Heart is pulling me towards Orthodoxy


That’s purely anecdotal. We see similar vitriol in the Catholic Church when a hippy-dippy, Vatican II-loving “Atheists might go to heaven” Catholic sits down next to another Catholic pondering the SSPX.

Work in progress. By the grace of God, I really think I’ll live to see recognition of communion between the two.

Because there’s never any bitter disagreement between, say, German Catholic Archbishops and others?

…not if it’s done right, it isn’t. That’s another issue in Catholicism. You might not be aware, but Byz Caths are very much considered “second class Catholics” by a good bit of the leadership in your Church, even as they’re forbidden from explicitly expressing that.

“The mass should be done in Latin, just as Jesus did it”. They’re akin to being the Catholic equivalent of the Baptist “King James Only” churches I grew up along side.

Only point being - I wouldn’t throw stones.


There is not unity between the EO and OO. They are different Churches. The OO broke away from Rome and the rest of the East at the fourth ecumenical council.

They may have broken Eucharistic communion they are not divided dogmatically their issues are more political than anything else.

What do you mean by this?

We’re not? Come to my parish you wouldn’t even guess that we are in communion with Rome.



Forgive me for not being so understanding. Another person in another thread here went to great lengths to explain that as a convert to Orthodoxy (from Lutheranism) I am a schismatic and since schism is a mortal sin, I’m therefore condemned to Hell. To my understanding “separated brethren” does not carry that same classification as mortal sin and so these terms carry two very different meanings. When you said that you can “diplomatically” refer to us a separated brethren while we are in actuallity schismatics seems to side-step that very important distinction.


I have been through this with EO before and it never gets anywhere because to EO’s apologists, the Latin Church is heretical, is a barrier to there ever again being an Ecumenical Counsel, and has no business being anywhere other than in the City of Rome and a small bit of countryside around it. I’ll grant, some of the EO acknowledge the validity of Catholic baptism, but nothing else.

And that “Byzantine Catholics are second class” myth is just a malicious slander, and the EO should abandon it for the good of their souls. I have discussed Orthodoxy with a large number of Catholics and not a few EO. Catholics bear no ill will toward Orthodoxy and actually believe there could someday be a reconciliation. With the Orthodox of Constantinople, I would say there is some possibility of that. With the Moscow Patriarchate, there is none in this generation.


Superficially, that might be true, just as a Mass in Viantiane might give the same impression.

I agree, and that’s part of the problem with unity in Orthodoxy. With some notable exceptions, it’s territorial, imperialistic, nationalistic and political. I’m not saying there’s no good in it at all, but that’s extremely bad, and there’s no end in sight.


That’s not my experience with the EO at all.

Maybe you’re just finding what you’re looking for?

Ok bud. :+1:

The ones on this forum must be the only ones, then. :slight_smile:

That’s a fair statement. But Russian Orthodoxy is a very nationalist beast. I wouldn’t judge the rest of Orthodoxy off just the Ruskies.


It’s true! This is the only place I’ve been told that as a schismatic Orthodox I’m condemned to hell! :thinking:


A few years ago there were virtually unending flame wars going on in her on that subject. Probably tougher moderators are what ended it. But one does have to dig in most of the time to learn, e.g., that the 'official" EO view is that the Pope isn’t even a legitimate priest and could not, therefore, be the “bishop of Rome” in the event of reunion. An EO bishop would have to be appointed, all Ecumenical Councils would have to be voided after the second-to-last one the EO attended as acknowledged participants. Now, I’ll grant that not all EO claim Catholics would have to be re-baptized. Most are sort of neutral on the subject, and some accept Catholic baptism but no other sacraments.

Don’t just deal with this superficially. I used to think the same things most CAtholics think about EO. But the more one learns, the more one realizes we’re as far away from reunion as we ever were. Farther, really, than it was initially.

You can’t ignore them. They’re easily half the total number of Orthodox worldwide. Among the EO, it’s even higher.


Are you saying that Divine Liturgy at my Byzantine Catholic parish is superficially Orthodox?



Pfft. They’ve been going on for a millennium. And if not for Islam and Spanish (and to a smaller degree French and Portuguese) colonialism, it’s very very likely that Rome would have never obtained the control over broader Christendom that it enjoyed for much of the last 500-1000 years.

There is no “official” EO view on that. One popular Orthodox view is that when the pope submits to collegiality as the authority over the Church, his office should suffer some years of penance where instead of being first among equals, he’s last. When it’s over, the Roman bishop will resume the primacy.

I’m not trying to. But I recognize that among the Orthodox, the Russian Church is but one 14.


No. I’m saying the appearance would have been very similar, but that similarity does not mean Byzantine Catholicism is the same thing as, say Eastern Orthodoxy.


You’re right. It is problematic, but for Pope Francis himself.


We don’t know what would have happened but for French, Spanish, Portugese colonialism, or for that matter, English or Dutch. What we do know is that almost certainly there would have eventually been contact between Europe and the Americas and, if so, much would have been the same. And English colonialism in, say, Africa, does not explain the millions of Catholics there. Nor does English colonialism in the Middle EAst explain the almost total lack of converts there.

A cynical position designed to prevent reunion. There are others so unlikely to be acceptable to Latin Catholics that they can never happen.

But half the Orthodox on earth are under the Moscow Patriarchate. That’s a very big deal. And not all the Orthodox are EO, so Moscow’s percentage among EO is undoubtedly higher still.


The only point there is that Catholicism owes much to Islam which silenced the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch, who had a long standing historical habit of defying papal “authority”.
In short, Islam silenced the primary credible objectors to papal supremacy.

Spanish, French and Portuguese colonialism is the reason why Roman Catholicism is so popular in places outside of Europe.

Not trying to attack your faith, man. These are just true things everyone should realize.

No. French colonialism explains it.

I was just evidencing that there is no “official” Orthodox view on the office of the papacy other than it has left proper Orthodoxy.

Sure. And if the global Orthodox Church operated on the basis of direct election, the Russians would rule the Church.


The Oriental Orthodox have suffered from centuries of Muslim dominion. One upon a time Christianity was pretty evenly split among Latins, Greeks and Non-Chalcedonians (OO).

Few OOs remain as their lands stood directly in the way of the earliest Muslim Conquests.


Have you heard about the Council of Constance?


Is there unity between the SSPX and the charismatic Catholics or the Catholics that allow dancing at Mass?


It wasn’t really Islam. Early Arabic Islam failed to take the eastern empire, though it did take a lot of it due to divisions within Orthodoxy and ethnic squabbles. What sealed the empire’s doom was the warmaking power of the Turks, particularly including their use of cannon (which the Greeks did not have) to knock holes in the walls of Constantinople. The Turks could have been pagans like the Mongols and still been as powerful.

French colonialism does not explain the Catholic majority in Nigeria, the near-majority in Uganda and Kenya, all former British colonies. Nor does it explain the 4% of Catholics in former French Senegal.


From the SSPX point of view there is unity. They do not claim to be schismatic. You might be thinking of the SSPV who really are schismatic. Nor does the Church claim the SSPX is schismatic either. I have never met a charismatic Catholic who is not strongly faithful to the Church, and I have known a fair number. I don’t know much about dancing at Mass. I have never seen it and don’t know where it exists. But to my understanding, that doesn’t make one schismatic.



Do you say that there is unity and no disagreements at all between the SSPX and charismatic Catholics? Do you see any difference at all between the liturgy of the SSPX, the older Tridentine Mass said in Latin, and some of the newer Masses said today? Example of a Mass such as the SSPX celebrates:


I’ll reiterate something I said, and then I’ll probably have to go on to other things. I have no beef with Byzantine Catholicism. I have never been to one of their liturgies, but I have seen videos of it. In my opinion, those are beautiful and conducive to worship. I do know that every once in awhile, the ARchdiocese of St. Louis allows Byzantine liturgies in the Cathedral Basilica. Since that Cathedral is very much Byzantine in style and décor, that must be a beautiful event. Maybe one of these times my wife and I will go to one.

But Eastern Orthodoxy is another thing altogether. it really is territorial and nationalistic. Since it is dominated by the Moscow Patriarchate, that’s not a good thing for Russia’s neighbors, like Ukraine. Orthodoxy is very divided within itself in a lot of ways. But the most serious is probably territorial.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.