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

[OrbisNonSufficit]

I was wondering why did Old Catholics not convert to Orthodoxy at the time. They even rejected Filioque later on. Of course, with women in clergy and tolerating homosexuality they can’t go Orthodox anymore. Our Orthodox brothers have certain standards and they just don’t meet them.

Sedevacantists tend to disagree with many Eastern Orthodox things… in their view Catholic Church persisted in those who call themselves Sedevacantists. They deny that Orthodox Church is true Church (some deny many Eastern practices too, but main point is that Orthodoxy does not hold to dogmas of Catholic Faith and neither does Vatican in their view) as much as they deny “Vatican II Church” to be Catholic Church. They would be closer to their perceived Church in Vatican II Church than in Orthodox Church in my opinion.

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.

I agree on some level… but in sedevacantist view any end every Pope is infallible! They just believe that current Popes are anti-Popes. Some believe that Pope was somehow uncanonically elected (Siri Thesis is prime example, google it if you want… it’s also called Pope in Red theory… but I suggest not falling for it as it’s clearly full of misinformation) because other man was already Pope… some say Pope was just uncanonically elected and hence is not Pope. Some say that Pope lost Papacy when he contradicted Faith (somewhat worse stance as then they judge Pope for heresy…). They oppose current Papacy but in exact opposite way Eastern Orthodox would. They basically say that if Vatican I really defined Papal Infallibility and we see Pope (or in their eyes , “Pope”) erring in Vatican II then logically that man can not be Pope because he is not infallible. That is their logic.

Just to be clear, I do not agree with sedevacantism at all.

On a similar note, I was wondering why didn’t traditional part of Anglican Church establish communion with Orthodoxy? What are doctrinal differences if there are any? At least historically that seems to be pretty obvious choice. Anglican Church removed Filioque in some parts as well afaik. Ecumenical Patriarch was even somewhat inclined towards recognizing their orders… and then everything stopped. I doubt Orthodoxy would have problem with Queen being Governor of the Church given their history with caesaropapism.

 

[CathBoy1]

Thanks for sharing your story brother.

indeed Christians ought to be extremists in virtue, in dying to the world the passions and the devil.

Amen, I couldn’t agree more.

When talking about these extremely traditional Christians that exist outside both the RCC and the EOC or OOC in small fringe churches, they just seem odd, it seems logical to think that they’re problems with the RCC should’ve sent them running into the bosom of either the EOC or the OOC, instead of creating some weird tiny church for themselves, it’s a real head scratcher that I’m trying to figure out.

As far as extremely traditional Christians that exist within both the RCC and the EOC or OOC, I think that everyone who claims to be Christian should be extreme about their faith, this is how saints are made.

 

[Jbrady]

I was wondering why did Old Catholics not convert to Orthodoxy at the time.

Whyever would they? At the time, they were mostly deeply in the West, both geographically, culturally, historically and religiously, whereas the Orthodox were far removed in every one of those aspects. Few Old Catholics would have met a live Orthodox Christian in their whole lifetimes, and vice versa.

Whatever you may think that would attract a nineteenth century dissident Catholic to Orthodox Christianity is beyond me. You might as well ask why they did not become Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist. At least they were familiar with Protestants and Jews. The others, like the Orthodox, were from a completely different world. Protestants were far, far closer and far, far more familiar.

The answer to your questions is that, other than rejecting the authority of the Pope, they had little else in common.

 

[CathBoy1]

Of course, with women in clergy and tolerating homosexuality they can’t go Orthodox anymore.

I absolutely agree, but again I highly doubt that those that originally fell into schism and formed the Old Catholic Church would agree with what is happening in their church today, and it’s those who originally denied Vatican I that I’m wondering about, it seems most logical to me that they would’ve fled to the EOC or OOC.

On a similar note, I was wondering why didn’t traditional part of Anglican Church establish communion with Orthodoxy?

I’ve often wondered why the king of England and protestant reformers (Martin Luther in particular) didn’t just turn towards Orthodoxy.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Traditional Catholicism and sedevacantism could never find a home in Orthodoxy. For openers, there is about a thousand years of doctrinal development and proclamation of dogma that is incompatible with Orthodoxy. There is also the little matter of rejecting the Roman Pontiff — SVs do not reject the papacy, nor the traditional Catholic conception of it as Vicar of Christ, they just maintain that the papacy has been vacant for as long as 62 years (and, mirabile dictu, there are scattered SV groups and individuals who go back even further than that!). If the papacy were ever to be “restored” according to SV expectations, they’d be the first to proclaim the excellence of their newly crowned Pontiff.

I watched a video once of a Catholic being received into Russian Orthodoxy, and he was specifically required to reject purgatory, the papacy, filioque, and so on. You will never have a traditional Catholic or an SV to do something like that.

And this is not going to come out right, no matter how I put it, but much of what I have observed among Orthodox seems to have just a touch (and sometimes more than “just a touch”) of a siege mentality vis-a-vis Catholicism — to the effect of “no, we’re not Catholic, we don’t want to be Catholic, we don’t even like Catholicism, we are the One True Church, end of discussion”. Really almost toxic, if you ask me. I feel as though — just for the sake of argument — if I were to become Orthodox, I’d be surrounded and constantly reminded of “how we got you out of all that nonsense and helped you finally to see the light”. Utter lack of respect. Maybe not all Orthodox are like this, but that’s been my experience.

 

[Bataar]

Most traditionalist likely believe that schizmatics and heretics won’t be saved and well…the EO are schizmatics.

 

[catholic03]

I watched a video once of a Catholic being received into Russian Orthodoxy, and he was specifically required to reject purgatory, the papacy, filioque , and so on. You will never have a traditional Catholic or an SV to do something like that.

Was it this one?

I have also seen it.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

I watched a video once of a Catholic being received into Russian Orthodoxy, and he was specifically required to reject purgatory, the papacy, filioque , and so on. You will never have a traditional Catholic or an SV to do something like that.

Was it this one?

Roman-Catholic priest converts to Orthodoxy - Orthodox Church

I have also seen it.

Yes, that was the one. I really almost could not even bear to watch this. In the objective order — I repeat, in the objective order — spiritual suicide. A faithful Catholic of lesser stoicism than mine would rightly burst into tears.

 

[catholic03]

The Russians are arguably more conservative so maybe it’s different with the Greeks and others.

It’s sad to watch. That channel is quite anti Catholic. It has other videos condemning Rome.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Whatever you may think that would attract a nineteenth century dissident Catholic to Orthodox Christianity is beyond me.

Because their dogmas and doctrine were practically the same. They even rejected Filioque later on. Other than using unleavened bread and different calendar, they were practically what Western Orthodox are now. I guess your point about them not being familiar with Orthodoxy explains it though.

I highly doubt that those that originally fell into schism and formed the Old Catholic Church would agree with what is happening in their church today, and it’s those who originally denied Vatican I that I’m wondering about, it seems most logical to me that they would’ve fled to the EOC or OOC.

I agree. Exactly my point.

I’ve often wondered why the king of England and protestant reformers (Martin Luther in particular) didn’t just turn towards Orthodoxy.

Well Lutherans practically met with Patriarch of Constantinople. @George720 has a link for article that described it I believe. Basically, Orthodoxy rejected 5 solas and Protestantism as a whole, and said they should convert to Orthodoxy.

I am not sure about English. Henry VIII needed to be perceived as Catholic for political reasons. Later on, Anglicans well full-protestant (which put them at odds with Orthodoxy). I was mostly thinking about High Church Anglicans or Episcopalians who would be closer to Catholicism when I was talking about them forming communion with Orthodox.

I watched a video once of a Catholic being received into Russian Orthodoxy, and he was specifically required to reject purgatory, the papacy, filioque , and so on.

Funny, since Filioque (“through the Son” as perceived by the East) is practically patrimony of Eastern Church. I always found that odd and anti-Catholic more than pro-Orthodox.

 

[Jbrady]

Because their dogmas and doctrine were practically the same.

Dogmas, yes. But doctrines, definitely not. There were a lot of differences at that level. And even more at the level of disciplines, customs and organization.

You are grossly underestimating the differences between Roman Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity. Despite an almost entirely shared doctrine, they have evolved to be very distinct churches in the last 1270 years, during which time they had little contact with each other, except during the Crusades when the differences were aggravated.

 

[CathBoy1]

If the papacy were ever to be “restored” according to SV expectations, they’d be the first to proclaim the excellence of their newly crowned Pontiff.

But how do they see the papacy being restored?

Also I get that they (SV) claim that they are carrying on the RCC of before Vatican II, but simply by denying Vatican II they also deny their belief in Vatican I, it logically follows that any Catholic that denies Vatican I ratifies the EO pov (weather intentionally or not) as I’ve shown in an above post.
It seems to me that if the SV’s stand back and take an honest look at themselves, they belong with the EO because they’ve only proven the EO pov correct.
To say that they are much closer to High Church Anglicans also seems wrong, because they hold to the RC belief in The Real Presence, as such the only churches that hold a valid Eucharist outside of the Catholic Church is the various churches of the east, so logically they would be suited to joining Orthodoxy.

Furthermore those that originally disagreed with Vatican I (Old Catholics) again weather intentionally or not, also have proven the EO correct in their schism, because denial of Vatican I denies a RC ecumenical council (as do EO), denies the supremacy of the papacy (as do EO) and it denies papal infallibility (as do EO) and again to say that they are much closer to High Church Anglicans seems wrong too, because they hold to the RC belief in The Real Presence, as such the only churches that hold a valid Eucharist outside of the Catholic Church is the various churches of the east, so logically they would be suited to joining Orthodoxy vs Anglicanism.

 

[CathBoy1]

Well Lutherans practically met with Patriarch of Constantinople. @George720 has a link for article that described it I believe. Basically, Orthodoxy rejected 5 solas and Protestantism as a whole, and said they should convert to Orthodoxy.

I don’t exactly disagree with Constantinople’s reasoning, IMHO protestants would’ve been far better off converting to Orthodoxy from the outset of the reformation, and if they wished to continue practicing western traditions (western liturgy), then perhaps something to the effect of western rite orthodoxy could have been formulated at that time possibly with the (name removed by moderator)ut of Martin Luther, I mean to my understanding Martin Luther’s views are very close to the EOC, albeit with a western leaning.
It seems to me that most forms of protestantism as they exist today, would be completely foreign to Martin Luther.

I am not sure about English. Henry VIII needed to be perceived as Catholic for political reasons.

Idk either, I wonder if there was any discussions whatsoever between between England during the time of Henry VIII and Constantinople?

 

[Margaret_Ann]

I’m horrified just looking at the picture.

 

[CathBoy1]

Can someone tell me why this topic is going to automatically close in 20 hours?

I’m not sure if it has been flagged or has broken forum rules, but that certainly was not my intention when creating this topic.

If I have broken any rules, can someone please point out which rule I have broken because I am honestly ignorant and do not wish to repeat my mistake in the future, thanks.

 

[dochawk]

Sometimes a topic that shows signs of turning to a dumpster fire gets a tighter clock put on it. Sometimes, if it doesn’t start veering off, that clock gets changed.

Other times, the usual suspects appear and throw gas on the fire, and it gets closed even earlier . . .

 

[CathBoy1]

Thanks @dochawk

 

[Dan_Defender]

You make good points. This is a good question and I do not know the answer. This question is up there with: why do Protestants only attack Catholics and not the Eastern Orthodox??

 

[HomeschoolDad]

The Russians are arguably more conservative so maybe it’s different with the Greeks and others.

It’s sad to watch. That channel is quite anti Catholic. It has other videos condemning Rome.

They may indeed be more conservative. I know the Russians and the Greeks are having a hard time hearing each other right now. I do know as well, that I visited a Greek Orthodox church one time (as part of their annual Greek Festival) and one of the laymen gave a talk about Orthodoxy. I asked him what it would take, from the Orthodox point of view, for the Orthodox and Catholic churches to reunite. He said “well, first of all, Rome would have to repent of this notion of the papacy”. I wanted to say “I’ve got a better idea — how about the Orthodox repenting of ‘this notion’ of not recognizing the papacy?”. But I held my tongue — I knew that such discussions are over before they ever start. Again, the Orthodox come across as a tad triumphalistic. We as Catholics in recent years have been told that triumphalism is a bad thing.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

I watched a video once of a Catholic being received into Russian Orthodoxy, and he was specifically required to reject purgatory, the papacy, filioque , and so on.

Funny, since Filioque (“through the Son” as perceived by the East) is practically patrimony of Eastern Church.

Say what?

I thought the Orthodox were virulently anti-filioque, viewing the Romans as heretics for having introduced it. As best as I’ve ever been able to understand it, filioque (“and the Son”) doesn’t sound quite right when translated into Greek, sounds like a double procession or something. Other than a few words, I don’t understand Greek, so I’ll leave it at that. Perhaps we might scrub filioque entirely, replace it with per filium, and be done with it. Would that satisfy the Orthodox?

I am quite confident that many divines, whose theological erudition is a barrel compared to my thimble, have pondered precisely this, and similar ideas, so I’ll back off now.

HomeschoolDad:

If the papacy were ever to be “restored” according to SV expectations, they’d be the first to proclaim the excellence of their newly crowned Pontiff.

But how do they see the papacy being restored?

They really don’t have a “game plan” for this. They would reply that they know what the problem is (as they perceive it), but they don’t know how to solve it. Some SVs propose assembling a conclave. A few scattered groups have done precisely that — think Pope Michael or “Pope Pius XIII” (Father Pulvermacher in Montana, requiescat in pace, not the Jude Law character).

Also I get that they (SV) claim that they are carrying on the RCC of before Vatican II, but simply by denying Vatican II they also deny their belief in Vatican I, it logically follows that any Catholic that denies Vatican I ratifies the EO pov (weather intentionally or not) as I’ve shown in an above post.
It seems to me that if the SV’s stand back and take an honest look at themselves, they belong with the EO because they’ve only proven the EO pov correct.

No, SVs regard Vatican II as having been no council at all. They do not deny Vatican I (which, as I have said elsewhere in these forums, was never officially ended, only interrupted), they just regard V2 as a “bogus council”, “robber council”, and possibly other florid expressions. SVs would not find much more of a home in EO than they would in the post-V2 Church to which they object. SVs regard themselves as simply Catholics maintaining the Faith and continuing what of the Church they can under the circumstances. Given enough time, SV could become “its own critter” (and may already have crossed that Rubicon), similar to what the Old Catholics are, but not EO. Totally different from EO.