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

He's already here, but he asked me not to reveal what user-name he uses.

No, seriously, I was chatting with him yesterday. He is here on a visit in our Eparchy. I served as yesterday's Divine Liturgy, Moleben, and today's Patriarchal Divine Liturgy.

Don't you think it would have been funny if I did ask him if he posts at ByzCath :P

The Acts of Chalcedon bears dozens of signatures in Syriac, a Semitic language, from the Patriarchate(s) of Antioch and/- Jerusalem.


No.

The Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem Greek from the first century, with Greek primates since the second century.

The Holy Synod of Alexandria elected a new Pope to replace the deposed Pope Dioscoros: the Fathers of Chalcedon mandated by canon that they not leave Constantinople until they did so. Once Pope Proterius was elected, they signed the Definition of Chalcedon.

Both Patriarch Domnus II, who Pope Dioscoros had deposed, and Patriarch Maximos II, whom Pope Dioscoros had placed on St. Peter's First Throne of Antioch, signed the Definition of Chalcedon, and the Fathers held a special session to legitimize Maximos' Patriarchate and the pension for Patriarch Domnus, per their agreement.

The Fathers of Chalcedon legitimized the elevation of Jerusalem to a Patriarchate by Pope
Dioscoros, and its Patriarch Juvenal signed the Definition of Chalcedon. The non-Chalcedonians never created a hierarchy for Jerusalem nor a non-Chalcedonian Patriarchate of Jerusalem.

The EP has never been a "Supreme Pontiff," de facto or otherwise. Though many have thought of themselves as such. Or thinks of himself as such.

Sort of questions Pastor Aeternus and its claims, and the necessity of a man serving as "font of unity."

Well, that's probably why Stuart referred to it as "tak[ing] a play out of the Orthodox book", and why I suggested the term "Orthodization".

does that mean "'doxing" on a grand scale?

I would have to say "no", since "Doxing" means "converting to Orthodoxy". (Not that either "Doxing" or "Orthodization" will ever be in Webster. ) In the same way "Latinization" doesn't mean "canonically transferring to the Latin Church".

Sweet! Where do I sign up?

Oh, right behind this door. (Opens doors slightly to confirm that the Spanish inquisitors are standing ready on the other side.)

Or you could have "Byzantination" meaning that you are moving from the Latin Church into the Eastern Catholic Rite (trust me, there's probably been plenty of that going on over the years). It's kind of a "stepping stone" effort, because before you can become full-blown Orthodox from Catholic faith, it's always best to switch to the Eastern Catholic faith first, since you are still under full Communion with the Vatican, then you can "Dox" over once you've mastered the Eastern traditions.

I completely agree in principle. But the thing is, "Latinization" in principle could be defined as joining the Latin Church, but in practice it is almost always defined as adopting Latin customs without joining the Latin Church.



Always best? Seems like an over-generalization. What about the WRO? They're not chopped liver.

Feelings are mixed, within Orthodoxy, regarding their Western rite brethren.

Originally Posted By: 8IronBob


Christ is in our midst!!

Forgive me, but making the profound change of one's commitment in one of the Apostolic Churches when they are not in communion is a bit more than changing one's membership from one civic club to another--like dropping out of the Lions and becoming a Rotarian.

There is the positive side of finding many similarities in the understanding of the fact that the bread and wine offered become the life-giving Body and Blood of Christ.

But there is a negative that is often overlooked and that causes hard feelings and a sense of distrust of the person moving in the community abandoned. In a sense, there is an implied condemnation of the community one has moved from, its leaders, its doctrine, and its version of history. No small matter here.

May I suggest that if you haven't done this you might consider that people who have done so have very often suffered a wrenching in the deepest part of their souls. Very often there is familial opposition that plays itself out around the holiday table if not more often when one lives in the same community or within short distances.

Bob

Good post.

First I just want to mention that the post you quoted was by 8IronBob (I say this not so much for you but for anyone who could be confused that the "Re: Lester S" at the top of your post.)

But more to the point, I think you're absolutely right to say that it's no small matter to switch from Catholicism to Orthodoxy, or vice versa. By way of comparison, it's worth noting that a switch, let's say, from the Chaldean Catholic Church to the Maronite Catholic Church, can only be done with the permission of the bishop one is leaving. But when someone speaks of switching between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, it is to be understood that they mean doing so without the permission of the old bishop. A very serious matter.

Indeed it is not a simple step. I've always thought about my family (extended, like parents, sisters, not wife and kids) and also the community I will be leaving behind if I do "'dox". That alone is harder than trying to learn the teachings and making comparissons.

echoed, brother.