www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Can someone belong 2 BOTH: Roman Catholic Tradition & Orthodoxy?

I wonder if someone can belong to BOTH the Roman Catholic tradition [Latin or Byzantine] - AND - Orthodoxy?

As a Christian, to be 'received' into another Christian tradition, one does not need to be baptized again as ALL baptisms in Christ are recognized by all Christian traditions (as far as I know).

While I do not see any real 'conflict' between the two, can an individual who WISHES to belong to both do so? I am going to make a sort of 'parallel' here while it is not quite the same... - like 'dual citizenship' [I know religion is different ...but bear with me here as I cannot express it any other way] - can there not be 'dual religious tradition' practice in other words if a person want to belong to two Christian religious traditions? If a person wants to feel a sort of embodied 'reunification' of the churches within themselves and their lives, can this be done? Are there any 'rules' which prevent this? If not, could this be a possibility for someone who desires it? In other words, if a Roman Catholic wants to join the Orthodox tradition while not having to abandon the faith tradition their were raised in - can this actually happen? (or vice-versa) and be able to follow the traditions of BOTH in their lives.

I have never heard of anything which could 'prevent' this. . .

Best,

Christine

UPDATE: I found the answer to this from someone working with the head of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada... the answer to this is: NO.

While the churches meet and try to find ways to unite as one church, there are two differences which pose a problem:

1) The hierarchy - 'administrative' I would call it...;
2) A problem on the views which deal with the Holy Spirit within the Trinity (I have to call him back to ask more precise info as our conversation was rapid and short and I need to get this down properly)

...He stated something to the effect that while these churches are two entities and as long as these issues divide them and they are not united, a person cannot be part of both at he same time.

Hi.

I've many timess (maybe too many) pointed out to Orthodox friends and acquaintances that, as a cradle Catholic, I never left Orthodoxy. (Though having said that, I think I have to add the obvious truth that being a never-been-Orthodox can't be equated with actually being Orthodox.)

TR:

Christ is in our midst!!

Actually no. Both Churches require a person to make a profession of faith that excludes membership in any other body. So a Catholic on making profession of faith "repudiates all his/her former Latin errors and heresies." And an Orthodox on entering communion with the Latin Church makes similar professions--and in the Latin case signs a legal document to that effect.

Bob

WOW! I think such renouncements should be abolished. The Roman Catholic Church often meets with the Orthodox Church toward working on a reunification. . . it seems counter to their goal to have such 'renouncements' in place in my view. . . I have looked at the prayer book of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada for example and they do have two great powerful things in common with us: the Lord's Prayer and the Gospel (even if the Roman Catholic version is that of the Jerusalem Bible, the scriptures are basically the same). In today's world, I would distance myself from using the word 'heresies' between Christian churches as they are ALL founded in Christ. . . So, to, "repudiates all his/her former Latin errors and heresies." is simply wrong to do in my view... it is archaic and to do this to someone who had lived in Christ is wrong (my honest opinion) - one should not be forced to 'repudiate' a religious tradition based in Christ - it is to turn one's back on the sacrifice of Our Lord on the Cross for the sake of a different manner of praying Him. . . Churches need to step up to our modern times and not alienate each other by such pronouncements in my view - to force this is in essence to be counter to Christ Himself. . .

Best,

Christ is in or midst!!

While what you say may sound warm and fuzzy, the history of the Church shows a consistent striving for keeping the Faith pure. That is why there were so many struggles for defining just what is the Faith. What you say may also be seen as syncretism, the idea that any and all professions of what it means to be a follower fo Christ have equal value. In fact, there are few that would adopt this view.

While we are here seeking to understand each other, I don't believe that there are any members here who would say they agree with the statement made above. I have met people who call themselves Christian but who believe that the Lord's body was just "a shell" that He adopted rather than what the Church of the first millenium has defined through the period fo the early ecumenical councils. Similarly there are Christians who deny that the Eucharist is sacrificial in nature--something that a study fo the various Apostolic Churches' liturgical books shows is common to a shared Deposit of Faith, even though we remain out of communion with each other.

I believe that this is more than differences in praying. It goes to the heart of what it means to be "in communion" in all its many meanings.

Bob

This could be discussed 'ad nauseum' ...then again, Roman Catholics must trust in the Church that Christ was God made man and He is not a mere 'shell' which he borrowed. The discussion as to why He had an earthly mother can even go into Mosaic Law as a true descendant of the line of King David.

The Eucharist is sacrificial in nature and this is at the very root of the Catholic faith. . . I am not into theology and this is not the ultimate reason for my post. I was looking of 'why' and why not' one could adhere to two religious traditions at the same time.

I am not going to change what I stated before... It makes no plausible sense to me to repudiate a Christian religious tradition while being a baptized Christian to then follow another which accepts this baptism [Recall: 'I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins' (in the 'Symbol of Faith' or 'Profession of Faith') - hence, one Christian faith accepts the baptism received in another Christian religious tradition because of this.] and then turn around and have the audacity to call the first 'heretic.' Heresy is something much more remote today - the days of the 'Inquisition' are over and it is best they stay that way... - and, while the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church work to reunite (and often meet on this issue) if makes no sense at all to me to demand the repudiation of one by the other.

Best,

Christine

Not necessarily.


Please go to the thread above entitled "Who We Are" because we aren't here to discuss the Latin Church, its practices, or beliefs. Please don't be another Latin come here to teach the Eastern Churches how to live and believe. We've had more than enough of that.


Actually it is because there is more here than "two traditions" when you ask the "why" or "why not."

Bob

OK Bob... Got ya... you are right as Orthodoxy has more than one kind of tradition even within it. . .

Roman Catholic and Orthodoxy? Why would anyone want to belong to both? Either is capable of driving you totally nuts. LOL.

You should know better than that being a Byzantine Catholic...
The Vatican has two forms of religious traditions under its pontificate authority:

1) Roman Catholic of the Latin Rite (Their Bishops and Cardinals wear a pointed mitre);
2) Roman Catholic of the Byzantine Rite (Their Bishops wear a round 'mitre' (not sure of the real name for it).

I do not know where the Armenian Catholic and Coptic Catholic fit in. . .

So... you may as well go crazy too. . .

Crazy is as crazy does. As a Byzantine Catholic who works in a Latin Rite parish, there are too many similarities. The clergy is not any better or worse in one than the other. The politics are essentially the same with the same games played by those lusting after power and status. The people don't behave any better or worse in either. Neither group commits any sins unknown to the other group. Member of one church are no more or less generous than the other. Both churches - include Orthodoxy in that as well - are made up of people. People can drive you crazy since they are more alike than different and tend to behave the same regardless of the church in which they worship.

Actually it is Latin Catholic of Roman Rite (or Ambrosian Rite or Mozarabic Rite)
There is no such thing as Roman Catholic of the Byzantine Rite and such terminology is offensive at it reduces a holistic tradition of spirituality, liturgy, theology, and discipline to its liturgical dimension alone. It is simply Byzantine Catholic, Armenian Catholic, Chaldean Catholic, etc.

Roman-Rite Catholics (RRCs) can't simultaneously be Byzantine-Rite Catholics.

You stated: (I do not know how to use the 'quote' option in here yet... I tried and it did not work):
Actually it is Latin Catholic of Roman Rite (or Ambrosian Rite or Mozarabic Rite)

My response: It is Roman Catholic of the Latin rite because I belong to it and I do know this. I have never heard of the Ambrosian Rite or the Mozarabic Rite to refer to us. . . and Roman Catholic of the Latin rite has ALWAYS been the term used in our church.

The rest... I do not know because I have seen churches state that they are:
Roman Catholic of the Byzantine rite - so, they DO exist and it is no insult to them! I have even gone to the consecration of a new Byzantine Catholic church on which this is CLEARLY written on the front of the program!

Best,

Christine

They are NOT 'simultaneous' - they are two forms of religious tradition BOTH under the Vatican.

Best,

Christine