www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Breathing With Both Lungs

With your understanding as you have amply demonstrated here in your diatribe. In my opinion. based on your response, it set you on the wrong course. There is an approach that I have observed -- in the BBC especially -- that would have it that we demonstrate how Eastern, or even Orthodox, we are by disparaging the West. I believe in a different path, for instance:

A Failure of our Church ? link 1 , also A Failure of our Church ? link 2

There is a large area of agreement but not total. If all that is required is an Eastern articulation of theology one can dispense with the West and even more so if not in communion with the West. So the presentation that results is one sided: Here is the worst of plodding Western, Catholic theological opinion and here the purity and eloquence of the Orthodox faith -- now choose. As you put it.:

So you're not a two lung guy; that they all may be one then, choose "a side" of the Body of Christ, the one with the lung. I say again:

Keep looking in that mirror.

I'm Eastern Catholic "Ruthenian" (but from the other side of the Carpathian mountains by birth and law), grew up in the Latin church but with Eastern exposure.

Having read this article now, I have some pretty significant issues with other aspects of it as well as the quote you've highlighted in the OP. To whit:


I am very certain that for someone like, say, Saint John Chrysostom who dedicated tremendous time and effort to codifying the Divine Liturgy, those blessings, bells, incense, vestments etc. are pretty bloody important. To claim that the "external" is somehow trivial is to say that Sacraments are, deep down, trivial. It is to say that wedding bands are trivial. It is to say that Icons are trivial. They are not trivial since their external signs reveal to our sinful eyes the great reality which they contain themselves--realities which we, in our weakness, could never grasp. These are extremely useful helpmates in our path to theosis, not mere ornamentation, decoration and triviality.

I was impressed by your confession.

Thomas Merton says that if we want to bring the divided Churches together we cannot do so by imposing one (set of doctrines) upon the other because this would not work. It would be political rather than spiritual. But I don't see if Thomas Merton is suggesting how this is to be done. In my opinion, there must be a way that the Orthodox Churches and the Eastern and Western Catholic Churches can COOPERATE with each other, regard each other as TRUE AND VALID APOSTOLIC CHURCHES, and begin to SHARE EUCHARIST and Divine Liturgies.
Signed by: Anaphora, July 30, 2019

Several things come to mind in reviewing this thread:

1. The Filioque was added to the Creed over and above the objections of Pope Leo III, who had it engraved on silver tablets and placed in the tomb of St. Peter [bold]without the Filioque[/bold]. In addition, not one but two ecumenical councils of the united Church, East and West, pronounced anathema on anyone who would tamper with the Creed. Apparently, that was of little concern to Charlemagne and the Frankish bishops who pushed this through.

2. Roman Catholic theology is in a great deal based on the theological and anthropological musings of Augustine, who not only had a very pessimistic view of mankind and our relationship to God (the "massa damnata") but whose writings are beloved by heretical Presbyterian Calvinists. Oh! Am I not supposed to say the word "heretic" here? Sorry. They are heretics. End of discussion.

3. Roman triumphalism, which began with the Papal Reformation of the eleventh century, has been at times extremely violent towards the East, as in not only the Sack of Constantinople in 1204, but the most recently activities of the Ustashi during WWII and the cooperation of the Roman Catholic Church with any governmental form which would attack and destroy Orthodoxy. Is this the kind of action that is founded in the work of the Holy Spirit?

4. Breathe with both lungs? How? A cannot be B and A cannot be Not A. Either Mary was immaculately conceived or She was not. Either baptism should be by threefold immersion, as done in the Early Church, or it should not. Either communion bread should be with leaven, symbolizing the Resurrection of Christ, in wine warmed with warm water, symbolizing the warmth of a living body, the Resurrected and living Christ, or it should not.

5. Either the Church is the "pillar and ground of truth" as the Scriptures state, or one single man, the Patriarch of Rome, is. Interestingly enough, every single heresy which started began with the opinion of a single man, from Arius right up to Calvin. If the Church is the pillar and ground of truth, then papal infallibility is not.

I could go on and on, but why? The Unia was a thinly veiled attempt to bring Orthodox under the submission of Rome, and subsequent actions by the Roman Church showed their true intention, especially here in the United States. This is not to attack individual Roman Catholics who most likely are not fanatics like I am and therefore have not studied deeply the history and theology of both sides, therefore not coming to understand the who complexity of this rift and who started it. Any Roman Catholic who claims that the Orthodox Church is in schism either A.) does not know history, B.) has a limited understanding of theology or C.) doesn't give a $#(#$^*!. Most, however, are good people who are just unstudied and ignorant of all the facts. Most don't even know that "Catholic" means 24 different rites under one central authority.

And it is not "Eastern Triumphalism" at all to stand for the truth once given to the Early Church and defended, even unto death, by the Fathers.

I am also following this thread. My experience is that our Eastern Catholic parish is "populated" by 3 distinct "groups" of people:

1. Latin Catholics who attend DL because they are not happy with the Novus Ordo so much.....but they still attend Novus Ordo, often taking communion twice in the same day.....

For the most part, these folks know next to zero about Eastern Theology. When I say zero, I mean zero.

2. Converts from protestantism.

3. Eastern Catholics

Examples: In the Eastern Tradition, we do not kneel on Sunday, neither do we kneel during Eucharistic liturgy. But the Latin folks kneel......

In the Eastern Tradition, use of the prayer rope is private and not to be done in public. Praying the Latin Rosary isn't part of our tradition---nothing wrong with it, just stating fact----but people will publicly pray the Latin Rosary out loud prior to DL.

In the East, we fast Wednesday and Friday, sometimes more. I have been utterly surprised that not a single Latin in our parish was aware that Eastern Catholics fast on Wednesdays too......

Clearly Eastern Catholics are not required to "believe" in Purgatory, IC, etc. Yet, if you ask one of the Latins in our parish they'll tell you, "If you're Catholic, you have to believe all this, and teach it. "

Divine Liturgy is NOT Mass.....but the Latins call it mass.....

And it goes on. It's not a matter of catechesis, or evidence that the priest isn't educating the flock......not at all. Father can mention in his homily this week that we don't kneel in the Byzantine Church, put it in the bulletin for 2 weeks straight, mention it yet again.....and still people can't help themselves and must kneel.

This used to be confusing to me, as a convert. I've come to realize that there is nothing to be done about it. The Latin's are "parked" here until a Latin Mass shows up at the right time and place and they'll jump ship pronto. They won't adapt, won't learn something new and won't show respect for an older tradition than theirs. It's not in their DNA. Many of them seem to pretend that they're in Latin Mass, despite being in Greek DL.....as if they have to settle for something slightly better than Novus Ordo, but not as good as a "real" catholic mass.

I could go on.....but I'll just say that not only do I fully agree with Irish Ruthenian, but we have people in our parish who feel the same way. Some stopped attending and are driving 2 hours to go to a Melkite Church that is 100% faithful to their Eastern traditions. Others, like me, are looking to become Orthodox......and we certainly will do so when the door opens.

The two cannot be "mixed." Should they exist as different "expressions" of the Christian faith? Yes.....but let's not try to smother the East in Western trappings.

Imagine attending a Latin parish and standing the whole time, never kneeling......not participating in what the other folks are doing, but trying to pretend it's Divine Liturgy. Weird and Rude come to mind.....but somehow this "Latin make-believe" is allowed (encouraged?) in the Eastern Catholic Church.


It's NOT OK to mix Latin sentiments and spirituality with Eastern spirituality. It drives me nuts and I've had just about enough!

I would like to say that not all Eastern Catholics are as strict about East/West spirituality as seen here. In my country Greek Catholics (they never call themselves "Eastern Catholics" only Greek Catholics) do pray the Rosary and say the Creed WITH filioque (translated). They also celebrate St. John Chrysosthom's liturgy and read Akathists sometimes. So they do both.

When the Pope visited Romania they went to the Roman Catholic cathedral to celebrate together with him and other Roman Catholics.

This could be caused by the fact that most Eastern Orthodox here no longer consider them Orthodox, so their only friends are the Roman Catholics. Could be.

However, with all due to respect to those who disagree, their attitude is correct in my eyes. If the Schism is over (and in their eyes it is) then both sides matter. There can no more "I never pray the Rosary because we don't do that", or "I only pray the Rosary, what is that silly rope?" I mean sure, people will always have preferences but there can no longer be a theological reason for these preferences. The Rosary isn't even part of the Roman Liturgy. It specifically listed as private devotion. Even if a group of 1,000 pray it at the same time and in the same place, is still a private devotion done together by more people.

The theological difference got founded though the Schism. There were certain misunderstandings between East and West as many traditionalists insist today, but clearly they never mattered until the Schism. I don't think the Schism did any good to clarify anything like many claim, even if it's logical that only one side was correct on certain matters disputed now. Before the Schism, the discussion continued even after disagreement. Today after the Schism it is very important from where the Holy Spirit proceeds with the importance that if you think otherwise than what I think God is angry at you because you don't just SEE the Holy Trinity with the clarity the Prophets saw their messages. So He must be angry with me too because I also don't just SEE it, I learned about it and thought about. I didn't see the Holy Trinity as St. Moses saw the burning bush.

I don't think that the Truth Christ refers to is some spiritual gimmick we must guess, and theology a labyrinth that we must solve in order to please God.
God shares some of His unseen works with us as a friend, to comfort us, to make us miss Him and to amuse our good curiosity. Sometimes the Enemy distorts these messages and one hears something and the other another. But these are details. In the case of His Commandments, morality, the core of what He expects from us, I think those are more important than the color of garments during the Liturgy (which even in the East differs from St. John's anyway). Did St. John Chrysosthom make a fuss about theology? No, he made a fuss about a case of abuse, of immorality, of power being misused.

Breathing with both lungs just seems like a metaphor taking over the meaning its trying to convey. Why both lungs and not both eyes, or arms, or legs, or kidneys, or any other body part that the Lord made generally symmetrical in the human body?

Once Communion is being restored by the EOC also, it makes perfect sense that praying a Rosary or an Akathist is a matter of preference since the Schism would then be over.
God prefers a honest heart above all. Jesus Christ said He loves the Truth and criticized the Saducees and Pharisees for pricing method above meaning.

I am sorry for the rant and that I sounded like complaining too loudly, like a mega-pathetic, impatient, emotional nihilist of the whole discussion.