Mor Ephrem:
If I might paraphrase Father Elias in a quote from another thread, it is impossible to become Catholic if one is Catholic.
I understand that the Orthodox consider themselves "Catholic", if by the term is meant the holding of the one true faith, received in succession from the Apostles.
When I use the term "Catholic", I mean that Church which is in full communion with the Pope of Rome, John Paul II.
SPUNDAS:
It is correct that you have a distorted view of Orthodoxy and Eastern Christianity.
Oh, DO tell!
The Orthodox is no longer considered "schismatics." As the excommunication have been mutually lifted.
That's absolutely not true, for two reasons.
1) Schism, as defined by the Catholic Catechism, is a refusal to be in communion with the Pope of Rome, or other delegated authority figures in communion with him. Hence, all Orthodox are schismatic, whether the schism be formal(i.e. a Catholic converting to Orthodoxy) or material (one who was born into the Orthodox Church).
2) The lifting of the excommunications were a mutual diplomatic gesture only. Any one with a rudimentary knowledge of Church history knows that the anathemas of 1054 were not between East and West, but between Pope and Patriarch only. Hence, the gesture by Paul VI was a symbolicone, the lifting of the excommunication of Michael Celarius; which by the way, does absolutely nothing to him, since he's been dead for nearly 1000 years, lol.
The Orthodox Church can also trace it's roots to the Apostles.
This isn't true; many of the customs of the Orthodox Church can be traced to the Apostles, as well as many of their beliefs (only insofar as they contain Catholic truth).
But the Orthodox communion is not itself of Apostolic origins; Christ and the Apostles founded one Church only, not two.
"Apostolic Succession" means only a continuity in the administration of the physical rite of Holy Orders only, and a transmission of the Apostolic powers (i.e. to validly administer the holy mysteries). Hence, any priest validly ordained, no matter what his heretical beliefs, can be said to be "apostolic", if by this term is meant the posession of certain Apstolic perrogatives. Such orders, however, are illicit, no matter how valid.
The Orthodox Church also has the FULLNESS of the Faith. The Orthodox Church is also nourished by the Holy Spirit. The Orthodox sacraments is FULLY VALID in the eyes of the Catholic Church, even the priesthood!
I know this.
They do believe in the Primacy of Peter.
Many do; some don't.
They don't accept the "jurisdiction" which is understandable. In their eyes, they think the pope will change the Orthodox and lose all Byzantine rite and change it to Roman Rite. Which have happened before. SO they become very defensive. WHICH IS TOTALLY UNDERSTANDABLE.
This refusal to accept this important Apostolic teaching has deeper roots than what you imagine; its more than politics. In any case, one who is already Catholic knows the price of obedience, even if it does mean the loss of an expression of the faith, a liturgical renewal of sorts.
By the way, the Eastern Catholic Churches have little to blame but themselves for Latinizations. It is true that there was pressure from some Latin hierarchy to Latinize, but I don't know of any such instances coming from Rome herself. In fact, I understand that Rome has always encouraged the Eastern Churches to remain Eastern, but that they took it upon themselves to Latinize to, as it were, to "prove" that they were Catholic. It was foolish of them to think this, but hey! we all make mistakes :-)
It's a very difficult doctrine to define. Even many Roman Catholics have a problem understanding it.
Some "ultra-traditionalist" schismatic Latins try to confuse it, but the official teaching of the Church is clear on this. The Catechism teaches it in just one paragraph.
it's the Roman Catholic Church that ADDED the Filoque clause to the creed.
I know, and she did so legitimately. The refusal to accept this can be heretical, though not necessarily.
It can be view as herectical if not understood correctly (no language barrier).
Agreed. However, Rome has done more than enough to show that it isn't heretical, and so the schismatics need to get off their high-horses and see that it isn't as well.
The Byzantine CATHOLIC Church does NOT use Filoque in the creed. Does that mean we are less of Catholics? NOT SO! Even the Holy Father recites the creed without Filoque if he's at a Byzantine Catholic Liturgy or Orthodox. Also, it is the OFFICIAL Creed of the Church (w/o filoque). If you look at the creed on the wall at St. Peter's Square, it's WITHOUT the Filoque.
I agree with everything that you have said above. I never said that the "official" Creed of the Church was that of the Latin Church, or that the Eastern Catholic Churches were any less Catholic than the Latin Church. Don't put words in my mouth.
The Orthodox do believe the substance of bread and wine becomes the Body and Blood of Christ.
I know.
It is the combination of the word AND Epiclesis that make transformation.
This is not the teaching of the Catholic Church; nor was it the common teaching of the Church before 1054. What you have just posted is late Eastern theorizing, post-schism, and does not have its roots in the Catholic tradition, but in later Orthodox tradition.
We just don't define in details the mystery of God. It is considered "prideful" if one tries to "know" everything like God.
That's a load of bull. I suppose it was prideful for the Eastern bishops of Nicea to argue over the terms "of like substance as the Father" or "of the same substance of the Father" (I don't remember the exact Greek spellings of the words off-hand). I suppose it was prideful to argue over the fine points of Christology during the pre-1054 era. And I suppose it isn't prideful to have so much gripe over the word "filioque"?
The doctrine of Purgatory is purely western theological interpretation of "unpurified" souls.
The word "Purgatory" is Latin in origin, but the concept is firmly rooted in the Eastern and Western Catholic tradition.
The Orthodox . . . do believe the process of purification called "Final Theosis".
Some do, some don't.
Also the BCC is NOT required to believe in the doctrine of Purgatory!
They are required to believe what the Catholic Church has dogmatically taught about Purgatory and is contained in the Catechism.
The Orthodox do fully believe that Our Lady is without stain. We honor her way more than RCC!!! IN MATTER OF FACT...the Orthodox/BCC have more developed "theology" of Mary way before the RCC!!!
First off, I don't equate the Catholic Church with the Latin Church. I have as much claim to everything in the Eastern Catholic tradition as I do that of the Latin tradition. (As do you, BTW)
I never said, nor have I implied, that Eastern Catholicism is less Catholic than Latin Christianity.
The concept of Immaculate Conception is strongly tied to the concept of "Original Sin" which Orthodox/BCC do not hold. That's not heresy for not accepting the concept of "Original Sin."
Eastern Catholics are required to believe what the Catholic Church has dogmatically taught about Original Sin and is contained in the Catechism.
It's more rather that we believe that we inherited the fall of humanity, our inclination to sin, death, etc. Our "twisted" nature.
Duh! That's what original sin is! See how its the Eastern Orthodox here who are being picky about the terminology used, not we Latins?
SPDundas: Oh don't even get started on the contraception. It is known that 75% of RCC use contraception!!!
Again, why do you bring Latin Catholics into this?
The prohibition against contraception is not a Latin teaching or speculation, but a Catholic one.
Secondly, who the heck cares that 75% of Catholics use contraception? It's still wrong. In the Catholic Church, truth is not determined by majority vote; sadly this is the case in Orthodoxy.
BTW, its somewere close to 85%, last I checked ;-)
Do you not know that the Orthodox does not accept contraception as well?
Some do, some don't.
As for 2nd marriages, the Church uses the ancient practice of eccelestial divorce (WHICH the RCC also practiced!!!).
The Catholic Church does not use this, and has never officially sanctioned it. The Eastern Churches did, starting in the late 4th, early 5th centuries; but the practice was always condemned by Rome, and by many Eastern Fathers as well, including Saint John Chrysostom.
The practice was introduced to appease the sexual apetities of the Byzantine Emperors. As usual, most Eastern Christians accomodated him. (This happened sometimes in the West as well, but never on the part of the Vatican).
Also it is hypocritical for you to make that comment since 80% or more divorced RCC come running to priests for annulments. An Orthodox person goes through much suffering for going through a divorce, it's quite painful for that person. The person is denied all Sacraments until the divorce is final (eccelestial divorce as well).
First, big friggin deal. So what?
This does not change the immorality of the practice of 2nd and 3rd marriages. Neither does any corruption of the "annulment" system of the Catholic Church (This system, BTW, is not Latin, but Catholic, rooted in the Catholic Church's teaching on the indisollubility of marriage)
Because the Orthodox IS NOT in error!!! The Orthodox Church is without heresy (of course not without problems). Converting isn't a correct term, as it's more of transferring to another Church. Why? Because we have the same fullness of faith which is expressed differently.
If this were the case, there wouldn't be two Churches, rival Eastern Christian hierarchies (Eastern Catholic and Orthodox), or differing beliefs even among the Orthodox themselves.
The Byzantine Catholic Church HAVE ALL Orthodox faith
That depends on who you consult with about what the Orthodox believe on the points we have just discussed.
the only difference is that we are in communion with the Pope of Rome (NOT UNDER the Pope but WITH the Pope).
You are indeed "under" the Pope, in the same sense that I am. Catholic theology isn't either/or, but both/and. We, as Catholics, are both with, and under, the Pope.
You be nice!!! It's the folks like you, who are egoistic about RCC, is causing problems with unity.
I never metioned the Latin Church once. Stop putting words in my mouth.
Also, I should remind you that the RCC have gone through way much more heresy throughout history especially during the middle ages, which called for Council of Trent and other councils to counter the heresies that have rocked RCC. SO RCC isn't perfect either.
First off, where does all that come from?
Although heresy was rife in the Middle Ages, it nowhere reached the official acceptance it did in the East. Before 1054, the East was in schism with the true faith about 1/3 of the time. This no where compares with the immaculateness of the Roman faith. Rome excommunictaed heresy; she did not accomodate herself to it.
Do avoid the error of believing that "Orthodoxy" and "Eastern Christianity" are co-terminous. They aren't. The Eastern Catholic heritage, as I said before, is my heritage, along with the Latin. The East has much to offer the Church, as well as the West. I have never said otherwise.
My crticisms in m first ost ere not to Eastern Christianity, much less Eastern Catholicism!, but to Orthodoxy.
