www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Why are you Catholic and not Orthodox?

For us, who consider both churches as valid, despite not denying the apparent schisma of centuries old between them, envy the chance the byzantine catholics have to be able to receive sacraments both according to latin and eastern byzantine rite.

I don't really follow you. Latin Catholics are just as capable of receiving the eucharist in any sui iuris church.

Peter, I think he's referring to Orthodox brethren, in that we can commune with the 22 other churches, while they can't. At least, that's what I'm getting.

Yes, of course, If one sees my profile, being an orthodox, the way you understood me, Lester S, is correct.

Yes, but it just sounded a little strange that you said "envy the chance the Byzantine Catholics have to", rather than just saying "envy the chance the Catholics have to" etc. No big deal of course; I probably shouldn't have even said anything.

But I take your point: in Orthodoxy the Western Rite (WRO) is rare -- even in the USA, I'm guessing it doesn't exist at all in Albania -- so, in effect, there's generally only one "rite" that (most) Orthodox can receive the sacraments in.

Any Orthodox can receive in any other canonical Orthodox Church, of which there are fifteen last time I looked.

True -- I almost pointed that out myself; but I figured that Arbanon's post (the one Lester and I were responding to) was about liturgical diversity ("... both according to latin and eastern byzantine rite").

Among byzantine christians, those known as byzantine catholics, differed from those called orthodox on the point of unity towards Rome, are able, alongside cultivating their eastern byzantine tradition, to be in communion with Rome and its latin rite christianity, whereas the orthodox not.
Among the orthodox christians, those who do consider the roman church neither heretical, nor with invald sacraments, who simply accept the schisma as it is introduced, as a matter of fact and not of choice, and would have no problem to enjoy that common communion, envy that chance the byzantine catholics have.
It is not simply western rite that is missed, but western rite as it is lived through legitimate roman church and its head.

Usually it is simply the selfsufficing national christianity of many orthodox nations (especially greeks, serbs and russians), that keeps their orthodox members indifferent towards a neccessity of unity with Rome too.

I would like to care no less about Photius versus pope Nicholas conflict than did Cyril and Methodius, as did Peter of Antioch in the case of Cerularius versus Leo IX!

Don't idealize this communion. It has tended to work more in one direction than the other, and usually to the benefit of just one party. After all, until quite recently, Latin Catholics were not permitted to receive the Eucharist from Greek Catholic priests (Metropolitan Andrij had to get a special dispensation to give his parents communion when he was ordained a priest--and then he had to do so in private, after the Liturgy, using a presanctified Host consecrated by a Latin priest). Latin Catholic women were either forbidden or seriously discouraged from marrying Greek Catholic men (but not vice versa), and of course, serious restrictions were placed on the Greek Catholic Tradition outside the boundaries of the Ottoman and Russian Empires at the end of the 17th century.


Which "Western rite"? Old Roman? Romano-Frankish, New Roman? Ambrosian? Mozerabic? Gallic? Dominican?

And when do we Greek Catholics get to follow the Byzantine rite as it is lived through its own legitimate Mother Churches?

Just asking.

Hi again. Sorry if I misunderstood you earlier. From your latest post, this is starting to sound like a "Grass is always greener on the other side of the fence" thing. I would just echo what Stuart said a few hours ago:

don't underestimate the ex-communication between the Orthdox Churches from each other.

The 15 churches may be the Churches under SCOBA - there are others ... there are droves of Orthodox Churches who have ex-communicated each other.

Another thing I find very curious in the Eastern Catholics is the almost universal reverence they pay to the Coptic Orthodox which are ex-communicated from SCOBA (and MOST Orthodox churches) unless I am mistaken (3 ecumenical councils vs 7)

The Coptics are rarely criticized as if they have some basic secret and better religion ... they are farther from CATHOLIC than almost any other are they not?

I don't know anything about the Coptics (other than visiting their churches in Egypt) except from what I have heard about them - but they are NOT in union with anyone else as far as I can see.

Orthodoxy is not in UNION with each other in the same way that Roman Catholics understand UNION.

My point is Orthodoxy is as much an INSIDE JOB (how you live) as it is an affliation with an Ethnic Church or any church claiming to be in union through SCOBA or some other measure of union.

The Coptic Orthodox are not part of the Eastern Orthodox communion of churches, but it is not the case that they are not in communion with any other church. They are part of the Oriental Orthodox (non-Chalcedonion) communion of churches.

If orthodoxy were more an inside job, how one lives, then we can be sure we cannot talk about orthodox nations.
Not only do orthodox church members, in a vast majority, not live according to orthodoxy, but also in the same numbers they do not even know orthodoxy. It is mainly names, few costums and registers or connecting ethnical identity with the religious affiliation, that make them orthodox.

Why, when we can speak (albeit increasingly anachronistically) of "Catholic nations"? As for the rest of your critique, quite as true--if not more so--of Catholics as of Orthodox (or Protestants, for that matter).

I also defy you to name a time and place when this was not always the case.

Of course, it goes the same for the catholics, except that there is no point to mention it in here since it wasnt claimed.
On the other hand, we know that orthodoxy theologically tends and likes to see faith as an personal experience of the truth, and it is around this experience that unity is build on, while in the roman case unity is external, it's a communion with the pope.
The roman case is more sincere and historically proveable. The byzantine one is more theoretical, idealizing and historically contradicting!