Why not Orthodox?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Stuartonian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Stuartonian

Guest
Why Eastern Rite and not Orthodoxy? What I mean is: Eastern Rite has close theological similarities and practices to Orthodoxy it seems, so as Eastern Rite Catholics, have you ever considered Orthodoxy to be the truth. If so, did you convert to Orthodoxy or did you stay Eastern Rite? And what was your reason for doing either of those?
Now a question for converts from Orthodoxy. What made you convert to Eastern Rite Catholicism? If people take the time to answer this, I really appreciate any answers and would love to hear ever reason you put forth, but I am especially interested in what would have made you accept the Primacy of Rome? (Papal Supremacy, whatever you want to call it). Thank you!
 
I myself am a Latin Catholic, but I go to both Latin Rite and Byzantine Rite, as I like both a lot.
 
Orthodoxy is a true and correct Christian Church. They have valid sacraments, valid Eucharist, and valid Apostolic Succesion. I have great love for my Orthodox brothers and sisters. However, Orthodoxy, though correct in faith, lacks the submission to the See of Rome necessary to be the Church founded by Jesus. Please don’t forget what Jesus said to Peter about him being the rock on which His Church will be built.
I saw on another thread that you are feeling drawn to Holy Orthodoxy. I must caution you, however, (though by no means are you obliged to go by my word) that a Catholic who leaves the Church commits the sin of schism. Orthodox born into Orthodoxy, however, have no such sin staining their souls. I believe the Catholic Church has specific terminologies for this, although they escape me at the moment.( something about “material heresy”, rather than “true heresy”). Perhaps other posters know more?
I quite understand being drawn to the liturgies of the Orthodox, they are indeed so ornate and reverent. However, my own Maronite Church does not lack for liturgical beauty, and I cannot speak for the Roman Rite or any changes that had happened to it as I am not a Latin Rite Catholic, nor have I ever attended a Latin Rite Mass. ( So I don’t know nor can I comment on these changes that are making so many Roman Catholics dissatisfied for some reason).
Not sure if someone has directed you to this before, but have you ever considered the Melkite Church? It is a Byzantine Rite church in full communion with Rome, though a tad too fiercely devoted to maintaing their Byznatine-ness.
 
I am Catholic because, if a bishop is one amongst equals, I believe that gives him equal opportunity to teach false doctrine. Some Bishops have already caved in into contraceptives. You could argue that Catholic bishops have too, but, with a final say, Catholics know that contraceptives are definitely wrong.
 
Last edited:
so as Eastern Rite Catholics, have you ever considered Orthodoxy to be the truth.
Yes. Also, the Catholic Church considers the Orthodox to be true.
If so, did you convert to Orthodoxy or did you stay Eastern Rite?
As a Byzantine Catholic I often find myself on the fence. Bishop Nicholas Samra of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church has said if you are a Byzantine Catholic and not thought about becoming Orthodox you are doing something wrong.

ZP
 
However, Orthodoxy, though correct in faith, lacks the submission to the See of Rome necessary to be the Church founded by Jesus.
Submission?
though a tad too fiercely devoted to maintaing their Byznatine-ness.
What’s wrong with that? Popes since Leo XIII have asked us to return to our ancient ecclesiastical heritage.

ZP
 
Submission?
I don’t think this is necessarily bad statement or word. Submission to God, submission to Pope, submission to Bishop, submission to any authority is what defines Catholics. After all we obey even if everything seems wrong. We obey and we trust God to guide authorities.

Also I believe Salibi meant ecclesiology-wise. Returning to ecclesiology of Byzantium concerning Pope would be reviving sort of Gallicanism, going by theses of Germanos Adam that were condemned errors by Popes infallibly as well as Melkites. Doctrinaly speaking though, no one can nor should deny Leo XIII and his successors.
 
There’s a kind of double standard both in the theology of the Orthodox and the view of schism.

Apparently, it is fine for the Greek New Calendarists to call the Greek Old Calendarists Schismatics. And on what basis? Because the Greek Old Calendarists condemned the Greek new Calendarists for adopting the Papal menaion, the daily calendar.

Now the Greek anew Calendarists rightly call their condemnation by the Old Calendarists a schismatic act, because there was no due process to summon and try the New Cale diarist bishops, there was no orderly proceedings against them. The Old Calendarists simply declared they had deposed themselves.

And YET, this is the exact same approach the Orthodox as a whole took toward Rome.

Who summoned any Latin bishop to stand trial for heresy? Nobody. Who called the Pope on the carpet and in a way consistent with the canons anathematized a latin delegation?

Nobody. In fact, when was the Roman Church by NAME first anathematized?

1583 under Patriarch Jeremias II.

Then you get have to deal with the fact that every time union happens, it’s the Orthodox who break it up, so triple schism (1054,1274,1453).

Then you have to address the polemical idea that the sacking of Constantinople by The Muslims happened because of the capitulation to the Pope at the Council of Florence.

Really? Why not the fact that the Greeks didn’t stay faithful to the union? Why isn’t that a potential cause?

It’s all double standards and one-sided.
 
Really? Why not the fact that the Greeks didn’t stay faithful to the union? Why isn’t that a potential cause?
Florence was hardly an open council at all, since the Latins held all the cards, as well as the Greek delegation, who were not allowed to leave until they signed an agreement satisfactory to the Papalists. Father Robert Taft S.J., noting that even the pro-Latin Armenians rejected the union agreement, called Florence an exercise in “ecclesiacide”.

ZP
 
To imply Ecumenical Council of Florence was ecclesiacide might be bit too harsh considering it was guided by Holy Spirit. I’d also suggest that Emperor was one behind failure of Florence as he silenced his own theologians to get quick union- not lasting truthful union. There is a story about how Pope would say “we have accomplished nothing” when he saw Mark of Ephesus leave Council without signing documents. I don’t think Latins have done as much to limit Greeks as Greeks have done to limit Greeks.

What StAugustine said is that many Orthodox scources claim Sack of Constantinople happened because God punished those who accepted union, but nobody claims that it is because they did not stay faithful to it. Just a figure.
 
Bishop Nicholas Samra of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church has said if you are a Byzantine Catholic and not thought about becoming Orthodox you are doing something wrong.
How true, how true, wise bishop.
 
I am familiar, I have the book on the council of Florence from 1971 written by HTM, with the sorrowful epistles of Metropolitan Philaret of ROCOR.

I admit there was unfair treatment, but that didn’t really hamper the free exchange in debate. There was probably
Some manipulation occurring, externally, but many of the Greek fathers became convinced the Latins has a point. The Greeks really displayed their complete lack of familiarity with the patristic texts of the Latin Fathers. However, an accord was reached, and it was the east that didn’t honor it.

But even then it was confused. Look at the Greek Venetian Republic. Many hierarchy offered private letters of submission to Rome and invited the Jesuits to hear confessions and preach! Even the Athinite fathers had a school established by Jesuits in Athos. Have you read Eustratios Argentis by Met. Kallistos Ware?
 
I am borderline, but I lean towards remaining Catholic and participating fully in the spiritual works and life of the Byzantine Catholic church. If I am so blessed, I would love to officially change rites.

Regardless, my goal is to actively work towards authentic reunion between the Churches. I think that should be a common activity East and West.
 
I am borderline, but I lean towards remaining Catholic and participating fully in the spiritual works and life of the Byzantine Catholic church. If I am so blessed, I would love to officially change rites.
Good luck! May God give you happiness in Byzantine Church.
Regardless, my goal is to actively work towards authentic reunion between the Churches. I think that should be a common activity East and West.
What we need to remember is that we need unity in truth- not in contradiction. We need unity of God’s will. To make concessions is fine, but to destroy truth with it would not be. Simply speaking making Latin Church just another autocephalous primate of Orthodoxy would not work.
 
What we need to remember is that we need unity in truth- not in contradiction.
Benedict XVI of Rome (then Cardinal Ratzinger) wrote, “Rome must not require more from the East than had been formulated and what was lived in the first millennium.” The last three Popes of Rome have made similar statements. He, Ratzinger, also wrote, “Reunion could take place in this context if, on the one hand, the East would cease to oppose as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millennium and would accept the Catholic Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she had acquired in the course of that development, while on the other hand, the West would recognize the Church of the East as orthodox in the form she has always had.” Two important parts here. First, the East would recognize Western developments of the second millennium to be sound and second, the East is aloud to be East. No stipulations such as, “you have to believe in the filioque but it doesn’t have to be inserted into your Creed.”

ZP
 
East would recognize Western developments of the second millennium to be sound
No stipulations such as, “you have to believe in the filioque but it doesn’t have to be inserted into your Creed.”
Not particularly professing it, or having same view, but believing is true is practically required then. Trusting that Latin Church doctrine is true is first part.
 
Trusting that Latin Church doctrine is true is first part.
Sure, the Latin Church can formulate their theology who they please but we are Eastern Catholics do not have to adhere to Latin theology. When Vatican II told the Eastern Churches to return to what they are, which is Eastern, that means in all things.

ZP
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top