Primary Reasons for People Becoming Orthodox?

[Cecilianus]

Did the bishops really go into it saying “hence begins Ecumenical Council #2”?

I’m not sure if the distinction between “ecumenical” and “local” councils was employed back then - the Catholic Encyclopedia on New Advent still used the term “general Council” instead of ecumencial Council - but their intent was to effect the whole Church. The third canon (rejected by Rome) declared that the bishop of Constantinople (the “New Rome”) was to henceforth have pre-eminence over the Pope of the “Old Rome” (who, curiously enough, was not invited to the council).

(It should be noted that the reason why I said “bishop of Constantinople” and not “Patriarch of Constantinople” was not out of disrespect for that particular see despite its attempt at usurping the Christ-given key of Peter but because the see of Constantinople at that time was only a suffragen diocese, subject to the Bishop of Heraclea. The Pope - or the Roman legates acting in his name - acknowledged Constantinople as a Patriarchal See second only to Rome in the Eight Ecumenical Council in 869 A.D.)

 

[Madaglan]

I’m not sure if the distinction between “ecumenical” and “local” councils was employed back then - the Catholic Encyclopedia on New Advent still used the term “general Council” instead of ecumencial Council - but their intent was to effect the whole Church. The third canon (rejected by Rome) declared that the bishop of Constantinople (the “New Rome”) was to henceforth have pre-eminence over the Pope of the “Old Rome” (who, curiously enough, was not invited to the council).

(It should be noted that the reason why I said “bishop of Constantinople” and not “Patriarch of Constantinople” was not out of disrespect for that particular see despite its attempt at usurping the Christ-given key of Peter but because the see of Constantinople at that time was only a suffragen diocese, subject to the Bishop of Heraclea. The Pope - or the Roman legates acting in his name - acknowledged Constantinople as a Patriarchal See second only to Rome in the Eight Ecumenical Council in 869 A.D.)

Just a careful note: the third canon of Constantinople I does not give Constantinople pre-eminence *over *Rome but pre-eminence after Rome. I don’t recall the claim of Constantinople’s pre-eminence being seen as an attempt at usurping Rome’s position, but as usurping Alexandria’s position, which Rome sought to defend.

 

[Cecilianus]

Just a careful note: the third canon of Constantinople I does not give Constantinople pre-eminence *over *Rome but pre-eminence after Rome. I don’t recall the claim of Constantinople’s pre-eminence being seen as an attempt at usurping Rome’s position, but as usurping Alexandria’s position, which Rome sought to defend.

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. I misread it completely. That little change of word does make a big difference. I should have realized this the first time. Claiming pre-eminence over Rome does seem too presumptuous to believe; nobody today - Catholic or Orthodox - has ever denied the primacy of Rome.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Cecilianus,

However, the First Council of Constantinople (381 A.D.) was purely a local council held in the East without the presence of any of the Western bishops. It only became an ecumenical council when Pope St. Damasus ratified the dogmatic canons as binding on the whole Church.

However, the moral unanimity of the body of bishops is what SHOULD make a council ecumenical. The Fathers of Constantinople 1 shouldn’t have tried holding a council without the Pope being involved.

Doesn’t a statement in your first paragraph (highlighted) refute your complaint (highlighted) in the second paragraph.

If the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D. was originally a local council (which is true), why would the Pope need to get involved? In other words, why complain that the Pope was not involved initially?

In truth, the Council Fathers did present its rulings to the Rome for its approval the followinng year in 382 A.D., in conjunction with a matter only tangentially related to the matters discussed in the 381 Councils (i.e., the schism in Antioch between the parties of Paulinus and Meletius).

I also have a question about your statement: “It only became an ecumenical council when Pope St. Damasus ratified the dogmatic canons as binding on the whole Church.” This statement seems to highlight a difference between our respective understandings of the purpose of the Pope during an Ecumenical Council.

In the context of an Ecumenical Council, I believe that EVERY bishop involved makes the rulings of that Council binding on the whole Church. In other words, I believe that it is not just the Pope that speaks for the whole Church in an Ecumenical Council, but that EVERY bishop involved speaks for the whole Church. I do submit that the only SINGULAR bishop whose consent is ABSOLUTELY necessary is the head bishop’s, whereas it is the moral unanimity of the rest of the body of bishops that suffices for the consent of that body. Still, it is the collegial authority of the bishops combined (i.e., head and body) that gives a council its legitimacy in, to, and for the rest of the Church.

To be more concise, I would revise your statement above to read: “It only became an ecumenical council when the Pope along with his brother bishops ratified the dogmatic canons as binding on the whole Church.”

The difference between your statement and my statement would be the difference between the “Absolutist Petrine” position, on the one hand, and the “High Petrine” position, on the other.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Some Easterns have indicated that they switch to the Eastern Orthodox Church because of “truth.”

I don’t understand what “truth” can be obtained from any Orthodox Church that can’t be obtained from the Catholic Church.

Can someone doxing or has doxed give an example of such a “truth” that is in the Orthodox Church and not in the Catholic Church? I mean a real example, and not one based on a misunderstanding of a Catholic teaching. I mean, no Orthodox I know of has ever proven that the doctrines which are peculiarly Catholic, such as papal infallibility, IC, Purgatory, etc. (their dogmatic definitions, not the non-Catholic caricatures of those teachings) are “heresies.”

Given that, I find it hard to believe that “truth” is the reason (or, rather, only reason) one would want to dox.

In the Catholic Church of the early centuries, different theologies and Traditions existed side by side in unity. This is the way of it in the Catholic Church today. No Orthodox Church offers this same sense of unity in Faith, while respecting the freedom to express that Faith in the different Traditions. It is this sense of unity in Faith among different Traditions that attracts me the most about Catholicism, something that one cannot get in any Orthodox Church not in communion with the See of Rome.

Blessings

 

[Madaglan]

Some Easterns have indicated that they switch to the Eastern Orthodox Church because of “truth.”

I don’t understand what “truth” can be obtained from any Orthodox Church that can’t be obtained from the Catholic Church.

Can someone doxing or has doxed give an example of such a “truth” that is in the Orthodox Church and not in the Catholic Church? I mean a real example, and not one based on a misunderstanding of a Catholic teaching. I mean, no Orthodox I know of has ever proven that the doctrines which are peculiarly Catholic, such as papal infallibility, IC, Purgatory, etc. (their dogmatic definitions, not the non-Catholic caricatures of those teachings) are “heresies.”

Given that, I find it hard to believe that “truth” is the reason (or, rather, only reason) one would want to dox.

In the Catholic Church of the early centuries, different theologies and Traditions existed side by side in unity. This is the way of it in the Catholic Church today. No Orthodox Church offers this same sense of unity in Faith, while respecting the freedom to express that Faith in the different Traditions. It is this sense of unity in Faith among different Traditions that attracts me the most about Catholicism, something that one cannot get in any Orthodox Church not in communion with the See of Rome.

Blessings

Mardukm,

Jesus Christ is sole head of the Church. That’s one truth.

The variety of rites is interesting, but the means and fact that many of the Eastern Churches have been divided from their respective Mother Churches and established in parallel jurisdictions to them, makes the situation more unfortunate than a boon for Catholicism,

Concerning freedom to express their Faith, well perhaps but not really.

Just take the traditional Latin Catholic community as a recent example. For years following the liturgical overhaul in the Latin Church, all but a few elderly priests were forbidden to offer the traditional Mass (the later indults excepted, which were at the discretion of the local bishop). Millions of traditional-minded Catholics were effectively barred from worshiping according to the once ordinary now “extraordinary” form of the Latin Rite of the Church. Enforced celibacy on the Eastern Catholic Churches went against the tradition of the Eastern Churches to have married clergy.

Since becoming Orthodox, I have discovered a greater number of traditions in the Orthodox Churches than I would have expected, since I understood the Eastern Orthodox Churches to be simply Byzantine. Yet, the Russians, Greeks, Serbians, Romanians, Carpatho-Rusyns, Antiochians, etc. each have their own distinctiveness. And hey, the Orthodox have Western Rite Orthodoxy now, too!

 

[John_Larocque]

And hey, the Orthodox have Western Rite Orthodoxy now, too!

At the risk of causing a bit of interconfessional mischief, I have seen descriptions of “Western Rite Orthodoxy” as a form of Orthodox Uniatism!

Note, the Antiochian “Liturgy of St. Gregory” seems to be a carbon-copy of the Latin-rite version, with a few changes here and there, the use of leavened bread and the epiklesis imported from the Divine Liturgy of St. Chrysostom. Similar surgery seems to have been done on Cranmer’s High Anglican version as well.

 

[Cecilianus]

Dear brother Cecilianus,

Doesn’t a statement in your first paragraph (highlighted) refute your complaint (highlighted) in the second paragraph.

If the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D. was originally a local council (which is true), why would the Pope need to get involved? In other words, why complain that the Pope was not involved initially?

In truth, the Council Fathers did present its rulings to the Rome for its approval the followinng year in 382 A.D., in conjunction with a matter only tangentially related to the matters discussed in the 381 Councils (i.e., the schism in Antioch between the parties of Paulinus and Meletius).

I also have a question about your statement: “It only became an ecumenical council when Pope St. Damasus ratified the dogmatic canons as binding on the whole Church.” This statement seems to highlight a difference between our respective understandings of the purpose of the Pope during an Ecumenical Council.

In the context of an Ecumenical Council, I believe that EVERY bishop involved makes the rulings of that Council binding on the whole Church. In other words, I believe that it is not just the Pope that speaks for the whole Church in an Ecumenical Council, but that EVERY bishop involved speaks for the whole Church. I do submit that the only SINGULAR bishop whose consent is ABSOLUTELY necessary is the head bishop’s, whereas it is the moral unanimity of the rest of the body of bishops that suffices for the consent of that body. Still, it is the collegial authority of the bishops combined (i.e., head and body) that gives a council its legitimacy in, to, and for the rest of the Church.

To be more concise, I would revise your statement above to read: “It only became an ecumenical council when the Pope along with his brother bishops ratified the dogmatic canons as binding on the whole Church.”

The difference between your statement and my statement would be the difference between the “Absolutist Petrine” position, on the one hand, and the “High Petrine” position, on the other.

Blessings,
Marduk

Yes - I see your point. If a Council broke up in utter moral confusion and the Pope just decided to promulgate a whole bunch of decrees they were considering, we wouldn’t speak of a “Council”. The Pope would simply be acting motu proprio - on his own initiative - which he certainly has the authority and right to do. But it wouldn’t be a “council” in any sense of the word.

When you say you take the “High Petrine” position instead of the “Absolutist Petrine” position, do you mean that you don’t believe that the Pope has the authority to govern the Church motu proprio through Papal encyclicals, the various Vatican bureaucracies (such as CDF or the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments), and through exercising jurisdiction to appoint bishops, and reprove or reprimand wayward bishops? (E.g., when John Paul II informed the American hierarchy that the words of consecration are not up for modification and that the mistranslation therefore needs to be corrected, or when the Synod of Pistoja was condemned, or when Archbishop Milingo was excommunicated, etc.)

I’m not denying that the bishops should act in moral union with the Pope, and that as part of the ordinary Magisterium, the concert of bishops acting together in harmony with the Pope speak infallibly, from their own status as the ordinary Magisterium and not simply from the ratification by the Pope. (But, without the Pope, synods and individual bishops can go astray - but as you said above, the Pope is absolutely necessary.) We might not be disagreeing here, just using different terminology.

When I said that Constantinople I was a local council, I meant that no Western bishops were invited or involved. However, it made decrees regarding the substance of the Faith - the Holy Spirit - and it tried to make major changes regarding the patriarchal sees, which is something not irrelevant to the rest of the Church.

How does that sound to you?

 

[Cecilianus]

Mardukm,

Jesus Christ is sole head of the Church. That’s one truth.

Nobody has ever regarded the Pope as anything more than His vicar. Since Christ is the head of the Church, why don’t you obey His appointment of Simon as the “rock” upon which He would built His Church?

The variety of rites is interesting, but the means and fact that many of the Eastern Churches have been divided from their respective Mother Churches and established in parallel jurisdictions to them, makes the situation more unfortunate than a boon for Catholicism,

They are divided from their “Mother Churches” because there “Mother Churches” refused to come back into the Church with them. That’s the fault of the “Mother Church”. Rome is ultimately the Mother of all the Churches - the rock upon which they are grounded - and to reject her is to put yourself outside the Church. Sorry. If you think that the situation is unfortunate, then pray for the return of the Orthodox Churches to communion with the Church of Christ, and start by returning yourself. The schism of 1054 is what is unfortunate.

Concerning freedom to express their Faith, well perhaps but not really.

Just take the traditional Latin Catholic community as a recent example. For years following the liturgical overhaul in the Latin Church, all but a few elderly priests were forbidden to offer the traditional Mass (the later indults excepted, which were at the discretion of the local bishop). Millions of traditional-minded Catholics were effectively barred from worshiping according to the once ordinary now “extraordinary” form of the Latin Rite of the Church. Enforced celibacy on the Eastern Catholic Churches went against the tradition of the Eastern Churches to have married clergy.

Since becoming Orthodox, I have discovered a greater number of traditions in the Orthodox Churches than I would have expected, since I understood the Eastern Orthodox Churches to be simply Byzantine. Yet, the Russians, Greeks, Serbians, Romanians, Carpatho-Rusyns, Antiochians, etc. each have their own distinctiveness. And hey, the Orthodox have Western Rite Orthodoxy now, too!

But the “Western Rite Orthodox” are separated from their Mother Churches with parallel jurisdictions! (fyi the liturgies they use are Anglican, not Tridentine, in origin - the “Western Rite Orthodox” are just Anglicans with apostolic succession).

To get back to the point, I see no reason whatsoever why schism would be necessary for the Orthodox to think that they are living out their distinctiveness and traditions. The Eastern Catholics have just as much richness and diversity as their Russian, Greek, Serbian, Romanian, Ruthenian, and Antiochian counterparts do (since they don’t lose anything by becoming Catholic!), and unlike the Orthodox, they permit non-Byzantine liturgical traditions like those practiced since antiquity by the Maronites, Copts, Armenians, Chaldeans, and Syrians to live out their own traditions.

 

[Madaglan]

At the risk of causing a bit of interconfessional mischief, I have seen descriptions of “Western Rite Orthodoxy” as a form of Orthodox Uniatism!

Note, the Antiochian “Liturgy of St. Gregory” seems to be a carbon-copy of the Latin-rite version, with a few changes here and there, the use of leavened bread and the epiklesis imported from the Divine Liturgy of St. Chrysostom. Similar surgery seems to have been done on Cranmer’s High Anglican version as well.

To see Western Rite Orthodoxy as a form of Orthodox Uniatism is quite simply a facile judgment. If you look into the history of it, you will find significant differences (e.g. no WRO bishops, since all WRO parishes are within Eastern dioceses).

The Divine Liturgy of St. Gregory used by some WRO churches is indeed quite similiar to the Traditional Latin Mass, indeed even a carbon-copy version. The native language (e.g. English) is used instead of Latin, and the epiklesis is included. Icons usually are used in place of statues near the altar. When I attended a Divine Liturgy of St. Gregory, unleavened bread was given via intinction (I was surprised), but it may be that some WRO parishes use leavened bread.

The other Divine Liturgy, that of St. Tikhon (who is said by some to have approved it, although this is contested by other Orthodox), is from what I understand a dox’ed out version of the Anglican service.

I have some reservations about WRO, but I don’t see any major problems with it.

 

[Madaglan]

Nobody has ever regarded the Pope as anything more than His vicar. Since Christ is the head of the Church, why don’t you obey His appointment of Simon as the “rock” upon which He would built His Church?

They are divided from their “Mother Churches” because there “Mother Churches” refused to come back into the Church with them. That’s the fault of the “Mother Church”. Rome is ultimately the Mother of all the Churches - the rock upon which they are grounded - and to reject her is to put yourself outside the Church. Sorry. If you think that the situation is unfortunate, then pray for the return of the Orthodox Churches to communion with the Church of Christ, and start by returning yourself. The schism of 1054 is what is unfortunate.

But the “Western Rite Orthodox” are separated from their Mother Churches with parallel jurisdictions! (fyi the liturgies they use are Anglican, not Tridentine, in origin - the “Western Rite Orthodox” are just Anglicans with apostolic succession).

To get back to the point, I see no reason whatsoever why schism would be necessary for the Orthodox to think that they are living out their distinctiveness and traditions. The Eastern Catholics have just as much richness and diversity as their Russian, Greek, Serbian, Romanian, Ruthenian, and Antiochian counterparts do (since they don’t lose anything by becoming Catholic!), and unlike the Orthodox, they permit non-Byzantine liturgical traditions like those practiced since antiquity by the Maronites, Copts, Armenians, Chaldeans, and Syrians to live out their own traditions.

I lost my initial post, but I wanted to point out that in the eyes of the Latin Church there is a visible Head of the whole Church (Pope) and an invisible Head of the whole Church (Christ). As Pope Boniface VIII contests in his Unam Sanctam, there are not two heads of the Church, but one, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and his successors.

Orthodox continue to profess the faith of Peter. I thought Jerusalem was Mother Church. Protestants and Catholics who come to Orthodoxy come under the care of an Eastern (e.g. Antiochian, Russian) bishop. There is no Western Rite Orthodox diocese in opposition to a Latin Catholic or Anglican diocese.

Many of the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches did lose much. Latinizations, for example, resulted in missing iconostasis. To be fair, Eastern Catholics who returned to Orthodoxy lost local traditions as well (via Russification). Luckily, there is a movement towards recovering traditions and spiritual heritage.

 

[Cecilianus]

Many of the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches did lose much. Latinizations, for example, resulted in missing iconostasis. To be fair, Eastern Catholics who returned to Orthodoxy lost local traditions as well (via Russification). Luckily, there is a movement towards recovering traditions and spiritual heritage.

Missing iconastasis? Not in any parish I’ve ever been to.

 

[mardukm]

There is no Western Rite Orthodox diocese in opposition to a Latin Catholic or Anglican diocese.

I don’t understand this claim. ISTM that a Western Rite that is not in communion with the traditional Patriarch of the West (regardless of whether the Pope gave up that title - besides, I think the WRO were in existence even before the Pope gave up the title) is automatically setting up a “diocese in opposition.”

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Madaglan,

Thank you for the response. I hope my own reply is not taken by you as argumentative. If it gives you that impression, please forgive me.

Jesus Christ is sole head of the Church. That’s one truth.

Yes, that would seem to be a distinguishing factor (but why do non-Catholics love using that word “sola?” ). As a Catholic, I distinguish between the ultimate head of the Church, Who is Christ, and the temporal head of the Church, the Pope (if you ask the Pope who is his head…). As a Catholic, I would definitely not claim your statement (with the word “sole” in it) as a “Truth” because it denies several other Truths of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church – namely, the biblical Truth that Christ has set someone over His household to feed them their spiritual food (Matthew 24 – most Catholics I think will go the Matthew 16 route, but I’m going with Matthew 24 J), the Truth of the hierarchical structure of the Church on earth, and the Truth of the Sacramental nature of the Church on earth, whereby Christ rules and cares for His Church through his temporal representatives (the denial of this is easily reflected in your apparent criticism of the idea that “there are not two heads, but one”), Truths which distinguish us from non-Apostolic Christians.

I mean, if I was in a room of Oriental Orthodox (i.e., everyone knew they were Orthodox), and someone asked another, “who is the head of your Church?” the other would answer with the name of their Patriarch or Catholicos. That’s because it goes without saying that everyone (including the head bishops) acknowledges the ultimate headship of Christ. In a room full of Oriental Orthodox, the only one who would respond with a protest that “only Christ is the head of the Church,” ISTM, would be a Protestant.

The variety of rites is interesting, but the means and fact that many of the Eastern Churches have been divided from their respective Mother Churches and established in parallel jurisdictions to them, makes the situation more unfortunate than a boon for Catholicism.

The same can be said of the division between Coptic and Syrian EO and OO Christians. So this particular circumstance is not exactly a “plus” for Eastern Orthodoxy. Division hurts all the Churches, not just the Catholic Churches.

Concerning freedom to express their Faith, well perhaps but not really.

Just take the traditional Latin Catholic community as a recent example. For years following the liturgical overhaul in the Latin Church, all but a few elderly priests were forbidden to offer the traditional Mass (the later indults excepted, which were at the discretion of the local bishop). Millions of traditional-minded Catholics were effectively barred from worshiping according to the once ordinary now “extraordinary” form of the Latin Rite of the Church. Enforced celibacy on the Eastern Catholic Churches went against the tradition of the Eastern Churches to have married clergy.

The decision to switch to the NO was in the hands of the national Churches. I wouldn’t make the disobedience of traditional Latin Catholics to their bishops any sort of argument, unless you’re willing to make disobedience to bishops a selling point for Eastern Orthodoxy, which would not make it too attractive, IMHO. As far as enforced clerical celibacy, this was a very unfortunate local and temporary circumstance on a purely disciplinary matter that did not take long to begin to fix (still in the process of correction). In contrast, the Old Calendarist Schisms in EO’xy have taken a devilishly long time to begin to fix, which is rather telling, IMO.

Anyway, these disciplinary issues do not really touch upon what I intended in my statement about freedom to express the Faith according to the different Traditions. I’m talking about the fact that I can worship in the Catholic Church as a miaphysite, or that a Latin Catholic who believes in purgatorial fire can commune with an Eastern or Oriental Catholic who rejects such a belief, or that an Oriental or Latin Catholic with a theological Tradition focused on the Sacrifice and Atonement of Christ can commune with an Eastern Catholic with a theological Tradition focused more on the Resurrection of Christ, or that an Eastern or Oriental Catholic who believes in the Energies/Essence distinction can commune with the Latin Catholic who does not, or that a Chaldean Catholic of the ACOE Tradition can commune with an Oriental Catholic of the Coptic Tradition, etc, etc. I’m talking about issues much more relevant than disciplinary matters. And I’m not talking about the beliefs of your run-of-the-mill Catholic or Orthodox, but rather the official positions of the Churches. You simply can’t get that from the Orthodox Churches. The Catholic Churches have looked beyond theological formulations, and have been able to unite based on the Faith (once for all delivered to the Saints) that lies behind those distinctive theologies. EO apologists often accuse the Catholic Church of being too dogmatic and pharisaical. On the whole, however, the EO is either “just as bad” or much “worse,” ISTM.

Since becoming Orthodox, I have discovered a greater number of traditions in the Orthodox Churches than I would have expected, since I understood the Eastern Orthodox Churches to be simply Byzantine. Yet, the Russians, Greeks, Serbians, Romanians, Carpatho-Rusyns, Antiochians, etc. each have their own distinctiveness. And hey, the Orthodox have Western Rite Orthodoxy now, too!

We get all that and much more in the Catholic Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jam070406]

Orthodox continue to profess the faith of Peter.

I never understood this argument. Peter said, “you are the Christ, the son of the living God”
even some of the most heretical Protestant sects, completely opposed to Tradition and Catholics Truths, claim this.
I don’t see how Peter’s response sums up the entire deposit of Faith and makes the Orthodox right and Prots wrong.
Can you elaborate?

 

[Religio71]

What is the primary motivation for those born as Catholic to become Orthodox? I’m primarily thinking of those baptized and raised in the Roman Rite of the Church.

Is it a loss of the sense of the Sacred since Vatican II in the Western Church?
Dissatisfaction with the way the abuse crisis was handled?
Marriage?

God Bless.

Well I’ve contemplated becoming Orthodox, and am reading “Encountering the Mystery” by the Ecumenical Patriarch (it’s…ok). For me, it just seems that Orthodoxy doesn’t have various things that I sometimes see as unnecessary, such as referring to Mary as Mediatrix (of all Graces) or Co-Redemptrix, indulgences, etc. Liturgically, I like the Eastern liturgies more, and I like that most Orthodox churches have vespers and/or matins. But what really does it is when reading about the Papal doctrines, such as infallibility and supremacy, especially when I have read (I believe Pope Benedict XVI said this in one of his books) that if Orthodox are to come to union with Catholics, we cannot expect them to accept the Papacy unless it goes back to how it was in the past.

Eastern Catholicism seems interesting, but also confusing. When I read Byzcath, many Eastern Catholics do not accept all of the Ecumenical Councils that the Roman Catholic churches does, and here I was thinking that Ecumenical Councils were binding on all churches of the Church. Also, the Ecumenical Council of Trent is interesting, since it defines Purgatory in Latin terms, much more than the simple “there’s an intermediary state, and there is a purification that occurs before Heaven” that many say is all that is necessary. So, if an Ecumenical Council says that there is temporal punishment that must be discharged before Heaven, why don’t Eastern Catholics believe this, since I thought Ecumenical Councils were infallible. It’s said that nothing more than “intermediary state…purification before Heaven” has been defined as dogma, however it seems that the Council of Trent has defined this. It’s a little confusing, and thus Orthodoxy makes more sense than Eastern Catholicism.

I’m not going anywhere anytime soon, but I can see why some Catholics end up going to Orthodoxy.

 

[Madaglan]

I don’t understand this claim. ISTM that a Western Rite that is not in communion with the traditional Patriarch of the West (regardless of whether the Pope gave up that title - besides, I think the WRO were in existence even before the Pope gave up the title) is automatically setting up a “diocese in opposition.”

Blessings

The WRO certainly see themselves as members of the Church that in proclaiming the Truth fights against falsehood and error. Latin Catholics will see this attitude, insofar as it touches particular Latin beliefs such as papal supremacy, as in opposition. Yet, the use of Western liturgy and practices is a pastoral matter, allowing Westerners who become Orthodox to worship in a Western way that is also Orthodox. (hence the looking back to the pre-Schism West). Again, the Eastern bishops did not create any new Western-rite dioceses, which would openly have conflicted with the Anglican and Catholic dioceses.

 

[Cecilianus]

The WRO certainly see themselves as members of the Church that in proclaiming the Truth fights against falsehood and error. Latin Catholics will see this attitude, insofar as it touches particular Latin beliefs such as papal supremacy, as in opposition. Yet, the use of Western liturgy and practices is a pastoral matter, allowing Westerners who become Orthodox to worship in a Western way that is also Orthodox. (hence the looking back to the pre-Schism West). Again, the Eastern bishops did not create any new Western-rite dioceses, which would openly have conflicted with the Anglican and Catholic dioceses.

If the “Western Rite” is a legitimate, authentic expression of the Faith of equal dignity with the Eastern Rites, why shouldn’t it have its own dioceses? Sounds to me like that’s just giving them second-class status.

Secondly, if the “Orthodox Church” is the one, true Church, why would you be afraid of conflicting with dioceses of Churches whose apostolic succession you do not even recognise? (And if you are not the one, true, Church, then by what right can you separate yourself from the One, Whole (Catholic) Church?)

The reason why I put “Orthodox Church” is quotation marks because quite honestly I have never figured out what this elusive entity is. I have never seen the “Orthodox Church” as a visible body. There are at least 216 sects (the usual number quoted, at any rate) that call themselves Orthodox. Many of them are in the same country and in rivalry with each other - such as Ukraine, where the Kiev Patriarchate, the Autonomous Orthodox Church, and the Autocephalous Orthodox Church all anathematize each other as well as the over two dozen “non-canonical” Ukrainian Churches (not to mention the large Ukrainian Catholic Church); then there is Russia, where the True-Orthodox Church of Russia, the Russian Orthodox Church, ROCOR, the “Living Church”, and hundreds of Old Ritualist sects all claimed to be the “true” Russian Orthodox Church during the 1940s (some of them are now defunct due to the collapse of communism). Is the Orthodox Church of Canada part of your “Orthodox Church”? It’s in communion with the Antiochian Orthodox but regarded as non-canonical by the Russian Orthodox, although the Antiochian Orthodox and Russian Orthodox are in communion with each other. What about the Jacobite heretics? They’re also in communion (oddly enough, given their geographical proximity) with the Antiochians. Some Antiochian bishops are even in communion with the “Moorish Orthodox Church” (a Nation of Islam precursor - black American racism). What about Catholics of the Zoghby initiative? Is the True Orthodox Church of Greece (an old-calendarist sect which opposes the Greek Orthodox Church) part of the “Orthodox Church”?

And what about the Serbian Orthodox - a rather large body of faithful - who claim that the Ecumenical Patriarch “isn’t really Orthodox” because he’s too ecumenical? (I don’t know if this is the official teaching of the Serbian Orthodox, but a friend of mine who is the daughter of a Serbian Orthodox priest claimed that most of the Serbian and Russian bishops reject the Ecumenical Patriarch as non-Orthodox.)

What is the ground of unity for the “Orthodox Church”? Without Peter, I don’t see how there can be any consistent ecclesiology.

 

[Religio71]

I think the schismatic Orthodox groups are similar to the situation of sedevacantist Catholic groups, where there are multiple groups claiming to be the “true Catholic Church”. Just as there are many groups that call themselves Catholic, there are many groups that call themselves Orthodox.

orthodoxwiki.org/List_of_autocephalous_and_autonomous_Churches

You must also understand that there is a difference between recognition of the canonical status of a church, and whether it is autocephalous or autonomous. For example, the Orthodox Church in America IS a canonical Orthodox church, and is part of The Orthodox Church. However, it’s autocephaly is not recognized by all of the other autocephalous Orthodox churches. Apparently, the autocephaly of the Moscow Patriarchate was not recognized for about 100 years after the declaration.

 

[Religio71]

Also, for Orthodox, the unity of their Church is seen in the unity of the Faith shared by all Orthodox churches. Also, the symbol of unity is the Ecumenical Patriarch, first among equals of all Orthodox bishops.