Primary Reasons for People Becoming Orthodox?

[SFH]

Could you be more obnoxious if you tried?
I’d rather be a heretic that speak to someone with the voice of a Pharisee.

Why is it that these dialogues between Catholics and Greek Orthodox always degenerate into snide comments and recriminations. To the primary poster, I would suggest that a more appropriate question to ask at this forum is: “Why have you remained a Catholic rather than converted to Greek Orthodoxy?” The question why someone converted to Greek Orthodoxy is more appropriately asked on a Greek Orthodox forum.

I have remained Catholic for a number of reasons.

(1) I feel the Catholic Church’s teachings on birth control, divorce, abortion, etc. are more consistent with the teachings of the Fathers of the Church than the Greek Orthodox. See, e.g., Clement of Alexandria.

(2) I feel the tempest in a teapot over the addition of the “filioque” to the Nicene Creed in the Latin Rite pales in comparison to the unilateral changes made by the Greek Orthodox to the primacy of the patriarchical sees (i.e., introduction of Constantinople). The Greek Orthodox strike me as extremely insincere when they advance their criticisms of the “filioque” in light of the history of the advancement of the Patriarch of Constantinople.

(3) I feel the Greek Orthodox have a very confused and undeveloped theology on purgatory, original sin, and the Blessed Virgin, which is inadequate to answer Jehovah’s Witnesses and other sects that attack these beliefs.

(4) I feel the Petrine claims of the Patriarch of Rome, including infallibility, are much more defensible in light of Sacred Scripture and the writings of the Fathers of the Church than the Greek Orthodox’s arguments against those claims.

There are also specific aspects of the Latin Rite that appeal to me spiritually. For example,

(5) I love the writings of St. John of the Cross and St. Teresa of Avila.

(6) I love the devotions to the Blessed Sacrament and Our Blessed Mother, including Eucharistic Adoration and the Holy Rosary.

I could go on, but those are some of the main reasons. I’m sure some of our Eastern Catholic brethren could provide additional reasons, particularly about aspects of Eastern Catholic spirituality that appeal to them.

 

[bpbasilphx]

The Orthodox in the US have the very same abuse & abuse coverup issues… and handled it almost as poorly… but missed mainstream press notice mostly due to being an trivial fraction of the overall US population.

See pokrov.org/

This site has a definite agenda.

They have NEVER explained just how abuse committed by a priest’s son or even a catechumen (both of which they claim happened) come under the category of “clergy abuse.”

They also seem to delight in reporting about clergy of those jurisdictions that have no canonical standing.

It’s like claiming that reputed abuse by a CMRI deacon is “abuse by the Catholic Church.”

When abuse is proven in a canonical jurisdiction (mere accusation is not proof), the clergyman in question is usually deposed.

 

[marymol]

.

I could go on, but those are some of the main reasons. I’m sure some of our Eastern Catholic brethren could provide additional reasons, particularly about aspects of Eastern Catholic spirituality that appeal to them.

Orthodoxy - of right practices leading to a pure heart of loving trust in a Father ,as it was meant for Adam and Eve …starting with fidelity to Him by guarding the Garden …to have kept the agent of fear and hatred out …

Interesting to read t how self hatred is at the root of our fallen nature that comes out as selfishness , fear ,hatred of others etc …

The Catholic Spirituality - not so sure that it can be so compartmentalised as of East or West , since every good gift is from The Father …

• with its emphasis on forgiveness , esp by meditating on our Lord’s loving sufferings all undertaken , to give us His loving presence and strenght in our trials ( and this taken in even better , if done with the Heart of our Mother -’ my soul magnifies The Lord '…such as in the Rosary of the Seven Sorrows ) …freeing us from our fallen nature of wanting to be vengeful , unforgiving …

and even embracing sufferings as a means of closer union … thus helping to free oneself and those around , of the spirit of hatred that comes out as annihilating genocides and wars … Islam …divisions… …breakup of families and worse …and on the reverse , when healed and set free , helping men and women , to be generous , charitable , one at heart with the sufferings and needs of all around , reminescent of those very orthodox times when we all could see our common origins very clearly …

Divine Worship helping man to attain their highest destiny … of loving God , with all our heart …which in turn helps man to love each other , with a truly catholic heart of yearning to see every person as belonging to The Father …in His Dignity …

St Maximilian Kolbe ( Feast today ) highlighting some of these best of the Catholic heart …East could claim him too since he , with his heart in close union with The Mother’s , also traveled to the East to spread his mission ; he who gave up his life , to spare a father 's life …

May The Holy Spirit continue to lead us all …purify us …and carry us too as on the wings of The Eagle …to our Eternal Home …

A very Blessed Feast of Assumption to all !

 

[Mickey]

Truth.

I second that- Truth.

Me too!

I quadruple that!

 

[Harpazo]

I quadruple that!

You can you add me to that list, too! But I also like the hats.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Cecilianus]

Why is it that these dialogues between Catholics and Greek Orthodox always degenerate into snide comments and recriminations. To the primary poster, I would suggest that a more appropriate question to ask at this forum is: “Why have you remained a Catholic rather than converted to Greek Orthodoxy?” The question why someone converted to Greek Orthodoxy is more appropriately asked on a Greek Orthodox forum.

I have remained Catholic for a number of reasons.

(1) I feel the Catholic Church’s teachings on birth control, divorce, abortion, etc. are more consistent with the teachings of the Fathers of the Church than the Greek Orthodox. See, e.g., Clement of Alexandria.

(2) I feel the tempest in a teapot over the addition of the “filioque” to the Nicene Creed in the Latin Rite pales in comparison to the unilateral changes made by the Greek Orthodox to the primacy of the patriarchical sees (i.e., introduction of Constantinople). The Greek Orthodox strike me as extremely insincere when they advance their criticisms of the “filioque” in light of the history of the advancement of the Patriarch of Constantinople.

(3) I feel the Greek Orthodox have a very confused and undeveloped theology on purgatory, original sin, and the Blessed Virgin, which is inadequate to answer Jehovah’s Witnesses and other sects that attack these beliefs.

(4) I feel the Petrine claims of the Patriarch of Rome, including infallibility, are much more defensible in light of Sacred Scripture and the writings of the Fathers of the Church than the Greek Orthodox’s arguments against those claims.

There are also specific aspects of the Latin Rite that appeal to me spiritually. For example,

(5) I love the writings of St. John of the Cross and St. Teresa of Avila.

(6) I love the devotions to the Blessed Sacrament and Our Blessed Mother, including Eucharistic Adoration and the Holy Rosary.

I could go on, but those are some of the main reasons. I’m sure some of our Eastern Catholic brethren could provide additional reasons, particularly about aspects of Eastern Catholic spirituality that appeal to them.

I second this:thumbsup: But I think a better question to have asked originally was, not why a Latin Catholic would convert to Greek Orthodoxy, but why a Latin Catholic would embrace the Eastern spiritual tradition (Catholic or Orthodox). I am a Catholic - Latin, jurisidictionally speaking - but I practice (when I can) in the Ukrainian Rite. My reason is quite frankly Vatican II. At college where there are no nearby Eastern Rite churches I go to Low Tridentine Mass only 30 minutes away. However, I have fallen completely head over heels in love with the Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom, and would prefer to practice my Faith in that Rite if I could. The emissaries of Saint Volodymyr could not have been more accurate: it is truly Heaven on earth, and Sunday truly becomes the focus of the week which is now defined by first my longing for (during the first half of the week) and then my anticipation for Divine Liturgy again. On Sunday itself, I can even hear the priest chanting the ektenia in my head/imaginatino throughout the rest of the day, underneath (and, oddly not, not interfering with) whatever other music I might be listening to, or whatever form of rest I am engaging in on the holy day.

That being said, I also love the spiritual heritage of my mother Church - the Latin Rite - for all the reasons SFH gave (St. John of the Cross was my confirmation patron!) and I really don’t see any incompatibility between practicing both. The Eastern Rites are spoiled by all their beauty; they have no need to purify their rite of “Latin accumulations” in order to authentically express themselves. They already have everything short of the Beatific Vision.

 

[JohnVIII]

“Truth” “What is ‘Truth’”! (Pontius Pilate)

“You can’t handle the Truth”!

I believe the “truth” is that the Orthodox created and developed the false theory of having one universal bishop. When we were all one church this idea was rejected, and rightly so, by the popes of Rome. Later, after the split between East and West, the Eastern Orthodox were blessed by having a very weak “ecumenical patriarch”. The spiritual freedom, which is the right of each individual Christian jurisdiction, was preserved in the East by sheer happenstance. Where there is spiritual freedom, “truth” is also preserved, but it is not ‘because of’ the bishops it is ‘in spite of’ the bishops that truth is preserved. Where there is only one universal bishop there is no spiritual freedom, and the church either stands or falls on the orthodoxy or heterodoxy of its one and only bishop. Where there is spiritual freedom many errors happen, but the correction of those errors abound even greater than the errors themselves. Where there is no spiritual freedom few errors happen, but the correction of those few errors never happen. :sad_yes:

 

[Cecilianus]

“Truth” “What is ‘Truth’”! (Pontius Pilate)

“You can’t handle the Truth”!

I believe the “truth” is that the Orthodox created and developed the false theory of having one universal bishop. When we were all one church this idea was rejected, and rightly so, by the popes of Rome. Later, after the split between East and West, the Eastern Orthodox were blessed by having a very weak “ecumenical patriarch”. The spiritual freedom, which is the right of each individual Christian jurisdiction, was preserved in the East by sheer happenstance. Where there is spiritual freedom, “truth” is also preserved, but it is not ‘because of’ the bishops it is ‘in spite of’ the bishops that truth is preserved. Where there is only one universal bishop there is no spiritual freedom, and the church either stands or falls on the orthodoxy or heterodoxy of its one and only bishop. Where there is spiritual freedom many errors happen, but the correction of those errors abound even greater than the errors themselves. Where there is no spiritual freedom few errors happen, but the correction of those few errors never happen. :sad_yes:

Rejected by the Popes of Rome? Like when St. Clement of Rome rebuked the Corinthians for rebelling against their bishop - in the 1st century A.D.? When the Popes condemned the iconoclast heresy, a heresy that never spread its way into the West? When the Pope, and the Pope alone, was needed to give dogmatic legitimacy to any council - “Peter has spoken through Leo”? When the Pope responded to Photius’ appeal for help confirming him in his see (instead of politely informing Photius that Greek affairs were none of the Pope’s business)?

 

[bkovacs]

Post from Byzantine Catholic.Org Forum about Ukranian Catholic Church and the Divine Liturgy.

"As some of you may know, I recently moved to Buffalo from the Pittsburgh area for employment. After being unemployed for almost 8 months, I was hired as a Coordinator of JR/SR High Youth Ministry and Religious Education in a Latin Parish. There are no longer any Ruthenian parishes in the area, but there are 4 Ukrainian parishes that I can attend. So far I have attended 2 parishes. Now many people claim the RDL is the Vatican II byproduct of a Divine Liturgy, I would have to disagree, these 2 liturgies are. The first parish in which I attended the Divine Liturgy was St John the Baptist in Kenmore (just north of the city) and the second was St. Nicholas in the city. Both parishes offer Divine Liturgies in Ukrainian and English and both are served by priests from Ukraine. Naturally, I attended the English Liturgy because, well, my Ukrainian is how you say NON-EXISTENT!

Anyways, back to the core of the matter neither parish used the same translation, ok no real problem here, the first used the translation for the Stamford Eparchy and the second used the text promulgated in 1985 by (?).

These are the major problems I had with the Liturgy:
-No incense
-No Chanting, except in the parts that you would see typically chanted in a Latin Church, but only at the first parish.
-Kneeling, ok so this is still practiced a lot of places.
-At the 2nd parish, one other lady stood when everybody else kneeled, so I stood with her.

Over the next few weeks I am going to make an attempt to attend the Divine Liturgy at the other 2 parishes. If my experience is the same I am considering contacting the Chancery to see if there is a reason for this. If those parishes are much the same, I will probably begin to attend the Maronite parish in the area when I am not obliged to be at the parish of my employment.

I may try to set up a time to meet with the priests of the 2 parishes I have attended thus far to ask why the Liturgy is that way in the parish. My guess is because it’s the English Liturgy and the people there have an ethnic Ukrainian background, but want something “more Catholic and less Orthodox.”

So far I am sad and disappointed. Hopefully things will get better.

byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/329080/My%20Experience%20with%20the%20Divine%20#Post329080

Why does the Orthodox have no problems offering the Divine Liturgy the correct way, but Eastern Catholics remain so latinized, (actually Novus Ordo ized to be more specific).

 

[marymol]

'Penanace, penance , penanace ’ - the words of the angel in Fatima …

catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9904qq.asp

Seems for those who associate kneeling mostly with penance only , it does it have to be a major issue of contention since for those who are used to kneeling , the upright posture seems less reverential ; has not our Lord Himself shown us some leeway for such occasions , as with the incident of gra(name removed by moderator)icking on Sabbath !

Even if it is a bit of extra penanace , could not the Eastern brethren use a bit more of same , esp. since it is for the Eucharist …

same with other traditions …while traditions can be very good and need to be adhered to as an outward expression of fidelity in all matters ,esp. to those in authority , can there be a danger of looking back with excessive yearning for aspects that may not have to matter so much …

If our true yearning is from looking up and to be in the presence of our Triune God , seems the ‘lackings’ would not be that much a source of hidden grudge …discontent , which has led many , since the Garden , onto other paths …and it might be easier then , to continue with all the externals …yet , we also remember the fig tree and the immediate lesson our Lord gives about forgiveness … which could have been bearing fruit at many levels …

May His mercy keep us in the green pastures …

peace !

 

[Aramis]

'Penanace, penance , penanace ’ - the words of the angel in Fatima …

catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9904qq.asp

Seems for those who associate kneeling mostly with penance only , it does it have to be a major issue of contention since for those who are used to kneeling , the upright posture seems less reverential ; has not our Lord Himself shown us some leeway for such occasions , as with the incident of gra(name removed by moderator)icking on Sabbath !

Even if it is a bit of extra penanace , could not the Eastern brethren use a bit more of same , esp. since it is for the Eucharist …

same with other traditions …while traditions can be very good and need to be adhered to as an outward expression of fidelity in all matters ,esp. to those in authority , can there be a danger of looking back with excessive yearning for aspects that may not have to matter so much …

If our true yearning is from looking up and to be in the presence of our Triune God , seems the ‘lackings’ would not be that much a source of hidden grudge …discontent , which has led many , since the Garden , onto other paths …and it might be easier then , to continue with all the externals …yet , we also remember the fig tree and the immediate lesson our Lord gives about forgiveness … which could have been bearing fruit at many levels …

May His mercy keep us in the green pastures …

peace !

To kneel on sundays has been prohibited by the CATHOLIC CHURCH, as gathered at the 1st Ecumenical Council, and promulagated by the Council and the Pope, ***for over 1600 years. ***

At some point, Rome decided to ignore that canon. So be it.

From the Divine Liturgy of St. John, at the beginning of the anaphora (consecration):
“Let us Stand Aright, let us stand in awe, let us be attentive, to offer the Holy Oblation in peace!”

The Byzantines have kept their tradition and the canons of Nicea. Arrogance is believing that Roman posture is motivated out of humility any more. (And those most vocal about it tend to use it as a point of pride, no less!)

Most of the Romans I know attribute no particular meaning to kneeling, other than obedience to the rubrics… it says kneel, so they do. It says stand, so they do. The Roman liturgy is a poor tool for teaching the faith. It never says why we do the things we do. It merely lists what must be done. But catechesis is abysmally poor about the Roman Mass, in either form.

The Byzantine liturgy (and the Coptic Liturgy, as well) is a teaching tool as well as worship. It tells us about how and why we stand: We stand aright, we stand in awe, we stand to pay attention, because we begin the holiest prayer in all Christian worship.

You want the Byzantine theology? you grab the Irmologion and the Menaion. It’s all there, and it is used in the liturgy. And kneeling is sorrowful, or so the Troparia, Kontakia, Irmosi, and other propers teach. If we do not stand in awe, we fall to the ground in awe and hide our faces.

We should NEVER be Sorrowful when celebrating the Resurrection! Shout with Joy and be Glad! Christ is Risen!

 

[Cecilianus]

Most of the Romans I know attribute no particular meaning to kneeling, other than obedience to the rubrics… it says kneel, so they do. It says stand, so they do. The Roman liturgy is a poor tool for teaching the faith. It never says why we do the things we do. It merely lists what must be done. But catechesis is abysmally poor about the Roman Mass, in either form.

This is unfair to both Romans and to the Roman Rite - unless you are simply talking about the Novus Ordo and its followers, in which “poor” pretty much sums up everything. Have you ever been to a Tridentine Mass? It is just as mystagogic as the Byzantine Rite, and the people there go there because they want to kneel in order to receive Our Lord.

 

[jam070406]

To kneel on sundays has been prohibited by the CATHOLIC CHURCH, as gathered at the 1st Ecumenical Council, and promulagated by the Council and the Pope, ***for over 1600 years. ***

At some point, Rome decided to ignore that canon. So be it.

From the Divine Liturgy of St. John, at the beginning of the anaphora (consecration):
“Let us Stand Aright, let us stand in awe, let us be attentive, to offer the Holy Oblation in peace!”

The Byzantines have kept their tradition and the canons of Nicea. Arrogance is believing that Roman posture is motivated out of humility any more. (And those most vocal about it tend to use it as a point of pride, no less!)

Most of the Romans I know attribute no particular meaning to kneeling, other than obedience to the rubrics… it says kneel, so they do. It says stand, so they do. The Roman liturgy is a poor tool for teaching the faith. It never says why we do the things we do. It merely lists what must be done. But catechesis is abysmally poor about the Roman Mass, in either form.

The Byzantine liturgy (and the Coptic Liturgy, as well) is a teaching tool as well as worship. It tells us about how and why we stand: We stand aright, we stand in awe, we stand to pay attention, because we begin the holiest prayer in all Christian worship.

You want the Byzantine theology? you grab the Irmologion and the Menaion. It’s all there, and it is used in the liturgy. And kneeling is sorrowful, or so the Troparia, Kontakia, Irmosi, and other propers teach. If we do not stand in awe, we fall to the ground in awe and hide our faces.

We should NEVER be Sorrowful when celebrating the Resurrection! Shout with Joy and be Glad! Christ is Risen!

Actually, we kneel, sit and stand.

 

[marymol]

To kneel on sundays has been prohibited by the CATHOLIC CHURCH, as gathered at the 1st Ecumenical Council, and promulagated by the Council and the Pope, ***for over 1600 years. ***

At some point, Rome decided to ignore that canon. So be it.

From the Divine Liturgy of St. John, at the beginning of the anaphora (consecration):
“Let us Stand Aright, let us stand in awe, let us be attentive, to offer the Holy Oblation in peace!”

The Byzantines have kept their tradition and the canons of Nicea. Arrogance is believing that Roman posture is motivated out of humility any more. (And those most vocal about it tend to use it as a point of pride, no less!)

Most of the Romans I know attribute no particular meaning to kneeling, other than obedience to the rubrics… it says kneel, so they do. It says stand, so they do. The Roman liturgy is a poor tool for teaching the faith. It never says why we do the things we do. It merely lists what must be done. But catechesis is abysmally poor about the Roman Mass, in either form.

The Byzantine liturgy (and the Coptic Liturgy, as well) is a teaching tool as well as worship. It tells us about how and why we stand: We stand aright, we stand in awe, we stand to pay attention, because we begin the holiest prayer in all Christian worship.

You want the Byzantine theology? you grab the Irmologion and the Menaion. It’s all there, and it is used in the liturgy. And kneeling is sorrowful, or so the Troparia, Kontakia, Irmosi, and other propers teach. If we do not stand in awe, we fall to the ground in awe and hide our faces.

We should NEVER be Sorrowful when celebrating the Resurrection! Shout with Joy and be Glad! Christ is Risen!

Thank you for the passionate and authoritative response and for sources for more help with the Byzantine Liturgy .

Just happened to see the discussion in Trad .forum on same topic too , as to how cultural diffrences are the main reason for the custom ; as to same not being in line with the council decision , may be it is to such a sitaution that the above mentioned incident with the disciples and the picking of grain would apply ( almost love to think that our Lord had exactly forseen this whole scenario and hence the whole controversy could only make us really be thankful at one level !) ; a hunger for reverenece , not just at a personal level but to supplant for many who have lost same for The Church and authority in general and therein comes its penitential aspect , not that the participant is any less celebrating the Resurrection .

Hope the effort for clarification and sharing has not muddled it more !

Peace !

 

[jam070406]

This is unfair to both Romans and to the Roman Rite - unless you are simply talking about the Novus Ordo and its followers, in which “poor” pretty much sums up everything. Have you ever been to a Tridentine Mass? It is just as mystagogic as the Byzantine Rite, and the people there go there because they want to kneel in order to receive Our Lord.

Exactly!

And it feels right, to me at least, to kneel while seeking forgiveness and preperation to receive our Lord.
“Domine non sum dignus, ut intres sub tectum meum: sed tantum dic verbo, et sanabitur anima mea.”
It’s not arrogance man. It’s love of God! It’s rather funny how an Easterner can see an act of reverance in the West and only think of themself. We do it this way, and you just changed because we judge that you are just arrogant in doing it that way!
Gimme a break. Practice your Tradition and leave us alone.

 

[jam070406]

“Truth” “What is ‘Truth’”! (Pontius Pilate)

“You can’t handle the Truth”!

I believe the “truth” is that the Orthodox created and developed the false theory of having one universal bishop. When we were all one church this idea was rejected, and rightly so, by the popes of Rome. Later, after the split between East and West, the Eastern Orthodox were blessed by having a very weak “ecumenical patriarch”. The spiritual freedom, which is the right of each individual Christian jurisdiction, was preserved in the East by sheer happenstance. Where there is spiritual freedom, “truth” is also preserved, but it is not ‘because of’ the bishops it is ‘in spite of’ the bishops that truth is preserved. Where there is only one universal bishop there is no spiritual freedom, and the church either stands or falls on the orthodoxy or heterodoxy of its one and only bishop. Where there is spiritual freedom many errors happen, but the correction of those errors abound even greater than the errors themselves. Where there is no spiritual freedom few errors happen, but the correction of those few errors never happen. :sad_yes:

Freedom?
You mean like the freedom to use the Filioque in the Western creed? To use unleavened bread? To kneel? No, these sort of freedoms were what got us declared heretics by the East in 1054.
Good thing we don’t only have one bishop btw!

 

[John_Larocque]

Why does the Orthodox have no problems offering the Divine Liturgy the correct way, but Eastern Catholics remain so latinized, (actually Novus Ordo ized to be more specific).

I hate to break the news but I read at another forum that there is actually kneeling during some parts of the Divine Liturgy at some Greek Orthodox Churches in the USA. Since this didn’t come from Rome, it’s not “latinization” but “Americanization” but it’s the same thing. Kind of funny when you think about it. Sad these particular people didn’t know any better. I don’t know how prevalent it is though. Hopefully not too prevalent.

The Basilians and the Redemptorists both corrupted and Latinized their way through the Ukrainian liturgies. At one church I’ve attended, the 1985 Basilian text mandated kneeling in the Byzantine Canon from the Sanctus up to the Epiklisis, and the pre-Communion prayer. Most parishioners were sensible enough to stand up but some were too young to know any better.

 

[John_Larocque]

Freedom?
You mean like the freedom to use the Filioque in the Western creed? To use unleavened bread? To kneel? No, these sort of freedoms were what got us declared heretics by the East in 1054.

The Filioque put the two churches in temporary schism from each other in the time of Photius, but I’ve wondered if, had the Latin West not borrowed the practice of unleavened bread (from the Armenians), we would all be one church today.

I’m of the believe that if something works and is faithful to tradition, it should be left alone. It was not always true that the Latins were the innovators and the East the traditionalists, but it was true often enough. The East places its greatest authority in its received traditions, be it scripture or liturgy or iconic representation. This has served them well.

Theological speculation should never be treated as a doctrine of the church. You’ll notice how quickly Limbo was tossed aside under the past two popes, even though the authority of Aquinas kept it being taught in popular catechisms for a long time. I think purgatory should be re-examined on the same basis. You accept the basic outline that nothing unclean can enter the kingdom of heaven and leave the rest as a theological black hole, and entrust the souls of the dead to God’s mercy.

 

[Cecilianus]

The Filioque put the two churches in temporary schism from each other in the time of Photius, but I’ve wondered if, had the Latin West not borrowed the practice of unleavened bread (from the Armenians), we would all be one church today.

I’m of the believe that if something works and is faithful to tradition, it should be left alone. It was not always true that the Latins were the innovators and the East the traditionalists, but it was true often enough. The East places its greatest authority in its received traditions, be it scripture or liturgy or iconic representation. This has served them well.

Theological speculation should never be treated as a doctrine of the church. You’ll notice how quickly Limbo was tossed aside under the past two popes, even though the authority of Aquinas kept it being taught in popular catechisms for a long time. I think purgatory should be re-examined on the same basis. You accept the basic outline that nothing unclean can enter the kingdom of heaven and leave the rest as a theological black hole, and entrust the souls of the dead to God’s mercy.

The use of unleavened bread has served the Latin Church very well spiritually, making possible the holy devotion of Eucharistic Adoration, and reminding us more clearly of the Passover (since unleavened bread was what Christ used). If/when the Greeks find it offensive for whatever reason, that is an opportunity for them to grow in virtue. They are adamant that we stop “latinizing” them; let us accept their Greek ways and they accept our Latin ways.

Purgatory IS the doctrine of the Church. Both the canons of Lyons and Florence, which are Ecumenical Councils and binding on every Catholic, contain this sentence: “The souls of those who depart this life with true repentance and in the love of God, before they have rendered satisfaction for their trespasses and negligences by the worthy fruits of penance, are purified after death with the punishments of purification.” (Denzinger 464 and 693, respectively.) Trent likewise teaches, in its Decree Concerning Purgatory from session 25, “Whereas the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Ghost, has, from the Sacred Writings and the ancient tradition of the Fathers, taught in sacred councils, and very recently in this oecumenical synod [session 6 canon 30; session 22 cap. 2 and 3] that there is a Purgatory, and that the souls there detained are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, but principally by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar…”

Likewise from Trent, session 6 canon 30, referred to in session 25: “If anyone says that after the reception of the grace of justification the guilt is so remitted and the debt of eternal punishment so blotted out to every repentant sinner, that no debt of temporal punishment remains to be discharged either in this world or in purgatory before the gates of heaven can be opened, let him be anathema.”

It is also taught by Pius XII in Mediator Dei, by Paul VI in both Indulgentarium Doctrina and “The Credo of the People of God”, and by Leo XIII in “Quod Anniversarius”, where he states clearly “that it is certain, by the doctrine of the Catholic Church, that the souls in purgatory are benefited by the prayers of the faithful, and especially by the august Sacrifice of the Altar” (paragraph 7).

There may very well be many other examples where the Church teaches Purgatory that I can’t find at the moment. Purgatory is part of the Tradition of the Church. The practice of indulgences - which Trent defended as something we must accept as Catholics - makes no sense without it.

 

[Aramis]

To start with, an apology: my tone was harsh; I over reacted to a suggestion to relatinize the ECC’s.

To answer the question about my having been to Latin masses: yes. I’ve served the Dominican Latin Mass (in my youth); it was no more reverent than any other Roman Church mass, if even that reverent.

I’ve honestly seen MORE reverence in the OF than the DLM from the people present.

But I’ve seen more reverence in the Byzantine and Coptic parishes I’ve been to, on average, than the Roman parishes at their best.

The worst abuse I can think of is the people who kneel throughout the TLM or DLM, totally tuned out, saying their rosary, ignoring the rubrics completely. They are not present in mind for Christ’s Sacrifice; they are focused upon seeking Mary’s intercession on their behalf. And yet, when the communion line forms, they finally act like part of the mass, for the 5 minutes it takes to go forward, then tune back out. This type of praxis was decried in the 4th century… and by Vatican II as well in the 20th.

This Rosary crowd tends to be drawn in a bit more during the OF, even as they gripe about it, because it is usually in a language they think in. The OF intrudes into their consciousness, and draws them into the Mass, and out of their rosary. (The rosary is perfectly appropriate as a replacement for the Hours… but as a “mode of participation” in the mass? Vatican II says no.)

I nearly left for orthodoxy myself; only the Gospels keep me Catholic… for in timelining the various events following the Resurrection, I noticed that the Russian Orthodox claims don’t mesh with the sequence of events as I perceive them… and John’s Gospel leads me to see the petrine role as special, unique. Only two sees can claim legitimate Petrine origin, and only one can be the true heir of Peter’s role; since Peter turned antioch over to one who remained subject to him, and later remained subject to correction by Pope St. Clement… that rules out Antioch.

I truly feel that the petrine role is that of Archpatriarch; the Assyrians noted that role in the 400’s! The actual comparison is an analogy, mathematically expressed, Popeatriarch:atriarch:Bishop.

I accept that the Byzantine Catholic is Orthodox in Union with Rome. I know several OCA priests who agree, and quietly accept Byzantine Catholics as “orthodox enough.”

What lead me to nearly reject Rome was two fold: (1) The roman Symbolism, which I had to ask about to find out about, since it isn’t taught within the Liturgy itself, wasn’t discussed in my catechism classes, and does not work for me, and, (2) the lack of education of the average Roman Catholic. They are usually not taught about the other churches in the Catholic Communion, nor the other mass forms allowed, nor even why they sit/stand/kneel. Nor have most read the canons of the 7 Ecumenical Councils. Nor do they generally know about the great heresies of Arianism, Gnosticism, Iconoclasm, nor Relativism. The information was readily available, but one had to actively LOOK for it.

The Roman Church was, for centuries, very much a church of Rote Ritual, and even, at times, rote repetition. With Vatican I, it started a recovery. With Vatican II, it took a hard look, and realized that the “mass of all time” was not doing the job it should as it was. The abuses of the OF are no worse than the abuses that lead to Trent, or to any other major council of the Roman Church, or even to VII.

And the German Shepherd is working to cull even those abuses.

I have no issue with the TLM or the DLM for those who are truly seeking it. But the OF, done right, is just as reverent as a TLM or DLM done right.

Even now, many Catholics of the Roman Church do not believe that the ECC’s are part of the Catholic Church; officers of my KofC council accused me of apostasy for attending the EC parish, even tho my pastor was the celebrant for their favorite priest’s funeral, vested in byzantine vestments, concelebrating the Roman Mass. They apologized when I sent them to talk to their pastor… who knows why I went east, and how close I came to going Russian Orthodox.

Ignorance abounds in the Roman Church. It’s getting better, not worse, and it’s a long road. But ignorance is far less amongst the ECC’s. In every EC parish I’ve been to, people discus theology and the faith after liturgy during the social. People talk about their faith in a living manner. That’s something I rarely see or hear in roman parishes.

And at times, I wonder if petrine unity is worth the arrogance of the Roman Church’s faithful in their ignorance and intolerance. And when I wonder, I reread St John’s gospel.