As well they should be. The only distinction between us and them ought to be the name on the sign outside the church. Whether I go to Liturgy at an Eastern Orthodox or Greek Catholic church, the only way I should be able to tell where I am is the diptychs.

Of course. The intent of the statment was not applicable to worship practices. The distinction is that the Eastern Orthodox are not part of the Catholic Church, the Eastern Catholic Churches are part of the Catholic Church. Most Roman Catholics have little knowledge of either.

All the more reason not to draw unnecessary distinctions between us, other than to say there are more kinds of Orthodox than the Eastern variety, and more kinds of Eastern Catholics than the Greek or Byzantine variety

Stuart-

Are you saying you don't think that someone who wants to know about Eastern Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy need be informed of their organizational differences and history? Could you please elaborate, perhaps I am reading your message incorrectly.

I would agree, although I've never understood why the Orthodox are almost always the yardstick. I don't think shaking off Latinization is the logical equivalent of accepting everything from Orthodoxy after the schism (or union, or whatever point one may choose). There has to be some discernment here.

More directly related to the original post, by the logic of "spirituality always trumps ecclesiology," a Latin Catholic would be better served consulting with a sedevacantist or PNCC priest than with a Greek Catholic priest. That's a pretty slippery concept.

I'm not arguing for closure from the Orthodox, or not profiting spiritually from friendship with their clerics, or not using their materials (with discernment), any more than I would tell a Latin Catholic never to read C.S. Lewis (with discernment). But ecclesiology matters, even when it's painful or inconvenient, and shouldn't be dismissed offhand.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's not hard, or frustrating, or in some ways sorrowful, because it sure can be.

As to the primary question of the poster, it would seem that if his Greek Catholic priest cannot provide all the services that he needs, then perhaps he can ask him, as his spiritual father, to whom he should turn. His spiritual father has the responsibility to guide him properly, and should have the graces to match. Us forum posters have none of the former, and an uncertain amount of the latter.

Priests whether they are Orthodox priests or Catholic priests are very holy and good men! I think that we can learn much from priests regardless of their religious persuasion.

So if there are no Byzantine Catholics were you live you should go to an Orthodox Priests for spiritual direction and a Latin Catholic Mass? I definitely think God can work in all Churches. Even though I want to become a Latin Catholic I sometimes listen to Coptic Othodox people who are really wise.

The Byzantine Catholics and Eastern Othodox share the same spirituality but Latin Catholics can't really find non-Catholics who share the same spirituality? I mean, I know there are anglo-catholics but they don't have the Sacraments like the Eastern Orthodox. This seem to be very much a Byzantine issue.

I think the closest are the SSPX who, while still technially Catholic, cannot be considered Catholic clergy because they do not have a ministry within the Church. So functionally, they are just Catholic laypersons who are saying Mass. I don't know how many laypersons can get away with it without being excommunicated, or even how many defrocked priests can do the same. Or even sedevacantists. How many traditional RCs go to them for the Latin Mass and traditional spirituality.

Constantine, I don't think you are correct about SSPX priests.
They are validly ordained priests. They are not "laypersons who are saying Mass." It is possible that they cannot validly absolve except in danger of death, as they do not have "faculties" from a Catholic bishop. The SSPX people have a theory that the state the RC church was in, in itself constituted an emergency situation in which SSPX priests could absolve. Having lived through the 1970's and 1980's I can say that I know what they mean. It is a debatable point. In any case, such a priest could well be a wise advisor and it would not be wrong to listen to his advice, so long as that advice was not to separate from the Church. There is hope now, that we will be able to welcome back to full communion many of the SSPX and their priests, and I believe this would be a wonderful thing for the Church.

On the main question of this thread, I would say that I know two Orthodox priests I would be glad to seek spiritual advice from. Neither would seek to persuade me against my conscience to become Orthodox. One in fact said to me that he was glad I had found the Eastern Catholic parish at which I worship. (Far from expressing any onus against Uniatism.) Perhaps there might be some priests, Catholic or Orthodox, who could not keep their own beliefs about the true church out of their counsel to you; they could be good counselors for those of their own communion but not for someone outside of it. One would have to use some discernment. But one cannot say this is per se not a good thing to do.

this is not a thread about FSSPX so I will put a link to a traditional Priest about this issue http://wdtprs.com/blog/2011/08/quaeritur-going-to-sspx-priest-for-absolution-of-excommunication/

So you are saying that the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches only have valid Divine Liturgies/Masses but no valid Confessions?

I was talking about the SSPX, period. I was thinking about the very post of Fr. Z's that you cite, as well as about what I have heard SSPS people say. I said nothing about EO and OO priests. However these things work in their churches, they are under their own legitimate bishops.

Ok, I think I see what you are getting at. The thing is that the SSPX does not pretend to be "a church." They say they are Catholics, Roman Catholics. Their people say they are Roman Catholics. Yet their bishops were illicitly ordained. Their situation is described as "partial schism."

The EO and the OO are acknowledged as true particular churches. The issues are not the same.
Susan

I'm going through with this tomorrow

God be with you and bless you.

it was a wonderful experience and i am glad the good Father is willing to meet with me again. although he is one who believes that Orthodox can only be found in the Orthodox Church, there is much knowledge i got from him.