Question:Why be Catholic and not Eastern Orthodox?

[Contarini]

Out of curiosity, how would you go about “repairing” your Church? Would you favor a reunion with the Catholics and (hopefully one day) the Orthodox?

At this point I would work for the reverse order–my opinions have taken a strong swing toward the Orthodox in recent months. I would ideally like to see Anglicans unite with the Orthodox and then eventually become part of a reunion with Rome. Any reunion with Rome that simply involves us is going to involve too much submission to the dysfunctional aspects of the Roman Communion. Only the Orthodox have, to put it crudely, the “bargaining power” (because they actually have unbroken continuity with the historic Church, and Rome recognizes the validity of their particular churches) to persuade Rome to re-examine those aspects of its teaching and practice that conflict with historic, orthodox Christianity.

In short: where Rome is wrong, the Orthodox are right.

But if my bishop were to offer to lead me into communion with Rome, I would happily obey. He isn’t going to do any such thing–I have slightly more chance of influencing him toward the Orthodox, I think, though I don’t claim to have much influence over him at all. (I think he respects me to some extent, but naturally he respects a full professor at Notre Dame like Richard McBrien much more. He’s actually more conservative than McBrien, but McBrien seems to be the Catholic theologian to whom he’s personally closest, and has served as a theological advisor for our diocese in the past.)

Edwin

 

[JohnnyReb]

And that is contrary what Christ founded and taught. Christ did not teach his 12 apostles to ‘intellectually’ decide for themselves,if Christ was truly teaching them the truth or that He was in fact God. That is the problem today,everyone believes having the ‘smarts’ will cause one to discern the truth.

So people who are not Catholic will just decide to become Catholic without learning and discerning for themselves?

 

[josie_L]

Josie,

I did read it (I think we’re both getting this from the Catholic Encyclopedia, but perhaps you have another source), and that’s what I said: “centuries later.” (I should have said “a couple of centuries,” since “centuries” sounds like more than two.) Again, my point is that 1 Constantinople functioned as authoritative long before then.

Yes, it functioned as “authoritative” in that part of the Church, but it was not recognized as binding on the rest of the Church until the Pope confirmed it.

I understand that the existence of the episcopacy is not subject to the Pope’s discretion. But can you point to anything else about the episcopate that is not under the Pope’s control? It seems to me that whenever the modern Popes talk about collegiality (and I give them credit for doing so frequently, though many people accuse JPII of cutting back seriously on collegiality in practice), they speak of it as something that is appropriate rather than necessary. In other words, they think that Popes should not intervene in the function of the local episcopate any more than they have to. But just when they “have to” seems to be wholly at the discretion of the Pope.

I will relay to you what I wrote to another poster on this particular point:

If the bishop of Rome was first then he could not be an equal, if they are all equal then there is no one who could be first (the whole first but equal makes no sense). Moreover, even in the Orthodox Church there is a hierarchy of authority, that is, the Patriarch for example has more jurisdictional authority than a local bishop (just like in the Catholic Church except the Pope has care over all the Churches, i.e., so he can strenghten and unite the brethren). Here’s an example of what I mean:

To illustrate how Popes regarded their authority, consider the witness of Pope St. Gregory the Great (c. A.D. 590). Corresponding with the Byzantine bishop of Syracuse in Sicily (Sicily was a Byzantine province at the time), he discusses a new candidate for patriarch of Constantinople, and Pope Gregory writes …

“As to what he says, that he is subject to the Apostolic See (Rome), I know of no bishop who is not subject to it, if there be any fault found in bishops.” (Pope Gregory I Ep. Ad. Joan.)

In other words, Pope St. Gregory is saying that a bishop is only subject to the authority of Rome if and when that bishop departs from orthodoxy, and thus must be corrected or condemned by Rome. Pope St. Gregory did not believe (nor did any of his predecessors or successors) that the Pope of Rome should mico-manage the other churches. Rather, the other bishops should merely recognize Rome’s authority when disputes arose --disputes which threatened to disturb the universal unity and orthodox Faith of the entire Catholic Church.

davidmacd.com/catholic/or…me_primacy.htm

This seems to me to be the inevitable consequence of the view that the one necessary and sufficient condition for membership in the Catholic Church is union with Rome. If there are no circumstances under which it is legitimate to stand up with Rome, or to maintain one’s episcopal office even under condemnation from Rome, then in fact Rome has absolute power and every power wielded by the episcopate is wielded at the gracious discretion of Rome. That in the end is why I am unwilling to grant that the many patristic testimonies you and others have provided witnessing to the importance of union with Rome should be interpreted in absolute and unconditional terms. If they are, then the inevitable consequence seems to be the entire corruption of the structure of the Church that in fact existed in the patristic era. And that is highly counterintuitive, to put it mildly.

I think you are creating an unnecessary dichotomy , i.e., union with Rome was necessary as she was/is head of the Church and thus supreme guardian of the faith, having said this, does not mean that the bishop of Rome is some sort of despot, i.e., he too must abide by the constitutions of the Church. Maybe if you viewed the ecclesiology of the CC more along the lines of a Constitutional monarchy (recollect that the Church is based along the lines of a kingdom much similar to that of the Kingdom of Israel/Judea) you would not be so quick to judge our ecclesiology. Moreover, history and scripture provides examples of popes being instructed by brother bishops as well as others, and they in turn listening to them (St. Peter, Pope St. Victor, Pope Gregory XI . . . )

I would be very happy if your Communion held to the same ecclesiology as Pope St. Gregory the Great did. But it seems to me that it does not.

And that would be wrong because we do conform to this understanding, i.e., the Catholic Church is guided by the Holy Spirit through the magisterium headed by the Pope.

I’m not sure how one surveys people who are centuries dead! However, note my cautious language–no one “seems” to have done so. In other words, I am not aware of anyone saying, “Well, we use the Creed as laid down by 1 Constantinople, but of course we are doing so conditionally because Rome hasn’t approved of it yet.” I do not need a survey to say that I am not aware of evidence for this. I’m not claiming categorically that no such evidence exists.

I just think your line of thinking here is wrong simply because we cannot surmise one way or another what the people thought, i.e., I think we should just focus on what we know.

to be continued. . . .

 

[JohnnyReb]

At this point I would work for the reverse order–my opinions have taken a strong swing toward the Orthodox in recent months. I would ideally like to see Anglicans unite with the Orthodox and then eventually become part of a reunion with Rome. Any reunion with Rome that simply involves us is going to involve too much submission to the dysfunctional aspects of the Roman Communion. Only the Orthodox have, to put it crudely, the “bargaining power” (because they actually have unbroken continuity with the historic Church, and Rome recognizes the validity of their particular churches) to persuade Rome to re-examine those aspects of its teaching and practice that conflict with historic, orthodox Christianity.

In short: where Rome is wrong, the Orthodox are right.

But if my bishop were to offer to lead me into communion with Rome, I would happily obey. He isn’t going to do any such thing–I have slightly more chance of influencing him toward the Orthodox, I think, though I don’t claim to have much influence over him at all. (I think he respects me to some extent, but naturally he respects a full professor at Notre Dame like Richard McBrien much more. He’s actually more conservative than McBrien, but McBrien seems to be the Catholic theologian to whom he’s personally closest, and has served as a theological advisor for our diocese in the past.)

Edwin

Interesting. One of the reasons I am Episcopal today is that I feel closer to Orthodoxy than Catholicism. I would say that I would probably become Orthodox before I would return to being Catholic, but only God knows that.

There are just too many dogmas in Catholicism that are not dogmas in Orthodoxy, even if Orthodoxy would not disagree with them. One example, the Assumption of Mary. Citing Bishop Timoty Ware, the Orthodox would not necessarily disagree with the Assumption, but do not feel that there is any grounds to declare it dogma. As an Episocpal, I am not sold on the doctrine (and a few others). It would be dishonest of me to claim to be Catholic.

 

[Madaglan]

The popes had the prerogative to call a council, and they initiated if I’m not mistaken a few (Chalcedon being one of ones I can remember), i.e., that they didn’t call for them all isn’t really an argument against the papacy. Moreover, no one here said that the pope “called the shots” (that’s a vulgar understanding of what the papacy stands for), however, the pope did have many prerogatives one of which is the binding force of his consent with regard to ecumenical councils.

Note: The pope sent legates to every ecumenical council with the exception of one which was not at first intended to be ecumenical.

Current Catholic teaching is that only the Pope of Rome can call an Ecumenical Council. The reality of the first seven Ecumenical Councils is that they were called by the Roman emperor. In the case of Chalcedon, it was preceded by the Home Synod of 447 (orthodox) and the Second Council of Ephesus (of 449, the so-called Robber Synod ). Pope Leo, no doubt upset by the barbaric overturning of the orthodox council, demanded a new council be held. The next emperor, the orthodox Marcian, called the council.

ljubim’s implication is that the the Popes of Rome called the councils and that the Orthodox, after the schism, did not have a “central authority” (i.e. a Pope of Rome) by which to even call an Ecumenical Council. Yet, the emperor was the very central authority by which the first seven Ecumenical Councils were called, and the Byzantine emperors continued to reign as a central authority in the East several hundred years following the schism.

If the Catholic contention has any force, it would be that the Pope of Rome’s ratification and declaration of the council as ecumenical is absolutely necessary, not his being the one to call the council.

 

[josie_L]

I see no reason why they couldn’t be. No one, as far as I know, holds to the infallibility of the Pentarchy. Your Communion believes that Rome is infallible–the Orthodox believe that no particular bishop or group of bishops is infallible.

But the Orthodox regard ecumenical councils has the highest form of authority in the Church, and since all the Orthodox (with the exception of one) agreed upon the decrees, what does this say about the judgment of those who were present (could all of them have been wrong except the one)?

Also, as someone else pointed out, only two Patriarchs were personally present at Florence. But that point is not of huge importance.

Two of the actual patriarchs were there (Rome and Constantinople) but the other three had representatives standing in their stead of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem accepted the filioque.

I need to deal with your patristic citations, since you were so kind as to arrange them by topic as I requested. But many of your citations are from works that are not accessible to me. You must have access to an excellent academic library–unless of course you were citing from an intermediate source which you have not acknowledged!

No, I do not have access to an excellent academic library (unless you count the Internet), i.e., although here’s a place you can go to retrieve the fathers:

catholicpatristics.blogspot.com/

I derive most of my information off the Internet or from intermediate sources, i.e., I do not always acknowledge the intermediate sources as such because I sometimes have to type in the quotes myself (it can get very arduous). If you want I will provide them for you now,

p.s. I will respond to your other post but I’m quite tired now, so it will have to wait till tomorrow.

 

[Harpazo]

But the Orthodox regard ecumenical councils has the highest form of authority in the Church, and since all the Orthodox (with the exception of one) agreed upon the decrees, what does this say about the judgment of those who were present (could all of them have been wrong except the one)?

Who said that? It’s the entirety of Tradition (which is the operation of the Holy Spirit working in the Church) that governs us. Not one thing over another. All of it. And considering we never considered Florence to be an Ecumenical Council to begin with (a robber council is what it has been known as), how does what you’re saying make sense in and Orthodox context?

Two of the actual patriarchs were there (Rome and Constantinople) but the other three had representatives standing in their stead of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem accepted the filioque.

You keep perpetuating this, but I don’t know why. Where are the statements from the Holy Synod of the Church of Alexandria? Or Antioch? Or Jerusalem? The legates might have signed onto it, but as you said in the other thread about Constantinople IV even though the pope wasn’t there (and even though his legates signed off on curbing the papal claims, condemning the filioque, et al.) he did not “ratify.” What makes you so sure that the Patriarchs of these Sees “accepted the filioque” that you’re hellbent to perpetuate this idea? As I pointed out in the other thread, it was repudiated after the bishops came home and admitting to selling the Orthodox faith for military aid (not actually adopting the beliefs).

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[josie_L]

Current Catholic teaching is that only the Pope of Rome can call an Ecumenical Council. The reality of the first seven Ecumenical Councils is that they were called by the Roman emperor. In the case of Chalcedon, it was preceded by the Home Synod of 447 (orthodox) and the Second Council of Ephesus (of 449, the so-called Robber Synod ). Pope Leo, no doubt upset by the barbaric overturning of the orthodox council, demanded a new council be held. The next emperor, the orthodox Marcian, called the council.

Technically, the Pope in Rome could have called an ecumenical council at any point in the Church’s history (it was a prerogative of his), nevertheless, that only a pope of Rome can call an Ecumenical council is apropos for our times, i.e., we only allowed emperors to call our councils because it was necessary, i.e., for practical reasons (although I’m pretty certain that popes initiated ecumenical councils with the help of Emperors).

ljubim’s implication is that the the Popes of Rome called the councils and that the Orthodox, after the schism, did not have a “central authority” (i.e. a Pope of Rome) by which to even call an Ecumenical Council. Yet, the emperor was the very central authority by which the first seven Ecumenical Councils were called, and the Byzantine emperors continued to reign as a central authority in the East several hundred years following the schism.

I can’t remember what her implication was now, but irregardless, an emperor should not be viewed as a central authority (just because he called a council on behalf of the Church) when it was the bishop of Rome who as head of the Church was/is the central authority, perhaps this is what ljubim meant. I think it is also necessary to recognize that from a Catholic point of view the pope (or his representative) needs to preside over a council, which could account for why Orthodoxy has not had an ecumenical council. Have you ever heard of the theory of the Pentarchy, I vaguely remembered it (and just came across it now in my research):

The Orthodox require that a council be approved by the Patriarchs of Rome (the Pope), Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem to be authentically ecumenical. This is known as the theory of the Pentarchy, or government by the five ancient patriarchates. These ancient councils, besides their important doctrinal definitions, also promulgated canons or laws governing the discipline of the churches (e.g., liturgical laws, etc.).

crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/125/the_first_seven_ecumenical_councils.html

Do you subscribe to this?

If the Catholic contention has any force, it would be that the Pope of Rome’s ratification and declaration of the council as ecumenical is absolutely necessary, not his being the one to call the council.

Yes, this is true but so too is the above (what I wrote). God bless.

 

[josie_L]

Who said that? It’s the entirety of Tradition (which is the operation of the Holy Spirit working in the Church) that governs us. Not one thing over another. All of it. And considering we never considered Florence to be an Ecumenical Council to begin with (a robber council is what it has been known as), how does what you’re saying make sense in and Orthodox context?

You keep perpetuating this, but I don’t know why. Where are the statements from the Holy Synod of the Church of Alexandria? Or Antioch? Or Jerusalem? The legates might have signed onto it, but as you said in the other thread about Constantinople IV even though the pope wasn’t there (and even though his legates signed off on curbing the papal claims, condemning the filioque, et al.) he did not “ratify.” What makes you so sure that the Patriarchs of these Sees “accepted the filioque” that you’re hellbent to perpetuate this idea? As I pointed out in the other thread, it was repudiated after the bishops came home and admitting to selling the Orthodox faith for military aid (not actually adopting the beliefs).

In Christ,
Andrew

I am not perpetuating anything, the Orthodox regard the highest organ of authority in the Church as an ecumenical council, i.e., conciliarism, so what is it that you do not understand (does not the Holy Spirit need some organ of infallibility to work through)? Second, where is you source that the bishops only accepted Florence for military aid? As for letters:

Philotheus of Alexandria joyfully received Council of Florence in 9/1/1440 letter [Gill 323]

thebananarepublican.blogspot.com/

I’ll try to find it for the others if they exist. Quite frankly Harpazo, it shouldn’t take till 1472 (realized 1484 was an error) to officially repudiate Florence as the Greek Church did, i.e., if the bishops accepted Florence because they wished military aid, and only when they got home did they realize or admit to their error, then there seems to be a pretty large gap between the time of repudiation and 1472.

 

[Wesley7]

I have a critical question to examine:

Why does the Orthodox Church have 7 Ecumenical Councils while the Catholic Church has 21 . . ?

 

[Harpazo]

I am not perpetuating anything, the Orthodox regard the highest organ of authority in the Church as an ecumenical council, i.e., conciliarism, so what is it that you do not understand (does not the Holy Spirit need some organ of infallibility to work through)? Second, where is you source that the bishops only accepted Florence for military aid? As for letters:

thebananarepublican.blogspot.com/

I’ll try to find it for the others if they exist. Quite frankly Harpazo, it shouldn’t take till 1472 (realized 1484 was an error) to officially repudiate Florence as the Greek Church did, i.e., if the bishops accepted Florence because they wished military aid, and only when they got home did they realize or admit to their error, then there seems to be a pretty large gap between the time of repudiation and 1472.

“It is very right to suppose,” wrote the Orthodox teachers, “that the Greeks should understand Greek words better than foreigners.”

That was the Orthodox response at Florence by St. Mark of Ephesus to the Latins regarding Purgatory, although I think it is very apropos here in this conversation between you and me. Show me in Orthodox Holy Fathers and writings that we believe Ecumenical Councils are the highest authority. You will not find it because as I said earlier, it’s everything! To use the same dichotomy: why should I, a “Greek,” listen to you, a “foreigner,” (I’m neither Greek nor are you a foreigner, but just for the sake of this discussion, go with it )?

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Harpazo]

I have a critical question to examine:

Why does the Orthodox Church have 7 Ecumenical Councils while the Catholic Church has 21 . . ?

To put it simply: both churches dealt with different things. It doesn’t make one more right than the other based solely on that, though. I will say that 7 Ecumenical Councils is the minimum accepted by the Orthodox. Some say Constantinople IV (879) was Ecumenical making it #8, others say that there were others.

To me, and I think to any sensible Christian–Orthodox or Roman Catholic–the number of Ecumenical Councils is irrelevant. What matters is what the church teaches.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Vico]

Research it and you will find that trouble was brewing at least as early as Pope St. Leo The Great (400-461) with regards to the idea of the primacy.

Eastern Christians were not willing to accept the Pope (Bishop of Rome) as anything more than first among patriarchs, so a major breach came in the ninth century when Pope Adrian II refused to recognize the election of Photius as patriarch of Constantinople, and deposed him. Eighth (Latin) Ecumenical Council of 869-870.

 

[dvdjs]

Harpazo:

What are you going on about?

The key point is that that vast majority of Orthodox regard the dogmatic findings of ecumenical councils as infallible and irreformable. That is why one can refer to them as being of the highest authority. Of course, it raises the unsolved question of how and when one can distinguish and ecumenical and a robber council (cf mb-soft.com/believe/txw/orthcoun.htm).

And like Josie, I also would like to see some documentation for your claims about Easterners who confessed to bad faith at Florence. In particular, it would be nice to see something from before the fall of Constantinople. After the Sultan was appointing the Ecumencial Patriarch the union of Florence was abrogated in Constantinople; I am not sure that accounts from that time can be taken at face value.

 

[josephdaniel29]

Harpazo:

What are you going on about?

The key point is that that vast majority of Orthodox regard the dogmatic findings of ecumenical councils as infallible and irreformable. That is why one can refer to them as being of the highest authority. Of course, it raises the unsolved question of how and when one can distinguish and ecumenical and a robber council (cf mb-soft.com/believe/txw/orthcoun.htm).

I think what Harpazo is referring to is the fact that Orthodox do not view councils as being inherently infallible as Catholics would see a council called and approved by the pope. This quote from Fr Sergius Bulgakov sums it up well.

But all ecclesiastical assemblies are not councils, however much they pretend to be or fulfill the exterior conditions requisite to that end, for example, the pseudo-councils of Ephesus, the iconoclastic council of 754, the council of Florence, which the Orthodox Church does not recognize as councils. It must be remembered that even ecumenical councils are not external organs established for the infallible proclamation of the truth and instituted expressly for that. Such a proposition would lead to the conclusion that, without councils, the Church would cease to be “catholic” and infallible. Apart from this consideration, the mere idea of an external organ to proclaim the truth would place that organ above the Church, it would subordinate the action of the Holy Spirit to an external fact, such as an ecclesiastical assembly. Only the Church in its identity with itself can testify to the truth and the knowledge of conciliarity. Is a given assembly of bishops really a council of the Church which testifies in the name of the Church, to the truth of the Church? Only the Church can know. It is the Church which pronounces its yes. It is the Church which agrees, or not, with the council. There are not, and there cannot be, external forms established beforehand for the testimony of the Church about itself.

The life of the Church is a miracle which cannot be explained by external factors. The Church recognizes or does not recognize a given ecclesiastical assembly representing itself as a council: this is a known historical fact. Another historical fact is that to be accepted by the Church as such, it is not sufficient for an ecclesiastical assembly to proclaim itself as a council. It is not a question of a juridical and formal acceptance. This does not mean that the decisions of the councils should be confirmed by a general plebiscite and that without such a plebiscite they have no force. There is no such plebiscite. But from historical experience it clearly appears that the voice of a given council has truly been the voice of the Church or it has not: that is all. There are not, there cannot be, external organs or methods of testifying to the internal evidence of the Church; this must be admitted frankly and resolutely. Anyone who is troubled by this lack of external evidence for ecclesiastical truth does not believe in the Church and does not truly know it. The action of the Holy Spirit in the Church is an unfathomable mystery which fulfils itself in human acts and human consciousness. The ecclesiastical fetishism which seeks an oracle speaking in the name of the Holy Spirit and which finds it in the person of a supreme hierarch, or in the Episcopal order and its assemblies — this fetishism is a terrible symptom of half-faith.

In Christ
Joe

 

[frindro]

I have a critical question to examine:

Why does the Orthodox Church have 7 Ecumenical Councils while the Catholic Church has 21 . . ?

The answer can be found here under “The Councils.”

I also have a question for you Wesley7. If you choose to become Eastern Orthodox, how will you know which Orthodox Church to belong to? As noted in this article not all Orthodox Churches are in communion with one another, while all rites of the Catholic Church are in communion with one another, so if you choose to become Catholic, all you would need to do in selecting the kind of Catholic you wish to be (e.g. Roman, Maronite) is to decide which disciplines you favour, instead of the particular rite’s standing among other Catholic rites.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

You’re perfectly entitled to these opinions. The thread OP is asking why be Catholic and not Orthodox. You’ve answered it from your point of view just fine. I’m a bit puzzled by the last paragraph, though, in red. Was this addressed to me or to the OP? You put my quote on your post so I’m guessing it might be to me.

Gabriel of 12
]Learn first what the Catholic church has defended by defining the Apostolic Teachings these past 2000 years to Her enemies of powers and principalities, before judging by those negative opinions against these apostolic teachings. Yet there is nothing new under the sun for the Catholic Church, She is battled tested.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

The East just as much as the West fought heresies and dangerous thinking over the years before 1054. I don’t think your post here really is compelling or convincing though in trying to persuade a person that the Orthodox are wrong and the Catholics are right? I don’t see the argument against Orthodoxy here?

First of all, I would never try and persuade a person that the Orthodox Church is wrong and the Western Orthodox Roman Catholic Church is right. For to me these are all one body, one faith, one baptism in One Lord. Any one who tries to deny this fights against God in trying to separate what God has joined together through His Son Jesus Christ.

What needs clarifying in these confusing topics, is which Eastern Orthodox refuse to be in unity with the Pope and which Eastern Orthodox Churches remain in unity with the Pope. Then an explanation of those not in unity with the Pope, remain in isolated communions among themselves from other Eastern Orthodox Churches as well. All these are in one Catholic Faith with different Rites, but the same Jesus. If I were living in the East, speaking an Eastern tongue, living in an Eastern culture, I would probably find an Eastern Orthodox Church in communion with the Pope, because these do not and did not remove themselves from Orthodoxy in unity with the Pope since apostolic times. I could never elect to enter into an Eastern Orthodox Church that refuses communion with its Apostolic Successors, especially Peter? For me this speaks volumes of pride of men, and men who resist the will of God.

The argument I make against those who wrongly define the Catholic Churches doctrines, with prejudice views, in order to try and convince others to their prejudice views in preventing one to seek Jesus Christ true presence in His Catholic Church. These are committing a terrible sin, by deception and keepping these infants away from Jesus Christ. If one who disagrees with the Catholic Churches doctrines and has a true understanding of what they are, and how they are understood and supported by Apostolic Tradtion and Sacred Scripture, then these protestants I applaud for speaking the Truth of the Catholic Doctrines. To say otherwise to others with false views of the Catholic doctrines comes from the evil one.

Peace be with you

 

[searn77]

The answer can be found here under “The Councils.”

I also have a question for you Wesley7. If you choose to become Eastern Orthodox, how will you know which Orthodox Church to belong to? As noted in this article not all Orthodox Churches are in communion with one another, while all rites of the Catholic Church are in communion with one another, so if you choose to become Catholic, all you would need to do in selecting the kind of Catholic you wish to be (e.g. Roman, Maronite) is to decide which disciplines you favour, instead of the particular rite’s standing among other Catholic rites.

It’s actually quite easy to see which churches are included in canonical Orthodoxy. Today there might be minor quibbles but basically all you have to do is see if the church is accepted by any of the major churches/patriarchates of today and if they are, they are canonical. To see which churches are canonical you can check these sites:
orthodoxyinamerica.org/

scoba.us/directory.html

 

[Hesychios]

What needs clarifying in these confusing topics, is which Eastern Orthodox refuse to be in unity with the Pope and which Eastern Orthodox Churches remain in unity with the Pope.

There are no Orthodox churches in communion with ‘the Pope’ (as in the bishop of Rome, not the bishop of Alexandria).

The way you word this is very misleading. Very few eastern synods, or parts of synods were under the control of the Papacy from the time of the schism of 1054AD. In fact there are arguably two examples:

• The Greeks of southern Italy and Sicily, whose entire diocesan structure was handed over to Latin bishops, and it’s orthodoxy dissolved. This was almost entirely converted to the Latin rite.
• The Slavic missions of Cyril and Methodios in the region of the Czech Republic, southern Poland and parts of western Hungary (before the Magyars arrived), which were also subordinated to Latin bishops and dissolved. These too were almost entirely converted to the Latin rite.

A third group, the Maronites, were not Orthodox at all since they had broken with both Orthodoxy and Catholicism when they embraced Monothelitism (in which case they had a lot in common with Pope Honorius, who was also a secret Monothelite). This group joined the Catholic church some time after the Crusaders arrived, and as their books were corrected and their priests were educated like western seminarians came to conform with western Catholicism rather thoroughly.

All other Eastern Catholic churches are derived from portions or fragments of Orthodox communities which were much later converted into Catholic communities but for various reasons could not be fully absorbed into the Latin rite like the two earlier groups I mentioned above. They do not remain Orthodox, they do not share Orthodox belief. They are not orthodox at all. They are Papal Catholics with a different mass.