Why Don’t “Traditional Extremists” Convert To Eastern Orthodoxy?

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CathBoy1

New member
I’ve been thinking about this for a while, I mean we have “extremely traditional” groups who claim to be Roman Catholic (Old Catholics, Sedevacantists etc.) but remain in schism with Rome, how can one honestly consider themselves Roman Catholic and actively be in schism with the Supreme Roman Pontiff?
Following this line of thought, looking at these groups perspective, it seems that they accepted Traditional Catholic teaching up until X point in time when they decided that the Pope of Rome was wrong and disagree with him.

So if they affirm Traditional Catholic teaching, sans their views on the papacy, it seems they would find themselves very much in agreeance with the EOC’s or even the OOC’s, if not flat out affirming the Orthodox Church’s claims.
So I mean I get why these groups wouldn’t want to unite with one of the various groups of Protestantism as they deny so much more of Traditional Catholic teaching than just the papacy.

But why continue to exist on the fringes of society as some kind of odd little blip (or in the case of some sedevacantists approaching cult status) instead of uniting to the Orthodox Church, that in their own act of schism they have affirmed?
 
Last edited:
CathBoy1 said:
(or in the case of some sedevacantists approaching cult status
Click to expand...
Sedevacantists believe in the same theology regarding the Papacy, which is where they differ from the Orthodox.

Unfortunately, of course they believe that modern Popes are not valid but they still believe the same theology behind it.

Many sedevacantists would probably be very anti Orthodox.
 
We did…and are converting…

“Traditional extremists” and those of an extreme personality, like myself and most other converts in America, have been converting to Orthodoxy since the fifties…

Then after a few years of living the Faith as deeply as possible, we begin to see how there is a middle road within Orthodoxy, the “Royal Path of the Fathers” which is a balance between the left and right and hopefully we repent of our initial extremism and become simple Christians living in repentance and struggling to obey the Gospel.

As per dialogue with Old Catholics, that has broken down over their falling away into the heresy of homosexualism (blessing of same sex “marriage”), and clerical feminism, while the Sedevacantists have no love for us Orthodox Christians whom they regard as heretical and schismatic.
 
Well I will admit ignorance on my part as far as Old Catholics go, I have not personally ever conversed with any.
I was under the impression that they are supposed to follow the practices (at least in their view) or something similar to the practices of the RCC up until Vatican I.
 
Who gets to define “Traditional Extremist”?

And, as a quid pro quo so to speak, why don’t progressive extremists —you know, the ones who support women priests, contraception, abortion, universalism, etc and spare no pains to express how the Church needs to change— just convert to Episcopalianism?

Well if you look at a lot of recent threads, when the latter idea is touted it gives rise to cries of indignation, “How can you suggest that a Catholic leave the ONE TRUE CHURCH”, ‘They need to stay inside the Church’. . .

So you know, if that’s the attitude toward the ‘extreme’ of one ilk, shouldn’t it be likewise expressed and with no less indignation toward the ‘other’ purported extreme?
 
PilgrimMichelangelo said:
We did…and are converting…

“Traditional extremists” and those of an extreme personality, like myself and most other converts in America, have been converting to Orthodoxy since the fifties…
Click to expand...
This is what I’m interested in, do you mind telling your personal story?
What traditional group would you say you came from?

Thanks brother.
 
stpurl said:
Who gets to define “Traditional Extremist”?
Click to expand...
I mean, I guess certain groups could be called traditional extremists (sedevacantists), but I suppose extremely conservative extremely traditional Roman Catholics could fit the bill, but I’m more specifically talking about groups who went into schism with Rome and yet continue to believe themselves Roman Catholic.
stpurl said:
And, as a quid pro quo so to speak, why don’t progressive extremists —you know, the ones who support women priests, contraception, abortion, universalism, etc and spare no pains to express how the Church needs to change— just convert to Episcopalianism?
Click to expand...
I couldn’t agree more, they should, they obviously do not believe what the RCC teaches so IMHO they are being dishonest claiming to be Roman Catholic.
 
What about “modernist Extremists”? Where should they go? Convert to atheism?
 
Sedevacantists believe that Rome is in schism with the church. They essentially believe that Vatican II started a new religion and merely kept the Catholic name. They say it has new doctrines, new (protestant) liturgy, and new laws.
 
Aquinas11 said:
What about “modernist Extremists”? Where should they go? Convert to atheism?
Click to expand...
Depends, what would you define as “Modernist Extremists”?

Btw, it is not my intention to try to get anyone to leave or remain outside of the RCC, nor is it to talk about those with traditional leanings or modernist leanings within the RCC, I am expressly talking about those who have separated from the Roman Catholic Church.

So to recap:
This topic is meant to discuss those who have broke away from the RCC and do not wish to reunite with it, and yet still call themselves Roman Catholic
 
Last edited:
CathBoy1 said:
I am expressly talking about those who have separated from the Roman Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
CathBoy1 said:
This topic is meant to discuss those who have broke away from the RCC
Click to expand...
Sure and many “modernist extremists” have “broken away” from the RCC and “separated” from Roman Catholic Church. Some deny divinity of Jesus. Others believe all religions are equal. Still others deny that Holy Scripture is free of error. Still others engage in idolatry (e.g. worshiping “Mother Earth”), etc etc. Still others deny existence of sin and/or hell. All in direct contradiction to Church teaching. Yet they still call themselves “Catholic”.
 
stpurl said:
Well if you look at a lot of recent threads, when the latter idea is touted it gives rise to cries of indignation, “How can you suggest that a Catholic leave the ONE TRUE CHURCH”, ‘They need to stay inside the Church’. . .

So you know, if that’s the attitude toward the ‘extreme’ of one ilk, shouldn’t it be likewise expressed and with no less indignation toward the ‘other’ purported extreme?
Click to expand...
And in all fairness I am talking only about those who have already separated themselves from the Roman Catholic Church (in the topic I started), in my honest opinion those who you mention if they truly believe in things such as women priests, confessing to God alone, universalism etc. are being dishonest with themselves to call themselves Roman Catholic.

Contraception is something that could literally take up an entire different thread, as is divorce, seeing that there is situations in which the church allows for both, so I have purposely left them out of what you have mentioned, and I would prefer to not touch on those subjects whatsoever.

But I don’t see how anyone that supports abortion could even attempt to begin to call themselves Christian, not only are they being dishonest to themselves, I find most people of this ilk to be complete liars, and not truly Christian whatsoever, no matter how much they claim to be.
 
Aquinas11 said:
Sure and many “modernist extremists” have “broken away” from the RCC and “separated” from Roman Catholic Church. Some deny divinity of Jesus. Others believe all religions are equal. Still others deny that Holy Scripture is free of error. Still others engage in idolatry (e.g. worshiping “Mother Earth”), etc etc. Still others deny existence of sin and/or hell. All in direct contradiction to Church teaching. Yet they still call themselves “Catholic”.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure that I am familiar with exactly what “Modernist Extremists” Group you are specifically talking about that call themselves the Catholic Church, so I cannot really comment other than to say they sure don’t sound Catholic, whereas if one were to stumble into a sedevacantist church, one may be fooled into honestly thinking they were in a RCC that preforms Mass in the EF, whereas if one walked into a church such as you describe I seriously doubt one would be fooled.

But these “Modernist Extremists” you describe perhaps deserve to have their own thread, but it seems to be a bit off topic to this thread.
 
Sedevacantists are a small group of Catholics, and they are not in fact all of what would be considered ‘traditionalist’ views.

So why do people insist on saying, “Traditionalist Catholic” means ‘what I say it means, even though 10 different people can give 10 different answers?”

To one person “TC” is ‘sedevacantist’.
To another, it’s somebody who ‘denies Vatican 2’.
To another, “Somebody who likes Latin Mass.”
To another, “Somebody who wants to ‘go back in time”.
To another, “Somebody who likes things like chant and incense”
To another, “somebody who hates Pope Francis.”
To another, “Somebody who is really rigid and mean unless you do what they say”.
To another, “Somebody who belongs to SSPX.

Gee, to me it looks like there are plenty of traditionalist Catholics and practices that have nothing at all to do with sedevacantism, or nostalgia or hating Pope Francis or being mean etc, but you would never know it because apparently too many here don’t believe that one can have any possible like for Latin or the EF without being all those ‘horrible bad things’ too.
 
I can’t speak for the “old Catholic Church” because they even reject Vatican I which is a dogmatic council. I don’t understand why they’re not orthodox.
CathBoy1 said:
instead of uniting to the Orthodox Church, that in their own act of schism they have affirmed?
Click to expand...
It’s not the same. Whether or not these traditionalists are right, the Orthodox church reject a number of councils which were Dogmatic in nature. On the contrary traditional Catholics accept all defined dogmas, and even the ones who accept the Pope as validly elected usually point out that nevertheless Vatican II never defined any dogmas (for example, never used the phrase “let him be anathema”).

So the schism (and in some cases only “schism” in inverted comers depending which group you mean) in Traditional Catholic groups and the De Facto Schism in the Orthodox Church are completely different in nature.
 
stpurl said:
So why do people insist on saying, “Traditionalist Catholic” means ‘what I say it means, even though 10 different people can give 10 different answers?”

To one person “TC” is ‘sedevacantist’.
To another, it’s somebody who ‘denies Vatican 2’.
To another, “Somebody who likes Latin Mass.”
To another, “Somebody who wants to ‘go back in time”.
To another, “Somebody who likes things like chant and incense”
To another, “somebody who hates Pope Francis.”
To another, “Somebody who is really rigid and mean unless you do what they say”.
To another, “Somebody who belongs to SSPX.
Click to expand...
Well for the sake of this topic, I am only speaking of those who hold onto EF Liturgy and who deny the papacy to some degree (be it the vacancy of the chair of peter or disagreeing with papal infallibility) and are officially in schism with the Roman Pontiff, of which sedevacantists are but one group, and SSPX are not as they are not officially in schism with Rome and recognize Francis as Pope of Rome.
 
CathBoy1 said:
This is what I’m interested in, do you mind telling your personal story?
What traditional group would you say you came from?
Click to expand...
Well, I must admit I was the extremist within a group of conservative Anglicans (ACNA), and have since found quite a like-minded temperament (of extremism) among the traditional Orthodox, such that after four and a half years of Orthodoxy I have begun to realize the fault lies in my own heart veering off into reckless places which so quickly and fickly loves the extremes of any element I am in. This is not a virtue, but rather a lack of discipline mixed with the juvenility of young adulthood.

All that being said, on the whole those who convert to Orthodoxy have to be extremists in a good sort of way to enter into the fullness of her spiritual heart, indeed Christians ought to be extremists in virtue, in dying to the world the passions and the devil.

As one Orthodox Mother Abbess once said to a novice: “In all things we need moderation, sometimes even moderation needs moderation.”

My fellow Orthodox brethren whom are mostly converts could be called “extremists” most of them have lived lives in endlessly sifting through various religions, Christians, Non-Christian, atheist, etc. or lifestyles to try and find the Truth. Then they meet Him in the Holy Orthodox Church and they stay.
 
Paul_Edwards said:
I can’t speak for the “old Catholic Church” because they even reject Vatican I which is a dogmatic council. I don’t understand why they’re not orthodox.
Click to expand...
It’s these exact groups that I’m talking about, I don’t understand why they didn’t just become EO.
Paul_Edwards said:
It’s not the same. Whether or not these traditionalists are right, the Orthodox church reject a number of councils which were Dogmatic in nature. On the contrary traditional Catholics accept all defined dogmas, and even the ones who accept the Pope as validly elected usually point out that nevertheless Vatican II never defined any dogmas (for example, never used the phrase “let him be anathema”).
Click to expand...
Your right groups such as Sedevacntists don’t believe that Vatican II declared any form of dogma, instead they believe that John XXIII & Paul VI through Vatican II created an entirely new religion, and as such Paul VI ceased being Pope and the Chair of Peter remains empty since all popes since Paul VI belong to this supposed “new religion” of Paul VI.

Here’s the problem that they create with their schismatic view:

They accept and believe Vatican I, and so accept and believe in Papal Infallibility and the Supremacy of the Pontificate, if this is true they then must admit that the Supreme Pontiff (John XXIII & Paul VI) has the power not only call for an ecumenical council (Vatican II) but also ratify it (making Vatican II infallible as are all ecumenical councils). By denying Vatican II, they in turn deny the supremacy and infallibility of the papacy, by denying Vatican II they themselves deny a:

ROMAN CATHOLIC ECUMENICAL COUNCIL.

I have made the distinction of calling Vatican II as a
ROMAN CATHOLIC ECUMENICAL COUNCIL because the EO only deny councils that, only Roman Catholics claim are ecumenical.

Long story short, by denying Vatican II a Roman Catholic Ecumenical Council ratified by the Supreme Roman Pontiff, the Sedevacantists put themselves in league with the EO (weather intentionally or not) by denying the same supreme and infallible papacy that they themselves claim to believe by professing a belief in Vatican I.

This is how in their act of schism, they themselves have ratified the EOC pov.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top