Why not Orthodox?

[OrbisNonSufficit]

This is literally why people are suspicious of Eastern Catholics. You guys take being Eastern first, as was pointed out on numerous occasions. To attend Orthodox Church is fine, to present idea there is no schism is fine, to not fulfill Sunday obligation is somehow fine. This is clear contradiction of unity of Church. Church is not Roman, nor Eastern, nor Latin- it is Catholic. Orthodoxy may have imperfect union in Church (which effectively still puts them outside of Church as was pointed out by V2 and the quoted document). I do not mean to say we should abolish friendly relations with Orthodox parishes, but to substitute them for Catholic ones can not bring good. It would be like Latin Catholic going to Anglican parish instead of Eastern Catholic, which would not be appreciated by anyone. East is not in union- Catholic Church is. West is not in union, Catholic Church is.

As for those people who leave your latinized parish and go to Eastern Orthodox one, that’s effectively making them true schismatics. There has lately, with all TLM and Eastern Traditional Catholics (idk what to call it sorry), been a running phenomena where people search for what is interesting, what is “more authentic” and what is more interesting, attractive etc… instead of living what they have on the fullest. We search for fancy liturgies, we search for “how it was before” instead of doing more beneficial things, like keeping unity of Church. This is true in both East (people going to Orthodox parishes) as in West (traditionalists who schism from Church). It is literally the same thing. Church has condemned it explicitly in the West therefore implicitly in the East. I understand there is this appeal of tradition, but “innovations” have been there since ancient times- Liturgies changed rapidly, rites were developed, then rites took from each other (latinization would count too, although forced elements are ofc wrong). To go for appeal of something different is very tempting, and I am guilty of such sin too, but we should value what we have and work with that, even if it isn’t perfect. To leave Church for such thing is simply wrong.

Like I stated multiple times, I still believe Eastern Catholics as they are are best example of union between Churches- not Eastern Orthodox, but Catholics. If we were not to isolate ourselves and split the Church, and let traditions benefit from each other, we would be much better off. While it is true that it was proclaimed duty of Eastern Catholics to live spiritual life according to their traditions, to make it appealing to Orthodoxy, in truth Christ’s Church is fully one holy apostolic and catholic. While union is our duty, it is not absolutely needed by any means necessary.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

In my understanding, in Eastern sense, communion means unity of faith because there was and is no upper hierarchy. If they do acknowledge our faith, they acknowledge it to be true therefore that is all fine. I would argue that same approach could be taken to any of Churches with Apostolic succession.

 

[Angel_Gabriel]

I’m a recovering Roman Catholic…let’s leave it at that. I also have OCD and find that the overly legalistic nature of the Western Church was hindering my relationship with God rather than helping it. Questions like these are triggers for someone dealing with OCD.

 

[ioannes_pius]

These dogmas are not “Latin dogmas.” They are Catholic Dogmas.

 

[ioannes_pius]

How can one be “outside” of the Church if one has valid Apostolic succession?

By refusing to be subject to the Roman Pontiff, which is necessary for salvation, and by obstinately denying an/multiple article(s) of The Faith.

 

[ziapueblo]

They have, especially recently.

ZP

 

[ziapueblo]

By refusing to be subject to the Roman Pontiff

Tell that to Major Archbishop Sviatoslav Shevchuk, head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church:

“We are an Orthodox Church, with Orthodox theology, Liturgy, spirituality and canonical tradition that chooses to manifest this Orthodoxy in the spirit of the first Christian millennium, in communion with Rome.”

Or Patriarch emeritus Gregorios III Laham of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church:

“We are an Eastern Church in communion with Rome and faithfully so, yet which wants to remain faithful to the pure, Orthodox spiritual tradition. I make bold to say that we are an Orthodox Church with the little or big plus of communion with Rome, with the Pope and our Holy Father Benedict XVI who presides in primacy and charity. Treat us as a real Eastern Church, just as you would the Orthodox on the day when the much longed for union takes place!”

I understand that your comment is about the Orthodox but these are Catholic Patriarchs I’ve quoted.

ZP

 

[Vonsalza]

In my understanding, in Eastern sense, communion means unity of faith because there was and is no upper hierarchy.

Pretty much the only real hierarchical difference is that the eastern primus lacks the ability to infallibly pronounce and the western primus supposedly can.

If they do acknowledge our faith, they acknowledge it to be true therefore that is all fine.

I would hesitate to make it about anything beyond communion. Keep the main thing the main thing.

It would be a similar solution to how The Troubles ended in Northern Ireland. Rather than have a big meeting where every little grievance and difference was addressed, both sides essentially said “We both stop now. Let the living live, the dead stay dead and we’ll go on from here in peace”.

 

[Salibi]

I have no idea. Perhaps it’s because the Syriac churches have each gone too far down their own paths to be able to go back again. In my opinion history and ethnicity also play a part. We Maronites for example have developed from a monastic community to an ethnoreligious group. We’ve developed a culture, built a country. The way we see it, the smaller Syriac Churches like the Syriac Catholics and Syriac Orthodox should be the ones being absorbed into the Maronite Church, but they understandably don’t want that. So, the split in Syriac Christianity persists. However, I know that sometimes Syriac Catholic priests are trained in Maronite seminaries, and I’ve heard of Syriac Orthodox priests being trained there as well. So the split is not that glaring. And I personally would feel quite at home in a Syriac Orthodox Church. ( Although I wouldn’t commune there because 1) The Orthodox don’t commune non-Orthodox, as far as I know, and 2) It doesn’t fulfill my Sunday obligation.)

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

We can not bury the truth to unite. We must unitr in truth. Unity without agreement on truth would be not only fragile but also sacrilegious.

 

[Vonsalza]

We can not bury the truth to unite. We must unitr in truth. Unity without agreement on truth would be not only fragile but also sacrilegious.

Benedict seemed to think that east and west already agreed sufficiently on the truth.

It seems the former head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (commonly referred to in shorthand as “The Holy Office”) and former pope would have much to learn from you, then.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

I did not say East and West did not agree on truth sufficiently, nor did I affirm it. I am simply stating necessity of it. I am not Pope, Cardinal nor Bishop to make such pronouncements.

 

[dochawk]

All seriousness, as an Eastern Catholic do you differentiate between grace & “less grave” sin like a western Catholic or is a sin a sin like Orthodox?

We don’t distinguish (nonetheless, you can find volumes by both EC and EO theologians on mortal sin ). There are four sins that get special treatment (striking clergy, murder, rape, and certain blasphemy).

Do you receive communion every week?

For far longer than it has been the norm in the RCC . . .

Do you feel obligated to attend Devine Liturgy every Sunday?

The notion of “obligation” is far different in the East and West. As sin is separation from God, not attending liturgy certainly has at least a stain. However, the obligation is more like our obligation to breath: it’s not about penalty of sin, but because you can’t survive without it.

The Divine Liturgy echoes through my mind and being through the week in a way the Mass never did. Even week away, even attending Mass instead on Sunday, and I’m wanting . . .

Have you ever confessed missing a Sunday service?

It is alway grossly inappropriate to ask about someone’s confessions . . .

 

[Mary888]

Maybe the answer for US is that OCA has a limited spread and finding a church that holds the liturgy in English is not easy for joining an EO church.
Another answer may be that certain OC in exile in the US are quite strict and they require baptism to let you in because they consider only the Orthodox baptism done with 3 immersions to be valid. And while some people love the idea of baptism and would go through catehesis to get one and become Orthodox others are discouraged and feel offended.

 

[dochawk]

That baptism bit has always baffled me, as does any time when the Orthodox are the ones insisting on something in the face of canon from a council (the other being using tables/calendars for Easter, rather than the astronomical calculation).

One baptism, even if by heretics, is well, kinda of Nicene Creed, isn’t it? Put there in resolution of Arian baptisms?

But I know that there’s at least one Orthodox Church (I forget which) which insists that baptism is into a particular church, and that even other Orthodox need baptism to join.

hawk

 

[Margaret_Ann]

You cannot be an Eastern Church and believe in the western theology of the Filioque.

I’m Ukrainian Greek Catholic, was baptized and chrismated with the Creed including the Filioque, professed it growing up and still use it in my prayers.

In 2004 the Archeparchy of Philadelphia officially said we will not be saying the Filioque in the Creed. Pentecost 2019 will be 15 years since we stopped saying it in the Creed.

I can’t shake the feeling that I’m not being faithful
to the Creed I professed through my godparents at Baptism.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

Wow. You just blew me away.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

My late father and I once had a spiritual discussion when he exclaimed in exasperation (this is the best I can remember) “Are you Byzantine or Roman?!?” I said: “I’m Catholic.”

I’m what you’d call a Latinized Ukrainian Greek Catholic. When we were growing up we used the little pew book “The Mass: Divine Liturgy” by Byzantine Seminary Press (it said "1965 - New Translation - sic!), had a quote of Pope St. Pius X , and had a transliteration of the Slavonic Angelical Salutation with the Hail Mary in English. It wasn’t until I started looking at my father’s molitovnik that I realized that the Hail Mary in English was NOT the correct translation of the Bo-ho-ro-dyt-se Dee-vo. (The same applies to the Slavonic Act of Contrition with the English translation of the Latin Act of Contrition.)

PJPII said that the Church must breathe with two lungs. I’ve grown up with both and love both my own Tradition as well as the Latin Tradition. Instead of pitting each Tradition against each other, why not embrace both?

 

[ziapueblo]

Instead of pitting each Tradition against each other, why not embrace both?

I agree, both traditions should be embraced. The important thing is for people to understand that while we share the same faith, East and West are different traditions and express the faith, have an understanding of the faith in a different way.

ZP

 

[dochawk]

It wasn’t until I started looking at my father’s molitovnik that I realized that the Hail Mary in English was NOT the correct translation of the Bo-ho-ro-dyt-se Dee-vo.

When the Pittsburgh Metropolia (fka Ruthenian) revised the Divine Liturgy a few years ago, they actually noted that a better translation of the Lord’s Prayer was possible. Particularly, that “Deliver us from evil” would be better translated along the lines of, “Deliver us from the evil one.” The older was kept because it has been the common usage among English speaking Christians since before the reformation.