www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Reasons for Choosing Between Churches

I now have a headache

Garaj

Well, thank God we have the Orthodox Church!

...

This isn't an attack on your Church, on the contrary, Im sad to see this video, believe me.

What do you want from us Orthodox when we see this? How do you wish us to react?

You can complain all you want, Roman Bishops don't have the will to discipline most of these violators for fear of "Disenfranchising" anyone. I have attended many masses with the local ordinary present and stunts like this performed in their presence and nothing comes of it.

I really hate to say this, but if no one complains, if your Pope doesn't correct this, then I recommend you become Orthodox.

Good suggestions Thanos - which one and how do I choose, the two jurisdictions of Oriental Orthodox in India have excommunicated each other and are in their 200th+ year of lawsuits, how do you suggest I choose?

Are you in India?
Go to the EO: Go to the Russian or Greek. Im neither, but I really advise it.
I would never accept that my Church or a branch or rite of it does anything like this.

Appalling.

If litigation is what prevents you from becoming Orthodox, I have a hard time seeing how you remain Catholic.

Obviously, such decisions should be made on the basis of the faith, not because of abuses of one sort or the other.

No Rev. Dn., it's a serious factor on which jurisdiction to choose, should I even consider such a move. It's a tremendous amount of baggage, especially with family/friends on both sides who are adamant and consider the other excommunicate.

Besides, when is the last time the Pope or one of the Eastern Catholic Patriarchs sued the Catholicos or another bishop over jurisdiction and parish property?

Going Russian or Greek is as foreign as Rome, more so actually since one can actually participate in a PaulineVI Mass in a native Indian language or even the rare TLM. How about the "Assyrian or Ancient Church of the East"?

How do you know for certain these "masses" aren't episcopalian or some other denomination?

Some are, many should be.

With respect, Michael, it really isn't.

On an official level, Antioch regards us as excommunicated, we do not regard them in that way. But both of us are in communion with all the other Oriental Churches, who recognise reality when they see it: these are two Orthodox jurisdictions having an internal dispute within the one local Church. Antioch may not always like that, but they have to deal with it now and then (e.g., the enthronement of Pope Tawadros II, where both Patriarch and Catholicos concelebrated with the Pope). It's politics. Privately, there is a lot of intercommunion, a lot of "turning a blind eye", a lot of winking and nodding, because people recognise this is silly, but feel powerless to do anything about it (the clerical culture is just one reason).

The real problem is that the people are largely ignorant of canonical tradition, ecclesiastical history, who's in communion with whom, and so on. Partisans on both sides chant slogans, organise protests, divide parishes with politics, and so on. Why? To carve out a niche...for themselves, for their cause, for their pride. A lot of nonsense happens there, and the people bear a lot of responsibility. At the same time, there are always shepherds willing to take advantage of it for career advancement, politics, power, etc. But if they're honest, they'll tell you a different story. I've spoken with Syriac bishops and Indian bishops from the opposing side: they tow the official line of their Synod, but privately their views are quite different. But "moderate" can get you hurt in some places, so fanatical are the people.

None of that has to do with the faith. It's all local politics, blown out of proportion. Once you make peace with picking one or the other side, if you do so, you'll begin to realise that it really doesn't matter (I say that as someone who chose my side and was not born into it). At least I think you specifically will realise that it doesn't matter which side you pick, because you're not a nutcase. There are "moderates" on both sides, but they are the silent majority. We need them to get a little louder, on whatever side. But most of all, we need them to live the gospel according to the Orthodox faith. You can do that on both sides because it's the one Church, even if we're temporarily divided because of our own stupidity.


My point was more about litigation in general. But let's be honest: bishops don't sue bishops, and patriarchs don't sue patriarchs, because not all bishops are created equal in the Catholic system. The particular nature of that inequality guarantees that internal matters don't get that far out of hand. But this is not the only way a diocese or Church can be sued.

Unfortunately, I am related to hardline clerics on both sides and would prefer to stay out of the melee directly and indirectly!

I agree with the bolded portion, but in a way the model where bishops can and do sue each other regularly, is an utter failure and prevents any real progress or teaching beyond the Constitution of 1934 and Supreme Court of India decisions. Its an upsetting reality. This is not to say we don't have other problems on this side of the pond, but that mess really needs cleaning before the next few generations leave nothing to sue over.
If, by lawsuits, you mean financial and sexual impropriety, let's just say that I personally know of one Catholic priest (gambling problem), but although far fewer in number I personally know two (possibly three) in either of the Orthodox side who are [not financial, although 2 of 3 are married] (and have been quietly moved by their bishop to prevent scandal - it's the open secret).

Basically, I agree with you. I'm not sure how many court cases are instances of "bishops suing bishops"--I think it makes a difference--but the fact that we have to go to the civil authorities to attempt to settle our internal disputes rather than resolve them within the family represents a significant failure.


Oh, I'm aware of that in general, and perhaps we have at least one of the same clerics in mind, so I wasn't trying to throw stones from my glass house (whenever I've had the opportunity to speak to "power", I've tried to advocate a better way of dealing with such situations).

My original post addressed "litigation" generally; all of us have to deal with that, unfortunately, so that shouldn't really factor into the decision to join/leave a Church.


I don't want to downplay the nature of that particular hornet's nest, but I still stand by my original point.

If you decide to join one or the other Malankara Orthodox jurisdiction, you should do it because you believe in the Orthodox faith. And if you believe in the Orthodox faith, either jurisdiction will suffice. You might deal with some nonsense, but our Lord never promised his followers a good time. He only promised the Cross.

But if it's too much, and you still believe in the Orthodox faith, you could join the Copts or the Armenians and be neutral on the Indian question. I admit it isn't ideal if you love our tradition, but faith transcends rite. Or, as another poster suggested, you could just go EO.

But the basis for such a choice must be your belief in the Orthodox faith. And if you have that conviction, it's hard to justify remaining in the Catholic Church. But if you believe in the Catholic faith, by all means remain Catholic and be the best Catholic you can be. It may prevent communion, but not friendship, cooperation, or service.

I'm not here to proselytise you or anyone else. I just think that the choice to stay Catholic or to become Orthodox should be made based on the faith, not on familial considerations, politics, convenience, escapism, etc.