www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Greek Orthodox to Byzantine Catholic

Exactly: anti-Westernism among Orthodox is a very real problem, but we don't want to call-the-kettle-black.

Yikes. But then, I bet most of us have a friend or two like that. Yet another reason that I ought to be spending more time in prayer.

But I don't think I'll pray for your kind of wisdom.

"Who" = the Orthodox; "what" = Orthodoxy.

Read convert stories; they often do have an interest in not being Catholic, because they were originally Protestant. Shows up in Fr. Peter Gillquist's testimonial, for example. He and his friends did a little homework, said "Whew! We don't have to be Catholic!" and headed to the East, contraception, divorce and remarriage, and all.

I appreciate this. I've gotten similar advice from others, and I will certainly be watchful.

I've worshiped in Eastern Catholic churches a number of times in the past, and in all the cases there were no detectable Latin influences; they maintained a fullness of Byzantine distinctiveness.

The current Eastern Catholic parish I am attending is the first Ruthenian church I've worshiped in. The divine liturgy is essentially the same, with some minor differences in wording; it's also somewhat shorter than what I am accustomed to. There is also the very obvious exception of the Great Entrance being done like the Little Entrance (a quick trip from the deacon door into the Royal Doors). In Greek Orthodox churches the Great Entrance is a solemn procession, whereby the priest(s), deacon(s), and altar minister(s) exit out the left deacon door, proceed down the left side of the sanctuary, around to the back, then down the center aisle, and into the Royal Doors. It is a sublime moment that, at least for me, magnifies preparation for the Sanctification. And so not experiencing that was one thing that was extremely different for me.

But the small group saying the Rosary (and quite loudly, I might add; on the verge of ostentatious) just before liturgy really throws me off. I don't entirely object to it. It's just . . . different. Very different.

The interesting thing is I can worship in a Roman Catholic Church and feel completely comfortable, even when group Rosary prayers are said before Mass (this is in fact done at the Roman Catholic Church near me). It is something entirely ordinary for Roman Catholics and "fits" with the Latin way of performing devotions. But there's a dissonance that seems to occur when certain unique elements of one rite are blended into the uniqueness of another (again, as with saying Rosary before divine liturgy). It would be equally strange, for example, to hear orthros chants (in Byzantine style) at a Roman Catholic church prior to Mass. The "fit" just isn't there.

I suppose my point could be made into an analogy: you don't make a gyro with marinara sauce, and you don't add tzatziki sauce to pasta. Gyros are awesome, marinara sauce is awesome, pasta is awesome, and tzatziki sauce is awesome. They're all awesome. But this doesn't mean they all mix equally well. (And if anyone here says marinara sauce goes great with gyros, "let him be anathema!")

Sure, it's hard because you know the unlatinized form, so you feel that the latinizations don't belong.

Maybe your calling is to be the kind of Catholic who defends the unlatinized form while respecting the latinized one.

Did you know that the abbot of Holy Resurrection Monastery (in America, always Greek Catholic, and now in the Romanian Catholic Church) is a born Greek Orthodox? Seems to have the same kind of calling you do in this regard.

Well, that does answer my pronoun-question, but (from my point of view) it actually makes things all the worse: you are "propounding some grand Stephen-Hawkings-ish theory of "choosing Orthodoxy over Catholicism" in general".

Well to me (maybe an unnecessary qualifier, as it already applies to this whole post) that is like imaging a potential Orthodox saying "Phew, we don't have to be Protestant!" I.e. the former doesn't make any more sense to me than the latter.

P.S. It may appear that I'm about to go into a "Here are the arguments in favor of Orthodoxy ..." so let me clarify that I'm not. I'll let the Orthodox speak for themselves.

I'm not claiming a window into men's souls, let alone playing staretz online, a biggish pastime on the 'Net like gaming, I guess. The guy who's still Protestant or Roman Rite decides he wants to be Greek Catholic or Orthodox and is already lecturing everybody on the right way, and even says he has a vocation, before even talking to a priest or bishop about that. In a good Russian word, prelest.

God is the judge case by case, but yes, "choosing Orthodoxy over Catholicism" in general is objectively bad.

Protestants' reason to exist, like Orthodox', is not to be Catholic, so when they discover Catholic truths from studying the church fathers, two temptations for them are Orthodoxy (Oriental Orthodoxy still being too small and impractical to convert to in many cases) and high-church Anglicanism.

I hate to tell you this, but I've met him too.

(Okay, I really didn't. I'm just trying to piggyback on Hilary Clinton's superb comedic abilities.)

This discussion is getting so out of hand I hate to coment.
The level of discussion is pretty much on par with the usual internet religious dialogue, which is not saying much and I fear I am merely augmenting it.
To get back to Jeremiah...we have to respect his motivations out of his spiritual honesty...this is not about lifestyle choices or outworn polemics which bear little resemblance to reality.
I have my own opinions, presuppositions and prejudices which may be familiar to some readers. They are irrelevant in the face of seemingly mature, spiritual decision making.

Believing that Catholicism is the truth is uncool here, ironic considering the forum's affiliation, even though it's unofficial.

I "assume" this is to Mark R (not sure since all your recent posts say "Re Jeremiah" ) in which case I think you're being a trifle unfair to his point, since we have gotten pretty far onto a tangent.

But for what it's worth, I support anyone's right to say that Catholicism is the truth.

Never mind the "Re:" stuff. If I don't have a quote, I'm either writing to whoever posted directly before me or to the whole forum. In this case, the second.

As I see it, Orthodoxy and Catholicism are two houses in the same village: different ways of seeing things and doing things, but nonetheless equal members of the same body. And today they are charitable neighbors. I just moved into the other house, not as a choice of one "over" the other, but simply because it is where I feel called to. To put it simply.

That's treating the churches as denominations, the way Protestants look at Lutheran vs. Presbyterian now, for example. Equally true, just different opinions and styles, not rival true churches.

That's not quite what Catholicism teaches.

We see the other house as still having our priesthood and other sacraments, and all their defined doctrine is ours, but we're not equal. There's only one church. They are an estranged part of us.

They say they are the true church and have not dogmatized about us. Often they mirror our recognition, but sometimes, loudly, not.

Although I am a proud member of the UGCC, I would never personally try to convince an Orthodox Ukrainian to join the UGCC.

I wouldn't wish the Unia on my worst enemy.

And as for who has the truth, when it comes to Orthodox and Catholics, it depends who you ask . . .

I do see union with Rome as the ultimate ideal and goal of Christian unity

But not as things are today with the Vatican. Ecumenical niceties notwithstanding, Rome has a long way to go before it takes its own ecumenical agreements with the Orthodox seriously.

Rome must move from public relations to altered ecclesial relations.

Alex

Being Catholic doesn't mean you have to believe the Greek Catholics in practice are perfect. They're very much not, as you say. And we're not trying to convince Orthodox individually. We want to bring them all into the church, because they're still part of us.