do. Teach the Truth.

He did not instruct us that we could dispense with the teaching of His Truth when it became politically inconvenient!

But it is not only that Truth should not only be sacrificed for unity - although that’s a sufficient justification for rejecting the approach of some Eastern/ Byzantine Catholics like dvdjs - there ARE serious spiritual consequences in the Roman Catholic dogma on the Filioque, Virgin Mary as Immaculate Co-Redemptrix and in their teaching on Purgatory. These do impact on salvation for many.

That is why the EOC has always resisted playing the “gobbeldygook” or “doublespeak” game with Rome.**

 

[dvdjs]

**If a Church gets into the business of agreeing to disagree with it’s Supreme Authority, as Eastern/ Byzantine Catholics do with their Authority - Rome, then it starts to “pick and choose” what is the Truth, and what is not the Truth…
**Irrelevant to the thread. No one as talked about " ’ pick and choose’ what is the Truth, and what is not the Truth."

But it is not only that Truth should not only be sacrificed for unity - although that’s a sufficient justification for rejecting the approach of some Eastern/ Byzantine Catholics like dvdjs

 

[Andrew_Phillip]

Irrelevant to the thread. No one as talked about " ’ pick and choose’ what is the Truth, and what is not the Truth."

Sincew I have given no indication of the merest countenancing of sacrificing truth, I would ask you to retract this statement. Really, AP it is increasing clear that you are here just to play games. You don’t read and respond to the actual contents of posts. Good luck to you.

**Well dvdjs… pray tell… how many variant truths are taught by the Catholic Church?

Surely there can be only one Divine Truth revealed to man by God?

Surely?

You seriously don’t want people from non-Catholic religions to believe you can define your own truth - as long as you are in full communion with Rome?

I happen to believe that comments made by people who post here, are all relevant to the thread. You do NOT decide relevance - only your own opinions.

This is not a game playing exercise - it’s about discovery and learning. It’s also about standing firm on the Truths in which we believe, and justifying them to others who are interested.

It seems from what you have said - that you have many contradictory Truths, and practice them.

Please don’t get snarky with those of us who don’t. It’s very unattractive.**