Why I am drawn to Orthodoxy in one word

[chrisb]

Very interesting. When Latin Catholic, I had an increasing sense that something was not right with the contemporary liturgy. After having attended only the ordinary form in my upbringing, I became aware of the TLM and attended several. I received a very odd series of reactions. For one brief second I realized that in this Mass the medieval and greater part of Latin tradition held together. St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Francis, St. Dominic, the greater part of Latin tradition through the centuries weaved through the Mass (hard to explain in mere words…). I had and still have a significant respect for the Tridentine Latin Mass. I also experienced a genuine feeling of coming across something lost that was present in my earlier life. I grew up in the eighties, after the implementation of the new form, but the feel of everything drew to mind the Masses I experienced in childhood. Doctrine and worship went together there (in the TLM), so it seemed to me. I never felt completely at home there, although I thought the rites beautiful and reverent. I felt comparatively more at home amongst the Ruthenians/Rusyns.

If anything ultimately undoes Rome as the infallible source of Tradition is the dismantling of Holy Tradition in the euphoric throws after Vatican II.

If only the TLM would have simply been translated into the vernacular and the Rome would have left their Theology intact they might have been able make the argument but not now… not after what they have done.

 

[Ghosty]

Are you confusing Liturgy with Theology here?

If I were to express why I am drawn to Orthodoxy in one word… it would be continuity.

Continuity of what? Of the Syriac tradition of Antioch which was dismantled in Eastern Orthodoxy and replaced with the Constantinopolitan tradition? Of a Liturgy which, while not having been altered much in the past couple centuries has undergone major modifications since Apostolic times (I highly recommend the works of the Eastern Orthodox Fr. Schmemann regarding this subject)? Of theology which has gone from Patristic mysticism, to Palamite, to Scholastic, and back again several times? Of moral theology which has gone from being completely anti-contraception to pro-contraception in a few decades?

What continuity are you speaking of, exactly? This seems to be a classic case of blinders, IMO.

Incidentally, I’m not bringing these things up to attack Eastern Orthodoxy; these same changes have occurred throughout the Catholic Communion as well, and that’s exactly my point. If there is continuity to be found in Eastern Orthodoxy, it is also certainly to be found in Catholicism.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

Ok, where avoidable I want to avoid giving offense, so let’s just say that lack of an explicit epiclesis of the Holy Spirit violates the principle of Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi that you ably stated a few posts ago. When dealing with the Third Person of the Holy Trinity, I believe explicit acknowledgement and praise is in order.

This may be your feeling, but it’s certainly not the order established by the Apostles, at least not as a requirement in the Liturgy. Some of the earliest Apostolic liturgies lack both the words of Institution AND the Epiclesis; both are liturgical developments, albeit nice ones.

What’s more, the lack of an Epiclesis wasn’t an issue for the Byzantines in the first millenium (the explicit epiclesis was dropped from the Roman liturgy long before the Schism, and was never brought up as an example of theological deviancy on the part of the West until much, much later). In fact, I would argue that this emphasis on the Epiclesis is actually more of a “Latinization” than anything, as it reflects the influence of the Western Scholastics and their insistence on a “magic formula” for making the Eucharist occur. In the West, this Scholastic emphasis was placed on the Words of Institution, while in the Scholastically-influenced East it was placed on the Epiclesis. The point is that both opinions are of High Medieval origin at earliest, and developed from the Western Scholastic approach to the Liturgy.

Peace and God bless!

 

[KingAlfred]

“Why I am drawn to Orthodoxy in one word?”

Security.

 

[LakaYaRabb]

Because the Church is a hospital. That tradition requires an authentically eastern monastic life. That monastic life was incorporated organically into Holy Orthodoxy. The monastic revolution is still present in the Holy Orthodox Church and there, the monks, the priests, the nuns, the servants of God, the bishops, patriarchs and metropolitans do not live on separate levels, but in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

 

[samcarter14]

Because the Church is a hospital. That tradition requires an authentically eastern monastic life. That monastic life was incorporated organically into Holy Orthodoxy. The monastic revolution is still present in the Holy Orthodox Church and there, the monks, the priests, the nuns, the servants of God, the bishops, patriarchs and metropolitans do not live on separate levels, but in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

The Eastern Catholic Church also has a monastic tradition. We fast, just as the Orthodox do, with the same disciplines, and our priest is actually a monk.

 

[LakaYaRabb]

with the same disciplines, and our priest is actually a monk.

Celibacy is common for your church, but not for Holy Orthodoxy. A major difference in discipline.

Monks usually live in a monasterys within the Orthodox Church. Monasticism is a way of life for the monks. As tiny as Orthodoxy is, monasteries are everywhere.

For Eastern Catholics, authentically eastern monasteries are almost non-existent. I don’t know of any. Maybe you could list some.

 

[Madaglan]

This may be your feeling, but it’s certainly not the order established by the Apostles, at least not as a requirement in the Liturgy. Some of the earliest Apostolic liturgies lack both the words of Institution AND the Epiclesis; both are liturgical developments, albeit nice ones.

What’s more, the lack of an Epiclesis wasn’t an issue for the Byzantines in the first millenium (the explicit epiclesis was dropped from the Roman liturgy long before the Schism, and was never brought up as an example of theological deviancy on the part of the West until much, much later). In fact, I would argue that this emphasis on the Epiclesis is actually more of a “Latinization” than anything, as it reflects the influence of the Western Scholastics and their insistence on a “magic formula” for making the Eucharist occur. In the West, this Scholastic emphasis was placed on the Words of Institution, while in the Scholastically-influenced East it was placed on the Epiclesis. The point is that both opinions are of High Medieval origin at earliest, and developed from the Western Scholastic approach to the Liturgy.

Peace and God bless!

Two questions regarding the epiclesis in the Roman liturgy:

1. Why was it dropped in the first place?
2. Why was it re-introduced in an explicit form (in the Novus Ordo)?

 

[BPW75]

The grass is often greener on the other side.

 

[bobzills]

Catechism states:
815 What are these bonds of unity? …
…

• profession of one faith received from the Apostles;

This is where I would have a question as to the unity of faith held by Catholics. It appears to me that there is serious disunity among Catholics on the following issues:

1. Whether or not it was a mortal sin to vote for Obama. There were several posters here on CAF who inisisted that it was a mortal sin to vote for Obama. And they have quoted various priests and bishops to support their point of view. However, there are bishops and priests who say no, it was not a sin to vote for Obama, if you voted for him with the intention of ending the war in Iraq, for example.
2. Should Catholics try to convert E. Orthodox to Catholicism? Since there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, and becasue of statements from the Council of Florence, some Catholics say that the E. Orthodox are heretics and there should be an attempt to convert them to Catholicism, whereas other Catholics say no.
3. Is the Old Law salvific for the Jews? Cardinal Kasper says it is, but CAF people say it is not.
4. Which is higher: an Ecumenical Council or the Pope?
5. There are two different creeds. According to one, said in the RCC, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son. Whereas according to another, said in Eastern Catholic Churches, the Holy Soirit proceeds from the Father.(period).
6. Some Catholics say that capital punishment is justified, whereas others say no.
7. Is slavery permitted according to the natural law? Some say yea, others, no.
8. Should Catholics believe in limbo? yes or no?
9. What is the suffering of the souls in Purgatory. Some are teaching that it is an instaneous cleansing, and then the soul goes to heaven, whereas others say that the fires of purgatory are the same as the fires of hell, and that the souls will be tormented for extended periods of time.
   And there are other questions which show a serious disunity of faith.
   So to the original question, in one word, the disunity in Catholicism, may be a reason why some people are attracted to E. Orthodoxy.

 

[Alethiaphile]

Continuity of what? (snip) Of theology which has gone from Patristic mysticism, to Palamite, to Scholastic, and back again several times? Of moral theology which has gone from being completely anti-contraception to pro-contraception in a few decades?

First of all, I’m not convinced there is a big discontinuity between “Patristic” and “Palamite” theology. Certainly there is a development there, but it seems to me an authentic, or to use Newman’s terminology, “organic” development.
Second, while scholastic theology certinly made some inroads on Orthodoxy in the form of some Patriarchal prononucements and the (non-ecumenical) Council of Jerusalem, I don’t think it can be fairly said that it dominated Orthodox theology as a whole for any length of time, please tell me if you think differently.
As for contraception, surely Ghosty you overstate when you say the Orthodox are “pro-conception” now. Come on.
Certainly I don’t think there is the perfect continuity and consistency in Orthodoxy that some apologists maintain.
But, tell me one dogmatic pronouncement of an ecumenical council or what was once a central teaching in Orthodoxy that has changed. I’m honestly not aware of one.

 

[Madaglan]

…As for contraception, surely Ghosty you overstate when you say the Orthodox are “pro-conception” now. Come on.

No thanks to condomoron!

 

[Alethiaphile]

As for contraception, surely Ghosty you overstate when you say the Orthodox are “pro-conception” now. Come on.

I meant “pro-contraception”, obviously.

 

[dvdjs]

As tiny as Orthodoxy is, monasteries are everywhere.

For Eastern Catholics, authentically eastern monasteries are almost non-existent. I don’t know of any. Maybe you could list some.

“As tiny as Orthodoxy is…” I take that as meaning you are perhaps thinking in particular about the US?

Here is a neat website that is fairly up to date (they have the Weaverville group in place).

orthodox-monasteries.com/us/

It lists 98 monasteries in about half of the states (everywhere ). The site includes both men’s and women’s monasteries, as well as monasteries of Oriental Orthodox and some fringe groups.

I don’t know of a similar site for Eastern Catholic monastics. But the number of monastics are tabulated and published annually. In the last publication there were 156 male and 276 female Eastern Catholic monastics in the US. I hazard a guess that the number of EO versus EC monastics are roughly proportional to the number of priests and deacons, or faithful.

Your lack of knowledge of authentically eastern catholic monasteries is not probative of anything. You should first detail the salient characteristics “authentically eastern monasteries”, and determine the fraction of the 98 Orthodox monasteries that can claim that distinction, before you make claims about non-existence of authentically eastern Catholic monasteries - especially claims justified merely by “I don’t know of any”.

While some EO groups consider monasticism as the reference point of Christian life - as stated by Pope Joan Paul II in Oriental Lumen - other jurisdictions in the US have no monasteries at all. The interest in monasticism in US orthodoxy is more renovation than continuity.

 

[LakaYaRabb]

“As tiny as Orthodoxy is…” I take that as meaning you are perhaps thinking in particular about the US?

There are only about 350-400 million Orthodox Christians worldwide. In the US, there are only roughly 1.5 million.

The last statistic I heard on Roman Catholics was nearly 70 million.

From the statistics released by www.cnewa.org it appears that there are roughly 700,000 Eastern Catholics in the U.S.

Since the US is 300 million plus, 1 or 2 million is tiny.

It’s pretty amazing to me that the Orthodox Church in America, which only is estimated at 40 to 90,000 members has 15 or sixteen monasteries in the US.

I hazard a guess that the number of EO versus EC monastics are roughly proportional to the number of priests and deacons, or faithful.

You have already provided a resource for Orthodox monasteries. Maybe you could list some Eastern Catholic Monasteries.

Your lack of knowledge of authentically eastern catholic monasteries is not probative of anything. You should first detail the salient characteristics “authentically eastern monasteries”, and determine the fraction of the 98 Orthodox monasteries that can claim that distinction, before you make claims about non-existence of authentically eastern Catholic monasteries - especially claims justified merely by “I don’t know of any”.

An authentically eastern monastery is a monastery within the Holy Orthodox Faith and Tradition.

I’m not even sure what an “Eastern Catholic” monastery really is. Maybe you could explain that first.

 

[Catherine_Grant]

Note from Moderator:

The topic of Eastern Catholic monasteries is able to stand independently and potentially large enough to merit its own thread. Would you please start a new thread to discuss it, and if you wish link to that thread here?

May God Bless You Abundantly,
Catherine Grant
Eastern Catholicism Moderator

 

[bkovacs]

Well, God could certainly be drawing you there.

The Catholic and Orthodox Churches are very similar in faith and worship.

Can you explain what you mean by a “sublimity…in faith and worship”?

SUBLIMITY: lofty, grand, or exalted in thought, expression, or manner b: of outstanding spiritual, intellectual, or moral worth c: tending to inspire awe usually because of elevated quality (as of beauty, nobility, or grandeur) or transcendent excellence​

I have not met a person of Orthodox faith, have not seen an Orthodox church, etc. To me, it seems hidden and not a very visible “pillar of truth” as the Catholic Church is.

Maybe Eastern Catholic, or Roman Catholics who celebrate the Tridentine rite (Extra Ordinary Form). Roman Catholics (the majority) that celebrate the Novus Ordo (Ordinary) Mass. Far from it!. The worship is more common to Protestant Anglican or Lutheran than the Divine Liturgy.

 

[Triciacat]

I have not met a person of Orthodox faith, have not seen an Orthodox church, etc. To me, it seems hidden and not a very visible “pillar of truth” as the Catholic Church is.

“For the gate is small, and the way is narrow that leads to life, and few are those who find it.” (Matthew 7:14)

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

“For the gate is small, and the way is narrow that leads to life, and few are those who find it.” (Matthew 7:14)

out of context.

 

[Triciacat]

out of context.

How so?