Question for Catholics and Orthodox: would you follow your Church?

[zagjames]

We need to organise ourselves so that Easter is celebrated on the same day for Catholics and Orthodox.

If we can’t so something simple like that, then there is no hope for anything else.

That is not a big deal, even if we are united in one Church we would still be made up of multiple particular churches and as such we would have differnet liturgical calanders. The date of Easter is a minor thing.

 

[Ghoti]

That is not a big deal, even if we are united in one Church we would still be made up of multiple particular churches and as such we would have differnet liturgical calanders. The date of Easter is a minor thing.

Yeah, what’s wrong with having *Lambropsomo *for a few extra weeks?

 

[Hesychios]

Hello Scott,

Not that I know a great deal about Orthodox,but If the Churches of the Eastern rite of the Catholic Church can live in union with the western rite and vice a versa, and from what I do know of eastern Catholic and Orthodox they mirror one anther on most every point except for the issue of Papal authority.

This would be incorrect. The Orthodox and Eastern Catholic churches are not “mirrors” of one another, although many would like to think so. It would take several posts to explain this fully, but having been both an Eastern Catholic and an Orthodox Christian I feel I can make this statement.

Briefly, not wishing to offend, this type of assertion must still be addressed with complete honesty. Eastern Catholicism does retain some of the Orthodox traditions (small “t”) of it’s Orthodox predecessors, but at a rather superficial level. Eastern Catholics of the Byzantine traditions are called upon to accept Latin theology as equally valid (for example, even if they do not understand it they may not criticize the Latin doctrine of Purgatory, they must believe “it must be true” even though it does not fit in their theology and they cannot conceive of it).

Interestingly, the Byzantine liturgy supports and is based upon Orthodox theology, not Latin theology, and absent any further catechesis outside of the tradition Latin theology would be completely unknown to Eastern Catholics, they must be deliberately taught this Latin material or they will not get it, and they still might not. The differences between the two can be quite striking, and can lead to cognitive dissonance which requires resolution. The net effect for Eastern Catholics is they often eventually become interiorly Latin overlaid with a veneer of Orthodox tradition, or habit.

Contrariwise, the Latin Mass largely supports Latin theology (although not really as well, it still requires a great deal of catechesis outside of the liturgy). Latins are not routinely expected to accept the Orthodox theology of the eastern churches as equally valid, and there is no catechetical effort being waged in the Latin church to correct that imbalance. There does not seem to be any recognition of the Orthodox theology as equally valid. Furthermore, many Latins feel quite comfortable in attacking Orthodox theology, which means they are lacking in respect of their own coreligionists faith as well as Orthodoxy.

This is but one small example. Most Orthodox, having observed what happened to the churches of their brothers and sisters who became subordinate to Rome, really find the Eastern Catholic churches to be a very good example of what not to do. In other words, they are a discouragement, not an encouragement to ecumenism; a disincentive, not an incentive; a stumbling block, not a building block. Although it was a long time in the making, the Vatican seems quite aware of this these days.

Michael

 

[Hesychios]

Hello Scott,

To my knowledge no one is trying to take and change anyone’s church or beliefs. They only thing I know of again is that Orthodox fail to give the proper Authority to the Seat of Peter.

What does this mean, exactly? What does “proper Authority” actually entail? What can you mean by “fail”?

I find no evidence of an early Council according the right of the bishop of Rome to call, dismiss or amend the findings of Councils. Nor do I find any evidence of the bishops of Rome appointing bishops to Sees outside of Italy, and never in 1000 years an Eastern bishop. I don’t see any Council deciding to give these rights or recognize these rights to a bishop of Rome at any time when we were all as one church.

Never in that entire 1000 years did the bishop of Rome have a monopoly on the canonization of saints, local diocese always did that and Rome did that for it’s own local Roman saints. Never did a bishop of Rome codify the canons, superseding the canons of the Seven Councils. They never had the right to amend or delete canons of the church.

Bishops of Rome never had the right or privilege to declare dogma on their own authority. Since the 19th century they have had the temerity to attempt this not once but twice.

It was my understanding that the “proper authority” claimed by your church for the bishop of Rome is a dogma. Orthodox have no such dogma, that would be a huge theological change for the Orthodox, who do not introduce new dogmas two thousand years after Christ.

Michael

 

[Hesychios]

Hello Scott,

As far I know both Catholic and Orthodox hold that the Eucharist is valid in both.

The Orthodox churches know their own sacraments, called Holy Mysteries, are valid.

Michael

 

[Hesychios]

now I have to ask are you a person of some authority within the Orthodox Churches. As you make statements that would led one to believe that you are. Such as Orthodox will not do this and for unity you must do this.

Good question, are you such an authority? You seem to have a few opinions yourself, such as the “Orthodox fail to give proper authority”.

This thread, and this forum, is full of such pontifications from Latin Catholics. I am only taking the time to clarify the Orthodox position vis a vis the Latin Catholic position, if you don’t want to hear it from me, where will you learn it? Of course you are free to study Orthodoxy and its positions for yourself, the books are freely available at bookstores and in libraries.

The Question was if your Bishops decreed union between Orthodox and Catholic would you fallow? I would also ask if not what would you do?

One cannot ask this question in a vacuum. You have to know something about Orthodox Christianity. As it is the question does not work in an Orthodox context.

The Vatican is beginning to learn that the Orthodox community is not a highly regimented structure. Within the Orthodox Christian community there is an almost symbiotic relationship between the hierarchy and the parish faithful. There has to be a consensus, the bishops cannot introduce dogma on their own.

It is this very nature of orthodox community that has contributed to the stability of Holy Orthodoxy and the consistency of it’s theological position over centuries without any external force to hold it together or able (although many have tried) to wrench them apart.

The Latin church does not actually have this type of relationship between the bishops and faithful, neither does the Protestant community. New ideas and practices are simply not welcome in Holy Orthodoxy! They cannot be introduced from the bottom up, as in Protestantism, nor from the top down, as in Latin Catholicism. We have the Typicon, and we follow it, we have the seven Councils and they are in force. Deviations are not allowed, if the laity are deviant, the bishops will chastise them. If the bishops are deviant the community will chastise the bishops!

And believe me they will. There is awesome power in a group of grandmothers with babushkas on their heads and weilding brooms.These women not only nursed the present and future clergy and bishops, they taught them the faith at their laps. We all have a responisibilty for this and Christ will chastise us in time to come if we should be lax in this duty of preserving the received faith for the next generation.

To some extent, the Latin church can be similar, we have learned from recent experience, although not as much so as Orthodox. This is why the TLM is back, for one thing. Forty years of suppression could not destroy some peoples attachment to it, the liturgy survived first among schismatic Catholics, and as a matter of practicality the liturgy was afterward being allowed initially as indult Masses and now on a more widespread basis to bring a measure of healing to the community. If the Latin church were Orthodox, the clergy would never have been able to impose the post V II liturgical changes upon it. The bishops in Orthodoxy simply do not embrace the role of crafting new ways to worship.

So then, to be perfectly blunt, if that is how the church functions on such externals as liturgy you can see there is no way bishops in the East will be able to impose new doctrines on the people without their informed consent. The bishops would be as likely to lose their own positions and become vagantes themselves ( a concept that does not really exist in Orthodoxy, a bishop without a community is not a bishop).

So, it would be one thing for the bishops to declare that some outside church body had returned to Holy Orthodoxy, and the bishops had decided to accept them. This is quite easily done and accepted and involves no changes to the receiving community, only to the converting community. It would be quite another entirely for the bishops to demonstrate that they themselves are no longer Orthodox, and that they would wish to laity and clergy to follow them! This would change a great deal, and the community would not obey such bishops.

**there Is really no need to get in to discussion on what the differences are as unless one of us here are in a position to make things happen one way or the other that is pointless. **

If you are right we might as well all just resign our memberships at the forums here!

Michael

 

[Volodymyr]

I trust my Mother and Teacher and nobody else.

Here is how Your Mother and Teacher in person of Piius IX was able to declare himself infallible:

In spite of the unequal representation and Pius IX using the power and prestige of his office, there was still a large number - eighty-eight bishops - who voted against Papal Infallibility, which was enshrined in the constitution, Pastor Aeternus. Sixty-two bishops, many of whom were de facto opponents, voted with reservations, with only four hundred and fifty-one giving a clear yes - this is less than half of the one thousand and eighty-four prelates with voting privileges and less than two-thirds of the seven hundred bishops in attendance at the commencement of the Council. Over seventy-six bishops in Rome abstained from voting and fifty-five bishops informed the Pope that while maintaining their opposition to the definition that out of filial piety and reverence, which very recently brought our representatives to the feet of your Holiness, do not allow us in a cause so closely concerning Your Holiness to say non placet (it is not pleasing) openly in the face of the Father.30 This statement alone speaks volumes for the subservience that these bishops had for the immense authority figure of the Pope - a presence unknown in the councils of the Early Church.
Thus lacking a moral unanimity or even a clear two-thirds majority, Papal Infallibility was now elevated as an article of faith equal to the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation.

 

[zagjames]

Hello Scott,
This would be incorrect. The Orthodox and Eastern Catholic churches are not “mirrors” of one another, although many would like to think so. It would take several posts to explain this fully, but having been both an Eastern Catholic and an Orthodox Christian I feel I can make this statement.

This is but one small example. Most Orthodox, having observed what happened to the churches of their brothers and sisters who became subordinate to Rome, really find the Eastern Catholic churches to be a very good example of what not to do. In other words, they are a discouragement, not an encouragement to ecumenism; a disincentive, not an incentive; a stumbling block, not a building block. Although it was a long time in the making, the Vatican seems quite aware of this these days.

Michael

There have been alot of abuses towards the E. Catholics. Personally it really frustrates me. I hate when I visit the Byzantine Church near my home and bring friends or family they always have to ask, “is this really a catholic church.” They act as if it was a lesser thing at first, and a weirded out. I can understand the feeling of being out of place, the liturgy is not one that most Roman Catholics are used to, but still it is frustrating. I am a Latin Catholic, with a strong love of Byzantine spirituality, and of the Eastern Churches. So many Latin Catholics don’t know about the E. Catholic Churches and thus make attacks out of ignorance. Since VII there have been improvements, and there continue to be improvements in the relations to the E. Catholic Churches. The Latinization of many of the Churches was an abhorant thing.

They E. Catholics are not forced to take Latin understandings, rather (at least this is what a local Byzantine priest told me) Byzantines and Romans are called to understand the other way of looking at all of the supposed differences and grow in faith by understanding the multiple ways to look at the issues. Certainly purgatory is a legalistic way of looking at things, and theosis is a very philosophical big picture way of looking at the issue. Both are valid understandings of the process of purification and being confromed to God so that one may enter heaven.

There is way too much of “your way is stupid” instead of looking for one concept within another.

I know that alot of Orthodox and E. Catholics think that W. Catholics are arrogant to believe that we can delve into the study of God’s mysteries. Instead they pose that we should let God’s mysteries be praised for what they are, his mysteries. Holy and Sacred things that we are in awe at and should not dare to explicate. I respect that attitude. But I also see the reason and interest in why a person would want to have a deeper understanding of God’s mysteries. I often feel that we have many of our disagreences because we are not willing to look for the truth that resides within each others doctrines.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

There have been alot of abuses towards the E. Catholics. Personally it really frustrates me. I hate when I visit the Byzantine Church near my home and bring friends or family they always have to ask, “is this really a catholic church.” They act as if it was a lesser thing at first, and a weirded out. I can understand the feeling of being out of place, the liturgy is not one that most Roman Catholics are used to, but still it is frustrating. I am a Latin Catholic, with a strong love of Byzantine spirituality, and of the Eastern Churches. So many Latin Catholics don’t know about the E. Catholic Churches and thus make attacks out of ignorance. Since VII there have been improvements, and there continue to be improvements in the relations to the E. Catholic Churches. The Latinization of many of the Churches was an abhorant thing.

They E. Catholics are not forced to take Latin understandings, rather (at least this is what a local Byzantine priest told me) Byzantines and Romans are called to understand the other way of looking at all of the supposed differences and grow in faith by understanding the multiple ways to look at the issues. Certainly purgatory is a legalistic way of looking at things, and theosis is a very philosophical big picture way of looking at the issue. Both are valid understandings of the process of purification and being confromed to God so that one may enter heaven.

There is way too much of “your way is stupid” instead of looking for one concept within another.

I know that alot of Orthodox and E. Catholics think that W. Catholics are arrogant to believe that we can delve into the study of God’s mysteries. Instead they pose that we should let God’s mysteries be praised for what they are, his mysteries. Holy and Sacred things that we are in awe at and should not dare to explicate. I respect that attitude. But I also see the reason and interest in why a person would want to have a deeper understanding of God’s mysteries. I often feel that we have many of our disagreences because we are not willing to look for the truth that resides within each others doctrines.

Thank you so much. I agree with everything you have said here. I wish there was a ECC parish near me, but the Closes one I have found is over a hundred miles away. I have attended the Divine Liturgy of the Orthodox and find It very Beautiful and and would love to have more understanding of it.

Again thank you so much for what you have wrote. i have tried to convey that same, but I think you did so much better than I.

 

[Alethiaphile]

You may believe that, but you are wrong and history proves it. The Catholic Church, ALONE is the ONE Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. There is no room for debate on this point. If we are not part of you then you are just wrong. If we are part of you, then you are only right in that you are really part of us. The faith in the One True Eucharist demands this.

Claudius hath spoken!

 

[Alethiaphile]

Why are we in schism? Because your patriarch Michael I went into the sanctuary of a Church, denyed the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, broke open a tabernacle and threw, THREW, the body and blood of my Lord, King and GOD Jesus Christ on the floor and stepped on it. That is why we are in schism. That is the only reason. .

You are living in an alternate reality. Joe

 

[Ignatios]

claudius:

Why are we in schism? Because your patriarch Michael I went into the sanctuary of a Church, denyed the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, broke open a tabernacle and threw, THREW, the body and blood of my Lord, King and GOD Jesus Christ on the floor and stepped on it. That is why we are in schism. That is the only reason.

you are holding your history book upside down.

 

[valient_Lucy]

I have been doing a lot of research on differences between eastern orthodox and catholic religions, and so far all i see is misunderstanding between the two being the huge dividing factor. that and the pope’s authority. The teachings are all the same though. As far as doctrine, we believe the same things. I really look forward to our reunion, so we could truly say that we belongto Christ’s original church.

Unfortunately, I don’t think reunion will happen any time soon. Even without the theological and doctrinal differences, both churches are filled with human beings. And as such, they’re filled with sinners.

 

[zagjames]

If reunion does happen, the Russian Orthodox Church will be the last to reunite.

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

Unfortunately, I don’t think reunion will happen any time soon. Even without the theological and doctrinal differences, both churches are filled with human beings. And as such, they’re filled with sinners.

I think you’re right.

If we can’t do something simple like celebrating Easter together, what hope is there for our theologicial and doctrinal differences?

 

[Wyatt]

I voted “yes, absolutely.” The reason being, if reunification did occur, it would be Christ’s will that it was happening. Whether the Orthodox are the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church or whether Catholics are doesn’t change the outcome of reunification. If the two churches are reuniting…one of them is the True Church, so any changes that occur would have to be from Christ since Christ said the Gates of Hell wouldn’t prevail against the Church…which means the Church cannot fall into error.

So yes, as a Catholic…believing in the One Church founded by Jesus Christ, I would accept any changes since I know that the Church falling into apostasy would be an impossibility because it would render Christ’s promise false, which it cannot be. So if the two Churches agree on certain terms for reunification…I trust the Holy Spirit to guide the Churches so that they are kept free from heresy.

 

[Peter_J]

I voted “yes, absolutely.” The reason being, if reunification did occur, it would be Christ’s will that it was happening. Whether the Orthodox are the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church or whether Catholics are doesn’t change the outcome of reunification. If the two churches are reuniting…one of them is the True Church, so any changes that occur would have to be from Christ since Christ said the Gates of Hell wouldn’t prevail against the Church…which means the Church cannot fall into error.

So yes, as a Catholic…believing in the One Church founded by Jesus Christ, I would accept any changes since I know that the Church falling into apostasy would be an impossibility because it would render Christ’s promise false, which it cannot be. So if the two Churches agree on certain terms for reunification…I trust the Holy Spirit to guide the Churches so that they are kept free from heresy.

Well said – and welcome to the forum!
-Peter.

 

[O.S.Luke]

After reading this thread, I am beginning to believe that the Protestant Reformation was not regrettable, but was inevitable.

How sad.

 

[peary]

I voted “yes, absolutely.” The reason being, if reunification did occur, it would be Christ’s will that it was happening. Whether the Orthodox are the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church or whether Catholics are doesn’t change the outcome of reunification. If the two churches are reuniting…one of them is the True Church, so any changes that occur would have to be from Christ since Christ said the Gates of Hell wouldn’t prevail against the Church…which means the Church cannot fall into error.

So yes, as a Catholic…believing in the One Church founded by Jesus Christ, I would accept any changes since I know that the Church falling into apostasy would be an impossibility because it would render Christ’s promise false, which it cannot be. So if the two Churches agree on certain terms for reunification…I trust the Holy Spirit to guide the Churches so that they are kept free from heresy.

**Very well said, Wyatt. AMEN. **

 

[AlegreFe]

I voted “yes, absolutely.” The reason being, if reunification did occur, it would be Christ’s will that it was happening. Whether the Orthodox are the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church or whether Catholics are doesn’t change the outcome of reunification. If the two churches are reuniting…one of them is the True Church, so any changes that occur would have to be from Christ since Christ said the Gates of Hell wouldn’t prevail against the Church…which means the Church cannot fall into error.

So yes, as a Catholic…believing in the One Church founded by Jesus Christ, I would accept any changes since I know that the Church falling into apostasy would be an impossibility because it would render Christ’s promise false, which it cannot be. So if the two Churches agree on certain terms for reunification…I trust the Holy Spirit to guide the Churches so that they are kept free from heresy.

I can’t believe a Catholic would say something like this. It sounds good as if you want to be “nice” to everyone. There is nothing wrong with showing kindness to others but we cannot be complacent when it comes to our Catholic beliefs.

The Catholic Church will never change her doctrines when it comes to faith & morals, NEVER. God is the same yesterday, today and forever. God will NEVER change.

As far as discipline, that can change and it has over time. But I would never settle for a change in doctrine as I know that it will never change anyway. It can’t change. The Church does not have the power to change anything concerning doctrine & dogma.