www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West What would make you Orthodox?

Moronikos,

Considering the ill-feeling Catholics and Orthodox have for one another, our tiny flock is blessed to be out of the mainstream ( and maelstrom of hate) and merely in union with the Patriarch of all Patriachs, Christ Jesus.

Blessings along the Way,

Abdur
Patriarchate of Calvary/Golgotha
(The only infallible patriarchate.)

Christ is Born!

Blessed Feast to all.

I do not know what "ill feeling" other people have experienced. But my experience has been quite the different.

I have so many Eastern Orthodox friends, and have never experienced or encountered any such feelings. The local clergy I know are all so respectful, and I count them among my friends and brothers.

If others have experienced something different, I am so sorry! I pray that the Prince of Peace and the Lord of Lords will grant the gift of that peace the world does not give, that peace which is his will for his holy Churches especially as we celebrate his holy birth.

Christ is Born!

If they broke Communion with us.

No wait.

If the Latins broke Communion with us, still I want to remain in Communion with them. Just as we are open to Communion with our Orthodox Sister and Mother Churches, who do not feel they are able to reciprocate at this time.

Herb

With all due respect, I can't help observing that yet another self-appointed Magisterium of One has spoken. :p

Sorry, but I think I'll stick with the time-tested Magisterium appointed by Jesus Christ, thanks all the same.

My own reading of history leads me to believe that papal infallibility, far from being untrue, is a Truth given by Jesus Himself and handed down to us through the Depositum Fidei, elucidated gradually over the centuries but implict from the very outset.

As Byzantine Father Hal Stockert notes, PI is a crucially necessary protection for the faithful, not a papal power-grab.

May God grant you light to see this!

ZT

Magesterium of one? No...no, that won't do. Moronikos is simply professing the same Orthodox faith--consensus of faith--adhered to by 250 million Orthodox Christians.

And there certainly is a higher degree of unity of faith among the Orthodox than among other Christians, including Catholics.

Christ is Born!

Abdur

And Zoe is simply professing the same Catholic Faith--consensus of faith--adhered to by over one billion Catholic Christians.

I completely disagree with this. Even the Orthodox will admit they have suffered much more fractionalism and division than Catholicism.

ChristTeen287

And Zoe is simply professing the same Catholic Faith--consensus of faith--adhered to by over one billion Catholic Christians.

Of course, the assumption here is that all one billion Catholics (presumably, this number was determined from baptismal records or something like that, and not some sort of census, or else I'm sure we'd have heard about it) are "really" Catholics; that is, they believe all that the Catholic Church teaches as true, practice the faith, etc. I wonder if we can really say this is the case, at least in a country where the numbers seem to say otherwise, at least with respect to the Eucharist, artificial birth control, and Sunday Mass/Liturgy attendance.

I completely disagree with this. Even the Orthodox will admit they have suffered much more fractionalism and division than Catholicism.

Ah, but what kind of fractionalism and division? In the Orthodox Churches, at least in the Eastern Orthodox ones, I see "doctrinal" divisions arising out of "disciplinary" ones. For example, the adopting of certaom calendars led to all sorts of accusations of heresy, schism, "ecumenism", etc. In the Oriental Orthodox Churches, there is only one really significant occurance of that sort of thing, and it is in India; otherwise, we tend to live in peace with each other and share the same faith. Within Catholicism, however, at least as expressed in this country, you have the Traditional Latins, the Orthodox-leaning Eastern Catholics, the Call To Action types, the "neo-cons", and everyone else under the sun saying their own thing, but all nominally under Rome. The "TradLats" can defend the Filioque and demand its use by all, while the Orthodox-leaning EC's want to return to the ancient usage, the Call To Action types want to seize on all sorts of heretical/immoral/whatever things and bring them into the Church, the "neo-cons" tend to follow whatever the present Pope has to say without reference to anything else whatsoever (my experience with a good number of them, anyway), and in the end, what you have is a bunch of different voices, with different expressions of the faith, sometimes conflicting; hardly my idea of unity. I think both Churches, Catholic and Orthodox, suffer from this sort of thing, but I think it is not accurate in the least to say this sort of thing is more of an Orthodox problem than a Catholic one.

Yes, that's very true Mor. Like any rational person would know, not all one billion Catholics adhere to Catholic dogma and willingly disobey Church teachings, thus rendering them not truly Catholic.

I'm sure this would apply to the 250 million Eastern Orthodox as well.

So perhaps this little side discussion has been meaningless from the start, for it is useless to say "one billion" or "three hundred million" or whatever to describe either Church, when the true population of the Church depends not on baptismal records, but believers.

No you don't. The SSPX, Sedevacantists, and other schismatic traditional Latin groups are not part of the Catholic Church, they are just that: schismatic.

In my original post, I did not mean the SSPX and other schismatics. I meant the FSSP/indult crowd. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

"Orthodox-leaning Eastern Catholics" still adhere to the doctrines and dogmas of the Universal Church and believe the same thing the Romans do, albeit in a very different way.

And sometimes in a way you find terrible difficulty with, no? I know that, at least once in the past, we have been on the same side of just such an issue, and found it hard to reconcile given "the facts".

To make a long story short, Catholics who willingly disobey Magisterial teaching or puposely disregard Church doctrine are not Catholic at all.

No argument there. We'll just have to find better ways of keeping track of true members.

I'm not trying to be disagreeable, but in the end you have one Voice, the Voice of Christ through His Vicar on Earth and the bishops in communion with him, speaking authoritavely for the Church.

These "sometimes conflicting different expressions of faith" do not conflict, because those that do are outside Catholicism.

But what does it mean when we say such people are "outside Catholicism" if they are in many ways "inside Catholicism" anyway? I'm not trying to be disagreeable either, but it seems there is a contradiction here.

If a Latin is a member of Call To Action, and thus believes that women should be ordained, homosexual behaviour, abortion, and artificial contraception should be approved, and other such things (I'm not clear on what they believe, so if I'm wrong, substitute their correct ideas), he is considered "outside Catholicism". But he is not necessarily barred from the sacraments, at least not by those responsible for the safeguarding of the sacraments -- perhaps he is banned by his conscience, but not by the clergy, for the most part (so it seems to me). Only in the diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska (I think) are members of Call To Action actually excommunicated. Is it safe to say that only in that diocese are the clerics serious about their sacramental responsibilities? Or is it safe to say that, in the end, it doesn't always matter what you believe as long as you are "under/in communion with Rome"? I don't know the answer to that anymore, although I once thought I did. If the first case is true, then that is very wrong. If the second is true, that is also very wrong.

I have heard of cases of Catholics divorcing and re-marrying without going through the "annulment" process; such people, if I'm not mistaken, are barred from the Eucharist, and with good reason: they are living in an adulterous state. Yet, I see priests place signs in their parish churches asking for prayers "for the ordination of women", and the bishop has no problem with this; indeed, he told a religious sister I know that he had no problem ordaining women, and would do it now, except that Rome would give him a few problems about it, or words to that effect. I hear stories about churches which use invalid matter for the Eucharist; one friend told me about going to church and drinking "something that definitely wasn't any kind of grape wine" from the chalice. Another friend went to confession to confess mortal sins (I "heard the confession" before he went, since he needed some assistance) and afterwards told me the priest didn't use the "regular" form of absolution he was used to -- turns out there was no "valid" absolution, at least from the Roman perspective. I could go on, but I'm sure you are familiar with situations like these, since I'm sure you've been hearing of these things in your studies of Catholicism for some time now. I know that in seven years, I've heard more than I ever wanted to know.

Perhaps, since we are both "outside Catholicism" at this point, our having such a discussion is inappropriate; we don't have the inside scoop. But there are facts, and for about seven years, I've been exposed to all sorts of things, good and bad. I used to think like you presently do, but, in my experience, as time goes on and you learn more, you begin to realise that reality isn't always as rosy as you thought it was.

In Eastern Orthodoxy this is not so easily solved because each Church is equal to one another and, since each of them have different standards/practices/prohibitions, you can't be "not Orthodox" if you don't agree with, say, the ROCOR, because you can agree with Orthodox Church X and still be perfectly fine.

Theoretically, anyway, each Catholic Church (remember, there are 22 sui iuris Churches) is equal to the others, and each of them has different standards, practices, and prohibitions. You can't be "not Catholic" if you don't agree with the Latin Catholic Church because you can agree with the X Catholic Church and still be perfectly fine. A Roman Catholic is no less Catholic than a Syrian Catholic by following the "no meat on Lenten Fridays, fast on Ash Wednesday/Good Friday" rule, even though the Syrian has to do much more than that, for example. Your statement above, therefore, is meaningless, since it applies to Catholicism as well. Perhaps we're not as different as we think. :p

The FFSP/indult crowd do not demand the use of the Filioque by all.

I'm not trying to be ignorant, but I don't know when I've disagreed with a true representation of the doctrines or teachings Orthodoxy in communion with Rome. If I have it certainly has been disciplinary and not theological.

But they're not inside Catholicism. I may be a little confused here, would you clarify?

True.

Yes they are. Once you have purposely hold heretical views, you are not admitted to the sacraments. For example, those who even assist with an abortion are automatically excommunicated, but the priest has no way of knowing whether the communicants are indeed heretics are not. If they take communion when they are excommunicated, they are only bringing destruction upon themselves.

Additionally, if the first argument doesn't hold water, even some non-Catholics are admitted to communion (i.e. Eastern and Oriental Orthodox.)

I believe that members of these groups who nurture, speak of, or spread these heretical views are automatically excommunicated anyway, thus no need for a formal excommunication by the diocese.

I may be wrong here, though.

Hmmm...he could try, but it would be unsuccessful. There Church does not have the power to ordain women if it She wanted to.

Frankly, I've forgotten what I'm even arguing about. It can be said that there are as many pluralities of opinions in Catholicism as in Orthodoxy, but through it all the is a clear voice that proclaims the Truth. It doesn't matter what the others say because the Church has spoken authoritatively for Herself.

My point is (maybe this wasn't even my original point) is that this seems not the case in Eastern Orthodoxy because each Eastern Orthodox Church, all of which are equal and canonical, are proclaiming totally different things, whereas all the Catholic Churches must, by nature, proclaim the same things because there is One Voice that is not subject to a Particular Church but speaks for all.

I'm not saying that Catholicism (or Eastern Orthodoxy, or Oriental Orthodoxy) is all cute and snuggly. It isn't. I know about the abuses in Catholic parishes. It's saddening that the Church hasn't cleaned it up so soon, but I believe the situation is improving. However, even if the situation were becoming worse, it really wouldn't phase me. Liturgical abuses don't make me think twice about the authenticity of the Church...should they?

But they hold to the same doctrines (contraception, etc.) and there is a plurality among the Orthodox with regard to these doctrines. How is one supposed to know which is correct? How do I know whether contraception is wrong or not?

Well, we're both Apostolic Christians with a love for Christ and a respect for Tradition, how different can we be?

ChristTeen287

I would like to chime in by saying that I was on my way to converting from Catholicism to Orthodoxy. I had reached the catechumen stage, but came to the conclusion that I was doing it for all the wrong reasons. I was upset by the scandals in the Church and was running away, even though in my heart I knew that Catholicism is true. I also saw some things in the Orthodox parish I was to join that I was uncomfortable with, but that isn't the reason I have decided to remain Catholic. I will be returning to my old parish tomorrow and am looking forward to coming back home.

In Christ,
Anthony

Many times it seems people lose faith in the Church because of things like the scandals and the like. Sometimes I'm surprised to see people so easily abandon the Faith (I'm not pointing you out, Anthony...welcome back!) The Church has always had major problems since its very onset. In fact, the Church Herself teaches that She will not become perfect like her Bridegroom until the ending of the world. Christ didn't promise that the gates of Hell wouldn't wage war against the Church (in fact He implied the opposite), He simply promised that they would not prevail against Her.

ChristTeen287

What keeps me from going back to Catholicism or becoming Orthodox is know-it-all converts and wannabe converts who have all the answers in black and white. From what I have studied in moral theology, there is a lot of gray between black and white and that is where most people fall in moral issues. That is why we have spiritual fathers and mothers, to help us discern what to do in those gray areas. That's also one of the important things about having our babas and babcias and yayas or whatever they are called in our various ethnic traditions....they'll tell you if you are doing right or wrong, but at the same time with an understanding heart. I've yet to meet a convert of any stripe who can do that. And if I remember correctly, once the Latin theologian Aquinas wrote in reference to the Sacraments something that applies to all theology: "God is not bound to the Sacraments" meaning that God's grace is not bound up with rules, the CCC or even the scriptures, it goes where it wills. Thus you may have a homosexual couple who because of their great love (remember a little word of Jesus, "those who love much, much will be forgiven"?) may receive just as much grace as a couple with a papal blessing. That someone who never darkens a church door may receive just as much grace as the convert who is there every time the door opens. WE CANNOT KNOW THE MIND OF GOD AND WHO DOES AND DOES NOT PLEASE HIM!!! The greatest harm to the Church is not the priests who created scandal or the bishops who hid them, the greatest harm to the Church are self-righteous know-it-alls who have to define everything in black and white and rush in where even angels fear to tread. And by the way, the only one who can say someone is excommunicated is a bishop, and unless they have pronounced sentence, declaring them a heretic, they are Catholics in good standing...even members of groups that may be as distasteful as Call To Action. And even someone who is excommunicated is still a member of the Church. And furthermore, Aquinas also taught that one was obliged to follow his or her conscience even should it cause that person to be excommunicated. So be careful about who you label heretical.
Anamchristi

Amen, ANam!

Thanks for speaking for people who do not fit into the neat categories others seem to love so much!

May I ask your religious affiliation?

This may or may not be true; I am not learned or experienced enough to know.

I agree.

As you yourself point out, I wouldn't know, and neither would you.

No one ever said it's up to humans to decide who does and who does not have God's grace. I would never encourage such judgement.

Nope.

Not who, but what. Of course we can know what does and does not please God, as much as the Holy Spirit has revealed to us. If we didn't know, then we would have no sense of right and wrong except by our often-flawed consciences. What one person thinks is right another thinks is gravely wrong.

I'm sorry, Anam, this is simply false. There are acts which incur automatic excommunication. Every Catholic theologian will tell you that.

I could agree with that. Look at St. Jeanne D'Arc. God is the judge of our souls and why someone was excommunicated. Someone who is in the right should have no fear of excommunication, for God will not forsake them.

I haven't labeled anyone heretical. But I have named heretical acts. I follow the teachings of the Church with which I agree. I'm not here to please you, Anam, so if you disagree please have the decency to be cordial about it.

ChristTeen287