www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Questions from a possible convert

I believe the premeditated ommission of another Patriarch in the Diptychs is far more than "tension" or "minor squabble". This ommission happened more than once during that time, and was witnessed. The first time was February 23, 1996.

I always thought the lex orandi of the Diptychs precisely was to publically commemorate the other "Orthodox" hierarchies with whom one is in communion with - another seeming confusion to minimize such a lack of commemoration as a "minor squabble".

In the overall life of the church, I would consider the Estonia issue a minor one which quickly fizzled out. I would also consider that issue a very weak basis for making the argument that "the Orthodox Church is completely divided and jurisdictions within the Church are in disagreement as to who is truly Orthodox."

Much more serious an issue I think were the recent problems with the Jerusalem Patriarchate, which were resolved with the participation of both Constantinople and Moscow.

Anyone who can answer my other questions, I'm curious to hear the response.

Andrew

Each Orthodox church differs on whom they are in communion with. While I don't see any contradiction in this statement (again Constantinople and Moscow bear this out - no matter of faith was involved) it is perhaps an exagerration.

To be fair certainly we Greek Catholics have our own forms of "jurisdictionalism", but in fairness that does not extend to the extent of refusal of Eucharistic communion as does happen in some Orthodox jurisdictions with the same liturgical lex orandi, professing the same Creed, etc.
FDD

Is jurisdictional unity among the Eastern Catholics a realizable goal or are people even working towards it in the United States? If not, I would say the situation is actually in worse shape than the Orthodox one (which is problematic) in the long run.

I�m also not aware of situations Eucharistic communion being refused, aside from splinter groups in this country. There are some churches were concelebration does not occur. That is a different matter.

As far as the same lex orandi, same creed, etc. go, how is the situation with the SSPX substantially different within the Catholic Church? I have read lots of conflicting information about their status, whether not Catholics can attend SSPX masses and so on. It is not readily apparent to me what their official status is.

Andrew

Dear PatrickShane,

Thank you for your comprehensive and brotherly response!

I STILL would like you to join the Russian Catholics - if that is what you would like to do!

The issues I raise have nothing to do with that, but only with how EC theology itself is different from RC theology - an ongoing subject of this Forum.

Having said that, Purgatory and the Immaculate Conception were defined by the Latin Church AFTER the schism of 1054 AD and they are entirely "Latin" doctrines as they are phrased.

Prayer for the dead and the veneration of the total holiness of the Mother of God from her Conception did not begin with the definition of those two doctrines/dogmas, of course.

If anything, they became a "necessity" in the Latin Church after the schism of 1054 AD when papal definitions outside of the Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi tradition, always followed by the East, became the order of the day in the West - and in response to scholastic/Augustinian theological viewpoints on Original Sin.

But, yes, both sides believe in the same thing - it is just that the West has added new theological items that, for the East, reflect an unnecessary scholastic rationalism that is legitimate for on Particular Church, namely the Western, but should not be imposed on others, especially others who have always prayed for the dead and honoured the Theotokos as All-Holy from Apostolic times.

I take it you were once a Latin Catholic, excuse me, an IRISH Catholic and then became Orthodox?

Alex

Dear Andrew,

I believe it is a caricature of Orthodoxy to suggest some sort of jurisdictional labyrinthe within it etc.

The strength of Orthodoxy is really its ability to foster the local Church where cultural/national/traditional identities and ways of life are nurtured in a way that is much more successful than the previous Latin Church monolithic model.

The "universal" Church as such ONLY exists, for us, through our participation in the Local, Particular Church - the Eucharistic Ecclesial model.

One reason why I find Patrick's assessment of Orthodoxy somewhat offputting is that his points reflect a number of things that many EC's would like to HAVE BACK in their Particular Churches as well as less Roman involvement.

But I rather think that Patrick was undoubtedly a Roman Catholic who became disaffected (probably because of the Novus Ordo or else because his Italian parish priest didn't like Irish ) and who became Orthodox for love of the rituals, like some Western converts to BOTH ECism and Orthodoxy do. I could be wrong.

But underneath it all, Patrick is a solid IRISH CATHOLIC but who still wants the "bells and smells" of an Eastern Church that is reminiscent of the "good old days" of Tridentine RCism.

Are you Irish, by the way?

Alex

Who, me?

Andrew

Dear Andrew,

You are Scottish then?

Alex

I'm Irish and Swiss. My wife is Korean, English and Native American. At some point we may put our kids on permanent display at Epcot.

Andrew

Dear Andrew,

Ah, so I was right - you really ARE Scottish!

As for being both Irish and Swiss - no worries.

No one is perfect . . .

Alex

Alex

Part of my family was from the North, so I probably am to some extent.

I just tend to be neutral.

Andrew

Brother, I have to say I'm quite put off by this post as you have assumed several things about me (and posted them) that are completely untrue.
I was never Catholic. I was Lutheran before I became Orthodox. So I have no sort of secret interest in Latinizing the Eastern Catholic Church. I come from an OCA background within Orthodoxy and have always been quite staunch in the defense of my Eastern praxis, as poor a defender as I may be. That being said, being Eastern doesn't make your praxis better.
I am becoming Eastern Catholic for a few reasons some of which I already listed.
1. The Orthodox have no unified or cohesive teaching on what "Papal Primacy" entails or what the right role of the See of Rome within the Church is. Sure he's the "first among equals", but what does that mean?
2. There is no unified or cohesive teaching on "The sinlessness of Mary/The Immaculate Conception". I agree that the CORRECT Eastern Tradition is that Mary is All-Immaculate and sinless from birth, but ask a few different Orthodox from a few different jurisdictions and you are bound to get answers like "She sinned a few times..." "She was sanctified at the Annunciation.." etc. And there doesn't seem to be serious effort on the part of the Episcopate to clear up this confusion among the laity.
3. There is no unified or cohesive teaching on contraception. A quick look at the different jurisdiction websites will give you either no answer or conflicting answers as to whether contraception is always appropriate, sometimes appropriate, or never appropriate. For instance take a look at the differences of teaching on the ROCA homepage, the GOARCH homepage, and the OCA homepage. It is quite telling.
4. The Orthodox Church is unclear about who is really "Orthodox" and is divided as I pointed out before. What makes the Macedonians less Orthodox than the Greeks? What makes the Copts less Orthodox? It's not faith, that's for sure.
5. There is no unified teaching on the state of the soul after death or Purgatory and again the Episcopate seems uninterested in clearing up the confusion.

My conversion is centered around these issues.

Also, you still haven't pointed out which Orthodox things I eschew that some Eastern Catholics would like to have back. In fact I haven't really eschewed anything theologically Orthodox, rather I have shunned the theological and ecclesiological confusion in the Orthodox Church. I also agreed with your point of less Roman involvement. One of the main things I am worried about in coming to Russian Catholicism is Latinizations.
I understand that the Dogmas of The Immaculate Conception and Purgatory may not be your style, but they are Dogmas of the Church no? They still reflect a beautiful truth even if you and I choose not to express them in a Western fashion. I am trying to find the true Church. I'm not trying to Latinize the East.


P.S. Someone mentioned that Copts are not allowed to Commune in Antiochene parishes. I was told by an Antiochian that the reverse is true. Is this person mistaken?

Oh and yes, I am Irish

This doesn't seem to hold water even at a surficial level. With four (4) Russian jurisdictions (OCA, ROCOR, Patriarchal, ROAC) compared to one Catholic, one Catholic Carpatho-Russian compared to at least two (OCA and ACROD), one Ukrainian Catholic compared to at least four Orthodox (OCA, UAOC/Constantinople, UAOC independent, UOC/Kyivan Patriarchate), all with various stages of intercommunion or lack thereof, shades of "canonical" or "uncanonical", this assessment does not seem accurate.
FDD

First among equals primarily means a role of leadership at church councils and someone that different groups can appeal to in times of need. It is primarily mediatory. What the Orthodox have and will reject is universal ordinary jurisdiction and a single monarchial ruling bishop. I would wonder why if the Catholic teaching is consistent and optimal, the Popes themselves are saying the way the exercise of the Papacy needs to be rethought in order to come in to line with the norms of the first millennium as a way of rejoining Orthodoxy.

There is a unified and cohesive teaching. The Theotokos was sinless and pure. Period. Read the hymnology of the church to understand the Orthodox view.

The exact manner of her sanctification in what I have come across has varied little in the different viewpoints, but the church has never felt there was a need to create a dogma surrounding this. It also took the western church approximately 19 centuries to finally dogmatize its viewpoint.

If there is someone saying the Theotokos sinned, they are wrong. Period.

People in glass houses�

Yes, sexual ethics are an interesting topic. I would be more inclined to accept criticism on this topic if it was this not nearly universally ignored by Catholics themselves or if groups like �Catholics for Choice� didn�t exist. NFP is also another interesting topic for the philosophical justification it attempts to make between different manners of controlling conception. One can however string together patristic quotes (such as by St. Augustine) that would certainly equally condemn any manner of controlling conception. It is also without a doubt that the shift on NFP by Pope Pius XII was an about face for the church.

The real issue should be what are ones intentions, and not the mechanics of controlling conception. It has to be said that some modernist Orthodox theologians such as Meyendorff and Harakas (who I have seen repeatedly lauded on this site ironically enough) seem to say non abortive contraception is okay without a lot of reservations. The rest of the church takes a much more conservative view. The Russian Orthodox Church has recently condemned all forms of contraception, and there was a news story that an �Orthodox� drug store was going to open that did not sell contraceptives. You might also be interested in the writings of Fr. Josiah Trenham of the AOA on this topic.

If you really want to be concerned about sexual ethics I would look in to why for instance a group of Catholic bishops in Quebec this week publicly defied the Pope on the issue of Homosexuality. Another news story this week was that the countries largest Catholic university (sadly my alma mater) is instituting a formal program of Homosexual studies, and there is similar coursework at other Catholic universities. I would also peruse the web site of St. Joan of Arc parish in Minneapolis.

I think this has already been addressed. There have been churches over time that have been in irregular status for a period, that eventually gain widespread recognition and enter the fold of canonical Orthodoxy. I�m sympathetic to the Copts, but if you think the differences with them are not matters of faith then I have to question your understanding of the history of the church councils. The Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and the daughter Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese in America are not in ecclesial communion with the Coptic Orthodox Church. Were individual Coptic Christians to receive sacraments from Antiochian priests in this country, it is not a matter of blanket policy, but of individual ekonomia and pastoral discretion for people that may not have access to their own church or priests.

Oh please. Find me a bishop that does not believe the soul undergoes a particular judgment after death or that theosis continues in this stage of our existence.

I�m really not trying to convince somebody not to be Catholic, even though it appears that way by my responses. If you think they�re right, particularly about the Papacy, you should be Catholic. I don�t see the need to trash Orthodoxy on the way out though. I also don�t see how if all of these things are true that Catholics could even imagine the Orthodox are anything approaching a church, or would be some place they might like to receive communion.

Diak

Does the presence of the SSPX, the Liberal Catholic Church, the Polish National Catholic Church, the Old Catholic Church, the various Eastern Catholic Churches, the Latin Catholic Church, etc. with varying levels of intercommunion mean there is major ecclesiological confusion in the Catholic world?

The real point of what I said was that despite the jurisdictional proliferation in the U.S., there is a vision and a willingness to over time unify in to one body with one leader, although it may take a while. I stand by my assertion that if the various Eastern Catholics in the U.S. have no such vision and/or ability to do this, they are in the long run in a worse situation.

Andrew

This is a lay movement - there have always been misguided lay movements. The teaching of the Church is clear on this. There are pro-homosexual groups within Orthodoxy, for that matter (i.e. "Axios"). NFP - well, if you can find something that is artificial here, be my guess. Those arguments have been made before.

First of all let us not be hasty to judge before the Church has. Knowing our current Pontiff, I do not think these things will go unnoticed. Again I would point to Axios and say that it is not unknown in Orthodoxy.

The real issue to me as a Catholic is the clear teaching of the Church on moral issues. It is simply not present in Orthodoxy. One is free to accept or not accept that teaching - that does not cause the church to err because several wish to be outside that teaching. Ambiguity doesn't count.

In my own experience with Orthodoxy only the ROCOR and one Patriarchal priest ever told me that contraception was wrong, as an outright concept. And that includes speaking with two Antiochian and one OCA bishops about that issue as well.

As have many other Eastern and Western writers. The "ironic" jab is getting a bit old and showing its polemical side - as Alice pointed out on another thread.
FDD