Question:Why be Catholic and not Eastern Orthodox?

[patricius79]

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.

They are not orthodox at all?

 

[patricius79]

Hesychios wrote:

They are Papal Catholics with a different mass.

You are saying that the Eastern Orthodox Liturgy is not one with the Catholic Liturgy?

 

[josephdaniel29]

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.

You have the same issue with the Catholic Church. Not all Catholic Churches are in communion with each other. The Old Catholics are not in communion with Rome who is not in communion with the SSPX as far as I can tell.

Also from the standpoint of the Eastern Catholic Churches this post is incredibly condescending. They are not “disciplines” or “rites”, they are fully autonomous Churches who govern their own affairs but choose to be in communion with Rome. It is precisely this kind of thinking that reinforces in the minds of the Orthodox that rapprochement with Rome is impossible.

 

[josephdaniel29]

They are not orthodox at all?

Well they do hold some orthodox beliefs, most Christians do. What Michael is referring to is the fact that they do hold some heterodox beliefs and therefore can’t be called “orthodox” in the proper sense of the term.

In Christ
Joe

 

[Nicea325]

You have the same issue with the Catholic Church. Not all Catholic Churches are in communion with each other. The Old Catholics are not in communion with Rome who is not in communion with the SSPX as far as I can tell.

Also from the standpoint of the Eastern Catholic Churches this post is incredibly condescending. They are not “disciplines” or “rites”, they are fully autonomous Churches who govern their own affairs but choose to be in communion with Rome. It is precisely this kind of thinking that reinforces in the minds of the Orthodox that rapprochement with Rome is impossible.

You are right,but I if I am correct,the % is smaller than between Orthodox churches? No offense,but Orthodox also display condescending sentiments and that also makes it in the eyes of Catholics (All rites) re-union with the Orthodox an impossible task, so please do not go there.

 

[Nicea325]

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.

in which case they had a lot in common with Pope Honorius, who was also a secret Monothelite

Sources please…

 

[jam070406]

You have the same issue with the Catholic Church. Not all Catholic Churches are in communion with each other. The Old Catholics are not in communion with Rome who is not in communion with the SSPX as far as I can tell.

LOL!!

Nice try.

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by Josie L:
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):

I believe that Orthodoxy and Catholicism take much different angles on this. For example, in Orthodoxy (and perhaps in Eastern Catholicism), St. Constantine, who called the 1st Ecumenical Council, is acclaimed as “Equal to the Apostles”. By God’s grace, he was entrusted with the calling of the First Ecumenical Council to squash the Arian heresy.

Originally posted by Josie L:
Do you subscribe to this?

The situation definitely is irregular and unfortunate. As Oliver Clement notes in his book, due to the schism, the West has lost some of its Pauline charism, while the East has lost some of its Petrine charism.

It might be said that the Orthodox are “unable” to call an Ecumenical Council without the Pope. Conversely, it can be said that, without Paul and the other Apostles, the councils the Pope calls Ecumenical are not fully Ecumenical.

I do, however, believe that God, as in the Incarnation, can supply a solution to a problem thought by man impossible to reconcile. History has shown that both sides have called councils to deal with heresy and matters of church discipline.

 

[josephdaniel29]

LOL!!

Nice try.

LOLOUDERRR!

Nice dodge!

 

[josephdaniel29]

You are right,but I if I am correct,the % is smaller than between Orthodox churches?

Percent of what?

No offense,but Orthodox also display condescending sentiments and that also makes it in the eyes of Catholics (All rites) re-union with the Orthodox an impossible task, so please do not go there.

First, the condescension I am speaking of is towards your fellow Catholics. Regardless if you were to come back to the Church you wouldn’t be called a “rite” or “discipline”, you would be a local Church.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
You are right,but I if I am correct,the % is smaller than between Orthodox churches?

Percent of what?

That there is a great disparity between Orthodox churches than those not in Communion with Rome.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
No offense,but Orthodox also display condescending sentiments and that also makes it in the eyes of Catholics (All rites) re-union with the Orthodox an impossible task, so please do not go there.

First, the condescension I am speaking of is towards your fellow Catholics. Regardless if you were to come back to the Church you wouldn’t be called a “rite” or “discipline”, you would be a local Church.

Oh my apologies. Come back to the church? Elaborate.

 

[josie_L]

You have the same issue with the Catholic Church. Not all Catholic Churches are in communion with each other. The Old Catholics are not in communion with Rome who is not in communion with the SSPX as far as I can tell.

No, that is not the issue with the Catholic Church, i.e., if you are not in the Catholic Church (in communion with Rome) you are is schism with her, therefore the SSPX and the Old Catholics are in schism, it’s that simple. Because Orthodoxy is based on autocephalous (national) Churches some of whom are in communion with each other there is no way of knowing if you are actually in the the “Orthodox” Church, i.e…, are you not supposed to be one? How does one know who is actually in schism with true Orthodoxy or the Orthodox Church, based on the ecclesiology of the Orthodox?

 

[josie_L]

LOLOUDERRR!

Nice dodge!

I know exactly what Jimmy is trying to say, i.e., please refer to my post.

 

[Hesychios]

Sources please…

It is all over the internet, but the source I will use is the Catholic Encyclopedia. Here I believe you will find the most sympathetic reading of the case.

“It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact”… and …

“The condemnation of Pope Honorius was retained in the lessons of the Breviary for 28 June (St. Leo II) until the eighteenth century.”,

 

[josephdaniel29]

No, that is not the issue with the Catholic Church, i.e., if you are not in the Catholic Church (in communion with Rome) you are is schism with her, therefore the SSPX and the Old Catholics are in schism, it’s that simple. Because Orthodoxy is based on autocephalous (national) Churches some of whom are in communion with each other there is no way of knowing if you are actually in the the “Orthodox” Church, i.e…, are you not supposed to be one? How does one know who is actually in schism with true Orthodoxy or the Orthodox Church, based on the ecclesiology of the Orthodox?

The same way you know if you’re in communion with the Catholic Church. If you are in communion with the primates of the other autocephalous Churches you are in communion with the Church. It’s not nearly as complicated as you seem to think.

In Christ
Joe

 

[josephdaniel29]

That there is a great disparity between Orthodox churches than those not in Communion with Rome.

I’m sorry, I still don’t understand what you mean?

Oh my apologies. Come back to the church? Elaborate.

If the Roman Catholic Church ever returns to the Orthodox Catholic Church.

 

[josie_L]

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

Is what this priest is saying an official teaching of Orthodoxy? I ask because I know that there are a couple of theories floating around concerning aspects of Orthodox ecclesiology, i.e., conciliarism, the theory of Pentarchy . . . .etc. I would just like to know what has been established by the Orthodox Churches?

Edit: Here’s an article I read concerning conciliarism, it might interest you:

The conciliarist approach is fundamentally ambiguous. “For Orthodoxy the sole criterion of the truth is the Holy Spirit himself, who will most assuredly guide the Church into all truth.” But how do we know when the Spirit has spoken? Through whom does he speak? How can we be sure what he is saying? What is the criterion of truth in the conciliarist scheme? In the ancient Church, “the criterion [of truth] was always truth itself, and not a visible organ of infallibility.” But the truth has to be articulated by someone. It does not suddenly appear out of the blue, perfectly apparent and clear to everyone.

Who is the guardian of truth in the Church? “[T]he sole guardian of truth is the Spirit of Truth which is loyal to the Church.” Again, the unanswered question is, through whom does the Spirit articulate and guard the faith? The Spirit is indeed loyal to the Church. But what happens when parts of the Church are disloyal to the Spirit? And how do we know they are in fact disloyal? The answer? “No institutional criterion, except the Spirit itself, can define the apostolic tradition.” Once more, how? Through whom? From conciliarism, still no answers.

catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9706eaw.asp

 

[josie_L]

The same way you know if you’re in communion with the Catholic Church. If you are in communion with the primates of the other autocephalous Churches you are in communion with the Church. It’s not nearly as complicated as you seem to think.

In Christ
Joe

Yes, it is complicated, because what if one or several of those primates are out of communion with other primates, how do we know who is or isn’t in the “Orthodox Church”? And no, it is not the same way with the Catholic Church, i.e., anyone who is not in communion with the head of the Church, i.e., the bishop of Rome, is not in communion with the Church, they are in fact, in schism.

Note: We all are in communion with one another but we must all be in communion with Rome.

 

[josie_L]

Sources please…

He gave no source because there is no source, i.e., Honorius was not condemned by the 6th council as a Monothelite.

 

[StevenFrancis]

Why be Catholic and not Eastern Orthodox?

Can experienced Catholics give some ideas and (name removed by moderator)uts ? . .

I don’t know how expeienced I am, so I’m just going to give you what I’ve found from a little research into something I was interested in myself. There don’t appear to be any real problems which are truly largely doctrinal enough for us to be in schism. It’s kind of come down to historical inertia. Here’s a snip from the article on Easter schism from the Catholic Encyclopedia. Now I’m sure EO’s will differ with some of what’s here, and I’ve only been a Catholic for 4 years, and was Buddhist before that, so I’m not a deeply involved party to this issue, but it appears, from an objective standpoint to be more entrenchment then anything else at this point. 9 centuries have passed, and too many people have become comfortable in that massive time span in all circles.

Well, here’s the piece of the article:

"It is easier to understand how a schism continues than how it began. Schisms are easily made; they are enormously difficult to heal. The religious instinct is always conservative; there is always a strong tendency to continue the existing state of things. At first the schismatics were reckless innovators; then with the lapse of centuries their cause seems to be the old one; it is the Faith of the Fathers. Eastern Christians especially have this conservative instinct strongly. They fear that reunion with Rome would mean a betrayal of the old Faith, of the Orthodox Church, to which they have clung so heroically during all these centuries. One may say that the schism continues mainly through force of inertia.

In its origin we must distinguish between the schismatical tendency and the actual occasion of its outburst. But the reason of both has gone now. The tendency was mainly jealousy caused by the rise of the See of Constantinople. That progress is over long ago. The last three centuries Constantinople has lost nearly all the broad lands she once acquired. There is nothing the modern Orthodox Christian resents more than any assumption of authority by the oecumenical patriarch outside his diminished patriarchate. The Byzantine see has long been the plaything of the Turk, wares that he sold to the highest bidder. Certainly now this pitiful dignity is no longer a reason for the schism of nearly 100,000,000 Christians. Still less are the immediate causes of the breach active. The question of the respective rights of Ignatius and Photius leaves even the Orthodox cold after eleven centuries; and Caerularius’s ambitions and insolence may well be buried with him. Nothing then remains of the original causes.

There is not really any question of doctrine involved. It is not a heresy, but a schism. The Decree of Florence made every possible concession to their feelings. There is no real reason why they should not sign that Decree now. They deny papal infallibility and the Immaculate Conception, they quarrel over purgatory, consecration by the words of institution, the procession of the Holy Ghost, in each case misrepresenting the dogma to which they object. It is not difficult to show that on all these points their own Fathers are with those of the Latin Church, which asks them only to return to the old teaching of their own Church.

That is the right attitude towards the Orthodox always. They have a horror of being latinized, of betraying the old Faith. One must always insist that there is no idea of latinizing them, that the old Faith is not incompatible with, but rather demands union with the chief see which their Fathers obeyed. In canon law they have nothing to change except such abuses as the sale of bishoprics and the Erastianism that their own better theologians deplore. Celibacy, azyme bread, and so on are Latin customs that no one thinks of forcing on them. They need not add the Filioque to the Creed; they will always keep their venerable rite untouched. Not a bishop need be moved, hardly a feast (except that of St. Photius on 6 Feb.) altered. All that is asked of them is to come back to where their Fathers stood, to treat Rome as Athanasius, Basil, Chrysostom treated her. It is not Latins, it is they who have left the Faith of their Fathers. There is no humiliation in retracing one’s steps when one has wandered down a mistaken road because of long-forgotten personal quarrels. They too must see how disastrous to the common cause is the scandal of the division. They too must wish to put an end to so crying an evil. And if they really wish it the way need not be difficult. For, indeed, after nine centuries of schism we may realize on both sides that it is not only the greatest it is also the most superfluous evil in Christendom."

Just speaking for me personally? I’d love our Church to be one.again. We DO have many Eastern Churches, who are Eastern Catholic Churches. It just seems like we’re so close, if we WANT to be.

I think Pope Benedict and Pope John Paul II have both made overatures durning their papacies. That’s a good sign. I’m not completely sure where the non-catholic eastern Patriarchs/Bishops stand. I hope they’re thawing as well. Maybe not in my life time, but I’m hopefully before Jesus comes to get us, we’ll be one big Church, with perhaps a few more rites than we observe currently.

I’m praying. I hope many others are as well. Wouldn’t it be just beautiful? I don’t even think the Western schism will be going on much longer. We’ve already take a first step with some of the Anglicans.

My the Holy Spirit and our love of Jesus Christ and His Church guide us forward without fear, and in unity as the body of Christ.