Primary Reasons for People Becoming Orthodox?

[Aramis]

Thanks, brother Aramis. I actually imagined communion with the Pope of Rome as part of the “Faith” to which I referred, but it couldn’t hurt to point it out more directly.

Blessings,
Marduk

It is vitally important a distinction, tho, for the EO, OO, and ACE are orthdox in faith, but not visibly in communion with the Pope of Rome.

Likewise, a majority of the “Old Catholic groups” are orthodox in faith, but not united to the pope.

and in all cases, ecclesiology is not exclusively a matter of faith, tho some elements are (specifically ordination, the different ordination types, and the apostolic succession requirements are).

Wheather the Head of a synod may act for the synod or only by direction of the synod; whether interim actions of a head bishop have to be ratified or extend unless nullifieed by the synod (or even if they can be nullified by the synod)… these are disciplinary elements, not matters of faith.

 

[KyivAndrew]

The Orthodox communion outside of Ukraine only recognizes the Ukrainian Orthodox Church under the Moscow Patriarchate as canonical.

Sorry, for budding in on a side point. The above is true to the letter but in spirit, when any bishop or archbishop from the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Kyiv Patriarchate) comes to visit North America from Ukraine, guess who greets him and is involved with meetings with him. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada (canonically recognized) on an unofficial level. The eparchy’s bishop may not make a public showing in front of the cameras but the bishop’s assistant sure will be at the banquet and in discussions.

That decision of the UOCC to seek canonical status at the cost of losing formal communion with non-Russified Ukrainian Orthodox brethren in Ukraine caused quite high emotions across North American parishes, the costs of which are still being felt to this day.

Some Ukrainian Orthodox parishes in the diaspora have been loyal to Patriarch Filaret of Kyiv.

cliftonorthodoxcathedral.org/

cliftonorthodoxcathedral.org/aboutus.html

cerkva-usa.info/spysok_parafiy.html

Some Ukrainian Orthodox in the diaspora are loyal to the Ukrainian Autocephalous Church. uaoc.org/

Not all cut and dry here, or in Ukraine for that matter, which technically as a country has probably the most Orthodox believers in the world (at least equal to if not more than Russia, some have argued). God Bless. Now back to the central thread.

 

[Formosus]

But my point is that there is an authority in the Church - the Pope - who tells us that they are not teaching Catholic doctrine. We have an authority to decide what is the Faith and what isn’t; the Old Catholics and Anglicans aren’t in communion with this authority, so they aren’t Catholic. But why should I believe that the “Russian Orthodox Church” is more Orthodox than the Old Believers? The Old Believers claim to be Orthodox, and there is no Orthodox Pope that they lack communion with. The fact that we call them “Old Believers” instead of “Orthodox” is simply verbal propaganda - they look practically the same. I will give you a reason why I keep harping on them: I do believe that they have a better claim than the “Russian Orthodox” to having the “Orthodox Faith”. Russian Orthodoxy was founded when they chose to go into schism rather than accept the “heretical” doctrinal and liturgical developments of the Western Church, so what grounds do they have to complain when the Old Believers do the same to them? What makes someone “canonical” anyway, if not union with the Holy See? I still have not gotten an answer to this.

You must not know a lot about Old Believers to think that they are more likely the real Russian Orthodox Church. How do you see them as having a better claim? Perhaps the lack of priests or Bishops with apostolic lineage makes for an excellent claim to Orthodoxy? Or the lifting of a minor custom to the level of infallible doctrine? I do not reject their right to practice as their ancestors did, but their complaints against following the older Greek tradition concerning how to cross one’s self is on the level of absurdity.

As for the Patriarchs and churches of the Orthodox faith. Each particular church (diocese, eparchy) has the fullness of Catholicity and fullness of the Church. The Orthodox Church is a mystical communion of these particular churches united in theology and doctrine handed down from the Apostles. The Bishop is overseen by a Patriarch or other primate who helps to settle disputes. There is real authority in Orthodox Patriarchal sees and in Orthodox Bishops. Perhaps some Bishops disagree with other Bishops, but as I see right now, every canonical Church is in communion with each other one, even if some Serbians think the Ecumenical Patriarch is a heretic. What makes them canonical is their communion with their primate, and upholding of Orthodox teaching, doctrine, and theology. Occasionally, minor schism is permitted within Orthodoxy (I.E, a schism lasting a few years such as the Bulgarians in the 1800s, and the Russian Orthodox outside of Russia in the 1900s) but after a few years they get back together with their primate see.

The Russian Orthodox Church existed before they broke communion with the Roman Church, just as the Great Church of Constantinople existed before the schism.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Aramis,

It is vitally important a distinction, tho, for the EO, OO, and ACE are orthdox in faith, but not visibly in communion with the Pope of Rome.

Likewise, a majority of the “Old Catholic groups” are orthodox in faith, but not united to the pope.

and in all cases, ecclesiology is not exclusively a matter of faith, tho some elements are (specifically ordination, the different ordination types, and the apostolic succession requirements are).

Wheather the Head of a synod may act for the synod or only by direction of the synod; whether interim actions of a head bishop have to be ratified or extend unless nullifieed by the synod (or even if they can be nullified by the synod)… these are disciplinary elements, not matters of faith.

Agreed, for the most part.

I have one disagreement, and an addition.

The disagreement is with the statement “a majority of Old Catholic groups are orthodox in faith.” From what I’ve read, only the PNCC fits this bill. All others have immersed themselves in the liberal heresy of accepting female priests and the homosexual agenda.

The addition is in your list of elements of faith on the matter of ecclesiology. I would add two matters of faith to your list. First, I submit that the belief that there can be and is a temporal head for the Church as a whole is a matter of faith. We have the early Church on our side on this matter, hands down. At best, those who oppose the belief have one or two early Fathers to support them, and their most prominent example (St. Cyprian), can easily be demonstrated to have accepted the Catholic belief before he had his disagreement with Pope St. Stephen (where it was affirmed by an Ecumenical Council in principle that St, Cyprian was wrong anyway). Besides written testimony - an earlier version of his De Unitate - he had explicitly appealed to the Pope to discpline bishops in Gaul and Spain. That is not the action of someone who adhered to the “primus inter pares” novelty.

HOW this headship is exercised in the Church would be a canonical matter.

I actually acquired the seeds of this belief long before I was Catholic, as an Oriental Orthodox not in communion with Rome. Unlike Eastern Orthodox (or at least the very great majority of the ones with whom I have corresponded), Oriental Orthodox generally understand St. Peter to have been the temporal head of the Apostles, a particular honor and office given by Christ. This Petrine headship is the source of the authority of the head bishops in the Oriental Orthodox Church. It is a belief most especially prominent among the Syriac Orthodox. And therein lies another difference between the EO and OO. Aside from the difference of belief in St. Peter being the coryphaeus of the Apostles (with the near-unanimous testimony of the Fathers), the OO understand headship is derived after the model of the Apostles (where St. Peter was the coryphaeus) from Christ himself. In distinction, EO believe headship is a merely canonical prerogative endowed by the Ecumenical Councils.

The second matter of faith involved in ecclesiology is the doctrine of infallibility. Everyone agrees that the Church as a whole is infallible. I think everyone also agrees that this infallibility of the Church is expressed and focused in a special way in an Ecumenical Council (though there are obviously hang-ups about how an Ecumenical Council is acknowledged to be so). The disagreement is, of course, in whether this infallibility of the Church is expressed and focused in another special way - namely, in the office of the head bishop of the Church universal. This is intimately connected with that other matter of faith mentioned earlier - the belief in the office of a head bishop for the Church universal. One of the primary functions of this office of head bishop is to confirm the faith of his brother bishops (as our Lord instructed St. Peter). How is it even possible for this head bishop to confirm the faith of his brethren if he is not able to exercise the infallibility of the Church in a special and unique way for the purpose of confirming their faith? Why would our Lord give this job to someone, and not provide him the divine assistance to be able to do that job?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[John_Larocque]

Or the lifting of a minor custom to the level of infallible doctrine? I do not reject their right to practice as their ancestors did, but their complaints against following the older Greek tradition concerning how to cross one’s self is on the level of absurdity.

Actually, the Byzantine method of the sign of the cross is more modern than the Old believer practice. That is true of many of the liturgical traditions to which the Old believers adhered. I read elsewhere of something called the St. Peter’s Liturgy, which is essentially the Divine Liturgy with the Roman canon (with a blank spot indicated for the paraklesis). Some other variances could be traced to now-defunct Antiochian uses. Had the older practices never been violently suppressed in the way they did, they might not have gone into schism. The wider Orthodox communion did bless the changes (bringing the Russian church more in line with liturgical practices in Constantinople), but Tikon was deposed and within Russia, the Patriarchy was eventually abolished.

As for ROCOR, they did seem to slowly alienate themselves from the other Orthodox churches, but I think they’ve always been canonical. The history between ROCOR and OCA is a complicated history. If you read up on modern Russian church history, you’ll read up on such things as “Sergianism” or “renovationism” and Russian catacomb churches, and the martyrdom of prelates such as Tikhon of Moscow (who was glorified by ROCOR, and later by the re-united Russian church). The situation isn’t as cut and dried as claiming that ROCOR (and not the subservient Russian church) was in schism. The more conventional narrative is that in the post-Soviet era, the Russian church came to its senses and came back into the fold with ROCOR.

orthodoxwiki.org/ROCOR
orthodoxwiki.org/ROCOR_and_OCA

 

[Madaglan]

Sorry, for budding in on a side point. The above is true to the letter but in spirit, when any bishop or archbishop from the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Kyiv Patriarchate) comes to visit North America from Ukraine, guess who greets him and is involved with meetings with him. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada (canonically recognized) on an unofficial level. The eparchy’s bishop may not make a public showing in front of the cameras but the bishop’s assistant sure will be at the banquet and in discussions.

That decision of the UOCC to seek canonical status at the cost of losing formal communion with non-Russified Ukrainian Orthodox brethren in Ukraine caused quite high emotions across North American parishes, the costs of which are still being felt to this day.

Some Ukrainian Orthodox parishes in the diaspora have been loyal to Patriarch Filaret of Kyiv.

cliftonorthodoxcathedral.org/

cliftonorthodoxcathedral.org/aboutus.html

cerkva-usa.info/spysok_parafiy.html

Some Ukrainian Orthodox in the diaspora are loyal to the Ukrainian Autocephalous Church. uaoc.org/

Not all cut and dry here, or in Ukraine for that matter, which technically as a country has probably the most Orthodox believers in the world (at least equal to if not more than Russia, some have argued). God Bless. Now back to the central thread.

You have better knowledge of Church politics in Ukraine than me. I’ve actually never been inside a Ukrainian Orthodox church, only a Ukrainian Catholic one.

Thanks for the links.

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by John Larocque:

Actually, the Byzantine method of the sign of the cross is more modern than the Old believer practice. That is true of many of the liturgical traditions to which the Old believers adhered. I read elsewhere of something called the St. Peter’s Liturgy, which is essentially the Divine Liturgy with the Roman canon (with a blank spot indicated for the paraklesis). Some other variances could be traced to now-defunct Antiochian uses. Had the older practices never been violently suppressed in the way they did, they might not have gone into schism. The wider Orthodox communion did bless the changes (bringing the Russian church more in line with liturgical practices in Constantinople), but Tikon was deposed and within Russia, the Patriarchy was eventually abolished.

Are you suggesting that St. Peter’s Liturgy was the Divine Liturgy used by early Russians? I thought the Liturgy of St. Basil was the Divine Liturgy offered.

As for ROCOR, they did seem to slowly alienate themselves from the other Orthodox churches, but I think they’ve always been canonical. The history between ROCOR and OCA is a complicated history. If you read up on modern Russian church history, you’ll read up on such things as “Sergianism” or “renovationism” and Russian catacomb churches, and the martyrdom of prelates such as Tikhon of Moscow (who was glorified by ROCOR, and later by the re-united Russian church). The situation isn’t as cut and dried as claiming that ROCOR (and not the subservient Russian church) was in schism. The more conventional narrative is that in the post-Soviet era, the Russian church came to its senses and came back into the fold with ROCOR.

orthodoxwiki.org/ROCOR
orthodoxwiki.org/ROCOR_and_OCA

I know that ROCOR and the OCA have had some conflicts, and that parish churches of both jurisdictions have switched from one to the other. I go to an OCA church now, and there isn’t much talk of ROCOR, although the priest and reader enjoy visiting a ROCOR monastery in West Virginia.

 

[John_Larocque]

Are you suggesting that St. Peter’s Liturgy was the Divine Liturgy used by early Russians? I thought the Liturgy of St. Basil was the Divine Liturgy offered.

No. But I did read a reference on another forum to the effect that Old believers had preserved Slavonic translations of older liturgical texts no longer used by the Russian church, including a version of the Byzantine liturgy but with the Roman canon. One version of the texts appears to have had some limited use among Old Believer communities in Turkey. I read another reference to a surviving text in Serbia.

carpatho-rusyn.org/spirit/chap6.htm

Since SS. Cyril and Methodius came to us from Constantinople, they brought to us Christianity in their native Byzantine Rite. In Moravia they found traces of the Latin Rites ( Roman, Gallican or, even, Ambrosian ) and under the pressure of the Frankish-German missionaries they partially used the Roman Liturgy of St. Peter, which they translated into the Slavonic. Nevertheless, it is beyond any doubt that SS. Cyril and Methodius in their ritual and worship followed the Byzantine Rite.

monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=3111

This Liturgy of St. Peter was supposedly uncovered by a ROCOR Priest who had obtained an Old Believer Liturgikon from an Old Rite community in turkey. It specifically is the Aachen mass attributed to St. Gregory the Great, Pope of Rome, but its earliest forms follow him by 200 years, ie the Gelasian Sacramentary.

allmercifulsavior.com/Liturgy/Liturgy-Peter.html

 

[Madaglan]

No. But I did read a reference - possibly by Father Kelleher on another forum - to the effect that Old believers had preserved Slavonic translations of older liturgical texts no longer used by the Russian church, including a version of the Byzantine liturgy but with the Roman canon.

carpatho-rusyn.org/spirit/chap6.htm

monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=3111

Thanks for the info. I read the monachos thread as well. Seems like it would be an interesting paper topic for students.

 

[Formosus]

Actually, the Byzantine method of the sign of the cross is more modern than the Old believer practice. That is true of many of the liturgical traditions to which the Old believers adhered. I read elsewhere of something called the St. Peter’s Liturgy, which is essentially the Divine Liturgy with the Roman canon (with a blank spot indicated for the paraklesis).

Some other variances could be traced to now-defunct Antiochian uses. Had the older practices never been violently suppressed in the way they did, they might not have gone into schism.The wider Orthodox communion did bless the changes (bringing the Russian church more in line with liturgical practices in Constantinople), but Tikon was deposed and within Russia, the Patriarchy was eventually abolished.

So the removal of an ancient Latinization? That’s not an older Byzantine practice. Perhaps some of the other variations can be traced to the Antiochenes but I’d have to see information on that. I doubt the signing of the Cross done in the Old Ritual manner is older then the way done in Constantinople as the way it was done in the Byzantine use was also how the Romans did it until the high middle ages. I don’t disagree with the violence as being unnecessary, but those were the times sadly. That Patriarchate of Russia was disolved years after the conflict by Peter the Great if I remember correctly. The Old Believer issue was at least a 100 years previous to that.

As for ROCOR, they did seem to slowly alienate themselves from the other Orthodox churches, but I think they’ve always been canonical. The history between ROCOR and OCA is a complicated history. If you read up on modern Russian church history, you’ll read up on such things as “Sergianism” or “renovationism” and Russian catacomb churches, and the martyrdom of prelates such as Tikhon of Moscow (who was glorified by ROCOR, and later by the re-united Russian church). The situation isn’t as cut and dried as claiming that ROCOR (and not the subservient Russian church) was in schism. The more conventional narrative is that in the post-Soviet era, the Russian church came to its senses and came back into the fold with ROCOR.

orthodoxwiki.org/ROCOR
orthodoxwiki.org/ROCOR_and_OCA

I am aware of the ROCOR situation, but I know that the ROCOR Church placed itself in Schism with the Antiochene patriarch as well by refusing to accept their ordinations as valid at one point. If they had kept up good relations with the Pentarchy then I would have been a little nicer about what I said concerning them. To be honest though, I think Russian Orthodoxy as a whole dropped out of canonical Orthodoxy during the Soviet years so.

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by Formosus:

So the removal of an ancient Latinization? That’s not an older Byzantine practice. Perhaps some of the other variations can be traced to the Antiochenes but I’d have to see information on that. I doubt the signing of the Cross done in the Old Ritual manner is older then the way done in Constantinople as the way it was done in the Byzantine use was also how the Romans did it until the high middle ages. I don’t disagree with the violence as being unnecessary, but those were the times sadly. That Patriarchate of Russia was disolved years after the conflict by Peter the Great if I remember correctly. The Old Believer issue was at least a 100 years previous to that.

Might it be that there were some variations on how to make the sign of the cross, even from an early period?

 

[John_Larocque]

I doubt the signing of the Cross done in the Old Ritual manner is older then the way done in Constantinople as the way it was done in the Byzantine use was also how the Romans did it until the high middle ages.

That’s the first I heard of this. Believe it or not, the first information I received on this came from a Greek Orthodox Priest in London, Ontario at the beautiful new Holy Trinity church. He explained that using the first three fingers was a change initiated by Constantinople, which became the norm in the (Orthodox) Church. This represented the Trinity, the last two fingers together represented the two natures of Christ. Obviously this took place prior to Nikon’s reforms. The Old Believers have preserved a practice that predates what they did in Constantinople. Subsequent web research basically affirmed the above. (Note, I actually prefer the Byzantine version - it reinforces an already trinitarian prayer).

I can point to a couple of key instances (leavened bread, standing on the Lord’s day, the Nicean creed etc… ) where the East has preserved an older practice, but the sign of the cross is an exception to the rule.

Wikipedia points to what could very well be the very first version of the Sign of the Cross - taking the thumb to the forehead and crossing it, which is what the Latin Rite has always done with the reading of the Gospel. ( They also cross the lips and heart).

 

[Madaglan]

That’s the first I heard of this. Believe it or not, the first information I received on this came from a Greek Orthodox Priest in London, Ontario at the beautiful new Holy Trinity church. He explained that using the first three fingers was a change initiated by Constantinople, which became the norm in the (Orthodox) Church. This represented the Trinity, the last two fingers together represented the two natures of Christ. Obviously this took place prior to Nikon’s reforms. The Old Believers have preserved a practice that predates what they did in Constantinople. Subsequent web research basically affirmed the above. (Note, I actually prefer the Byzantine version - it reinforces an already trinitarian prayer).

I can point to a couple of key instances (leavened bread, standing on the Lord’s day, the Nicean creed etc… ) where the East has preserved an older practice, but the sign of the cross is an exception to the rule.

Wikipedia points to what could very well be the very first version of the Sign of the Cross - taking the thumb to the forehead and crossing it, which is what the Latin Rite has always done with the reading of the Gospel. (They also cross the lips and heart).

Question is, was the sign on the forehead originally made left to right or right to left?
jk

Also, Byzantine Christians regularly are anointed with oil on the forehead in the sign of the cross by the priest, although it’s not self-signing.

When Latin Catholic, I remember signing the forehead, mouth and heart like that. I always found interesting the open hand form of blessing given in the sign of the cross by traditional Latin Catholic priests.

 

[John_Larocque]

Bless the Old Believers!

mymartyrdom.com/c.htm
oldbelievers.wetpaint.com/page/How+to+make+the+Sign+of+the+Cross

In their own particular way, they’ve outlined a possible history of the Sign of the Cross. The Old Believer way was the practice of the missionaries to Holy Rus. However, the Sack of Constantinople (which took place well after the baptism of St. Vladimir) and the temporary seizure of the city by the West resulted in the imposition of Western practices including the “heretical” three-fingered sing of the cross cited under Pope Innocent III (1198-1216)… which is the normative practice in Orthodoxy today! As to when the three-fingered practice was abandoned in the West, who knows? Someone got the idea of the laity crossing themselves in the same direction that the priest blessed the laity (left to right).

This is hilarious. The Old Believers trump Rome and Constantinople in “who is the oldest of the three” department…

 

[Madaglan]

Bless the Old Believers!

mymartyrdom.com/c.htm
oldbelievers.wetpaint.com/page/How+to+make+the+Sign+of+the+Cross

In their own particular way, they’ve outlined a possible history of the Sign of the Cross. The Old Believer way was the practice of the missionaries to Holy Rus. However, the Sack of Constantinople (which took place well after the baptism of St. Vladimir) and the temporary seizure of the city by the West resulted in the imposition of Western practices including the “heretical” three-fingered sing of the cross cited under Pope Innocent III (1198-1216)… which is the normative practice in Orthodoxy today! As to when the three-fingered practice was abandoned in the West, who knows? Someone got the idea of the laity crossing themselves in the same direction that the priest blessed the laity (left to right).

This is hilarious. The Old Believers trump Rome and Constantinople in “who is the oldest of the three” department…

I’d take the first link with a grain of salt. It seems to suggest a negative association between Jewish behavior and the present Greek way of signing. The identification of the three finger sign as a Nazi sign seems a little off, too.

Making the sign of the cross with the thumb as the earliest form sounds about right.

 

[Cecilianus]

Dear brother Marduk,

Sorry for taking so long to respond to the sub-discussion we were having. I’m at college again now, so everything I write is going to be very brief. I can’t disagree with anything you wrote in the last batch of posts, but would qualify it by adding the following: The Pope’s responsibility to uphold and defend his brother bishops in preaching the faith and governing the Church in their respective dioceses does not preclude his (the holy father’s) right to correct them or their flock when they fall into heresy - nor from insisting that they promulgate a more correct form of the liturgy or canon law (such as when John Paul II and Benedict XVI insisted that the English translation of the “Novus Ordo” remove irregularities and experimentation during places like the Consecration), and he has this right irrespective of whether these bishops are East or West, because of his role as supreme pontiff.

Peace,

Cecilianus

 

[Cecilianus]

One Mass I attended seemed more like a Protestant service than a Catholic service(guitars, drums, tamborines).

Add bongo drums and make some of those guitars electric, and you’ve got my experience.

At another one, people were arriving up to 30 minutes late and it was difficult to focus on the liturgy with all the comotion going on.

The causal dress worn to Saturday evening Masses is what I find the biggest distraction - I find myself lounging in my pew during the homily, and failing to prepare myself in prayer before Mass. Until the Eucharistic Prayer starts, it’s just really hard to pray.

I knew Jesus was present in the Eucharist, but everything else seemed foreign to me.

My experience exactly.

I read stories of people who were at the end of their ropes and went to the Orthodox Church as a last resort only to find what they were seeking.

I’m at the end of my rope too - which is why I became Byzantine Catholic, like you. Some - or at least one - of the people at my Ukrainian parish are sedevacantists (SSPV-style), however, which makes going there all the more frustating - I’m caught in the middle

I read about Orthodox theology, teachings of the Desert Fathers and became convinced that this was what I was looking for.

In the end, I was blessed to find the best of both worlds, a beautiful expression of faith in the Divine Liturgy that was still in full communion with the Bishop of Rome.

From time to time I attend a beautiful expression of the Latin Mass at an Oratory belonging to the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest. For me, this is so much better than the Novus Ordo mass that I encountered in the Diocese of Tucson. However, the Divine Liturgy works much better for me. We are truly blessed to have so many ways to experience Christ in our Church. For anyone considering a move from the Catholic Church to Orthodoxy, investigate the Eastern Catholic Churches as well.

Would that be St. Patrick’s Oratory in Kansas City? I went there for the Triduum last Easter. But I have fallen so much in love with the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom that I prefer to practice the Faith that way - much as I love the Tridentine Mass. (If only the two could be said at different times on Sunday in the same diocese…)

 

[Cecilianus]

Tradition. Many of the sects have promoted that which has never been taught by the Church since the beginning–e.g. allowing monks, clergy and bishops to marry.

But not sects like the popovtsy (I meant the Old Believers with priests - pardon me if I got the two terms backwards!), the old-calendarist True-Orthodox Church of Greece, or the Russian “Catacomb Church”.

(Nor the Russian Orthodox Church which excommunicated the Catacomb Church (“Josephites”? It’s been a while since I read on them). I don’t know which one you regard as the “true” Orthodox Church in Russia.

 

[Cecilianus]

You must not know a lot about Old Believers to think that they are more likely the real Russian Orthodox Church. How do you see them as having a better claim?

They preserve Tradition exactly as it was handed down to them. They do not seem willing to compromise with modernity. They are truly “not of this world”.

Not all raskolnik sects lack priests or bishops, but in answer to your question - yes, or rather, it doesn’t seem to decide either way. Traditionalist Catholicism has a better claim in my mind than the hippie Novus Ordo version to be real Catholicism, and yet traditionalist priests are few and far between.

Or the lifting of a minor custom to the level of infallible doctrine?

As the Greeks did objecting to the Latin use of unleavened bread, celibate priesthood, and the separate development of the Tridentine liturgy (or what would become - with very minor modifications - the Tridentine liturgy)? Without a Magisterium headed by the Pope and guided by the Holy Spirit, you don’t have an objective criterion for where to draw the line. Who has the right to change anything? By whose right can you change anything? By your own? By an ecumenical council (even though none has taken place for over half a millennium)? Modifications in the practice of the Faith can only be undergone in the name of the Vicar of Christ - whom Orthodoxy rejected.

I do not reject their right to practice as their ancestors did, but their complaints against following the older Greek tradition concerning how to cross one’s self is on the level of absurdity.

I agree- which is why I am Catholic, thereby avoiding the whole problem of the lack of an authority with the Keys of Peter which plagues Orthodoxy.

What makes them canonical is their communion with their primate, and upholding of Orthodox teaching, doctrine, and theology. Occasionally, minor schism is permitted within Orthodoxy (I.E, a schism lasting a few years such as the Bulgarians in the 1800s, and the Russian Orthodox outside of Russia in the 1900s) but after a few years they get back together with their primate see.

Then Orthodoxy lost its canonicity when they broke with the See of Peter, since the primacy of Peter is something we all agree on, both Catholic and Orthodox.

The Russian Orthodox Church existed before they broke communion with the Roman Church, just as the Great Church of Constantinople existed before the schism.

As a particular or local Church, yes. As a national denomination with its own existence separate from the whole (Catholic) Church, it came into existence when it separated from communion with Rome.

[/QUOTE]

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Cecilianus,

As the Greeks did objecting to the Latin use of unleavened bread, celibate priesthood, and the separate development of the Tridentine liturgy (or what would become - with very minor modifications - the Tridentine liturgy)? Without a Magisterium headed by the Pope and guided by the Holy Spirit, you don’t have an objective criterion for where to draw the line. Who has the right to change anything? By whose right can you change anything? By your own? By an ecumenical council (even though none has taken place for over half a millennium)? Modifications in the practice of the Faith can only be undergone in the name of the Vicar of Christ - whom Orthodoxy rejected.

“Modifications in the practice of the Faith” - if you are referring to the Liturgy - are in the hands of the national Churches (episcopal conferences) in the Latin Church, and the Patriarchal Synods in the non-Latin Churches. I’m not sure what you mean by “in the name of the Vicar of Christ.” If you mean that modifications cannot be done without the direct (name removed by moderator)ut of the bishop of Rome, well, this may be true for the Latin Church, but not so in the patriarchal territory of other sui juris Churches (except in instances where Latin Catholic communities are involved, though indications are that is changing - i.e., even Latin communities are coming under the direct supervision of non-Latin hierarchs).

I agree- which is why I am Catholic, thereby avoiding the whole problem of the lack of an authority with the Keys of Peter which plagues Orthodoxy.

To be clear, the “Keys of Peter” appears to have a two-fold significance - (1) it grants ecclesiastical authority in the Kingdom of God; (2) it grants the power to forgive sins. Insofar as Eastern Orthodoxy has maintained its Sacraments, they certainly possess the #2 element of the keys. I agree they do not have the #1 element.

Having said that, however, I feel compelled to say that the dissensions in EO’xy cannot be attributed to this lack of the first element of the Keys of Peter. Rather, the dissensions are simply due to the sinfulness of men and their disobedience to their God-appointed authorities. The Catholic Church possesses the first element of the Keys, yet she is also plagued by the same sort of sinfulness and disobedience from her members. So the fact that there are vagante jurisdictions in Orthodoxy has absolutely nothing to do with a “lack of an authority with the Keys of Peter.”

Then Orthodoxy lost its canonicity when they broke with the See of Peter, since the primacy of Peter is something we all agree on, both Catholic and Orthodox.

I would agree with this, from a Catholic perspective. On the other hand, it would also be true that the Catholic Churches do not have canonical status from the perspective of the Eastern Orthodox. However, I think that the Catholic understanding is more true, but not just because they are not in union with Rome. Much more important, IMO, is the fact that the very great majority of them (judging from my conversations with EO) deny the headship of St. Peter and the consequences for the apostolic succession. IMO, the CC and the OO have kept their Petrine connection (the CC through Rome, Alexandria and Antioch; the OO through Alexandria and Antioch). The hierarchy of the EO has lost its Petrine connection to the early Church, not only because it denies the Petrine character of its head bishops, but also because the one See that had a Petrine character (Antioch) formally reunited with the CC. The current EO See of Antioch is a child of Constantinople, which divested itself of its Petrine connection long ago.

As a particular or local Church, yes. As a national denomination with its own existence separate from the whole (Catholic) Church, it came into existence when it separated from communion with Rome.

I don’t agree with this characterization insofar as the Russian Church maintained its Sacraments.

Blessings,
Marduk