Heart is pulling me towards Orthodoxy


It doesn’t seem like the OP has participated in this thread for some days now, but oh well I’ll add my 2 cents worth anyway.

It’s wrongheaded to look at Orthodox liturgical and spiritual tradition and say that it has not changed.

This is a huge misunderstanding I see with many people first becoming acquainted with Orthodoxy. What happens is this: They discover the beautiful Tradition of the East, and they see it as something culturally very different from America, or the West in general, and there is this impression that Orthodoxy is ancient and, therefore, co-equal to “Apostolic Christianity.”

And indeed, Eastern Orthodoxy is rooted in the ancient, apostolic church.

But the liturgical, spiritual, artistic, and culture traditions of the Orthodox Church are VERY much due to development and change, especially in the first millenium. Most of the embellishments people find beautiful in Orthodoxy are actually not INTRINSIC to original Christianity, but instead reflect development in liturgy from fourth century on — Byzantine influence, etc.

Take icons, for example. Byzantine icons look different, mysterious, and very different from Western Christianity. But that doesn’t mean they are essential to the original Church. No, icons developed over time, especially in their later Byzantine style.

So please don’t confuse Byzantine Christianity with “ancient Christianity.”

Liturgy has always had a substantial center, but it has ALWAYS developed in reference to different cultures. The reason why Eastern Orthodoxy doesn’t seem this way is, bluntly, it is stuck in the first millennium. I don’t mean this in a negative sense at all. But be careful to remember that there is no reason why Christian liturgy should have to look like the 7th century in every single respect (for example).


With the chaos rampant in Contemporary Catholicism, I genuinely don’t fault people for considering the relatively organized chaos of Orthodoxy.


Yes, imitating the Orthodox, I know. That doesn’t make it right. Again, the Slavs condemned hesychasm and Palamas at one point. Why don’t you adhere to this tradition? In fact, are you even capable of finding an authentic eastern tradition apart from the Roman Church’s doctrinal guidance?


Bluntly: It’ more like you fell that you can ignore RCC teaching on the issue simply by announcing “Catholic.”

Everything that @iapueblo has written in this thread can be lifted directly from papal teaching. It’s just that some folks are “more Catholic than the Pope” . . .

This is odd even by CAF amateur apologetics: you are putting “reality” as a counterpoint to “papal teaching.”

While Luther would approve, Rome does not . . .

It would be useful to cite your source, as another half millennium certainly changed RCC thinking on this . . . an inexperience reader might think that you were actually quoting current Roman teaching . . .


There is no change. Those who change are heretics. Every dogmatic pronouncement of the Roman Church is current and binding in the sense in which it was first proclaimed. Anyone who says otherwise is simply not a Catholic, for they have abandoned its essence- tradition.


Council of Florence, Papal Bull “Cantate Domino.”


Oh I am not disapproving of Palamite theology- I am simply presenting that as example of “development” of theology. Same development (not necessarily to Latin way) could happen with Purgatory, but every time any development happens recently, it’s called latinization. Now that makes us ignore scenarios where latinization is problematic (and those surely exist), because we also sum them up with those there latinization is simply just enrichment. After all there are plenty of Eastern things Latin Church took up as their own, why is vice-versa bad? Recovering full identity does not mean fast-forwarding hundreds of years back and remaining there forever, it means being Eastern and it is characteristic of being Eastern to develop knowledge towards God, as it is characteristic of being Latin. If any sui iuris Church embraces Filioque despite being Eastern, it is alright according to Eastern ways and canons, is it not?

And this does not glorify Jansenism or Gallicanism if done by other sui iuris Churches. Heresy in Latin Church is still heresy in Eastern Church. Truth in Latin Church is still truth in Eastern Church. In first centuries Christian Church would adopt each other’s formulations and theological developments to enrich itself, instead of trying to cling onto remaining authentically Jewish. Now that does not mean you should not respect your traditions nor to enforce anything onto them, but embrace tradition as living thing, subject to additions coming with age. Thomism did not exist in Apostolic times either, but Latin Church now benefits from it. We also benefit from many Eastern theologians, so why wouldn’t East ever be able to benefit from Western?

Also, while that’s your decision and frankly has nothing to do with me, fact you rather attend Eastern Orthodox Parish than Latin Catholic one indicates you put tradition before the Church and divide Church into Eastern and Western instead of Catholic and Eastern Orthodox. This sums up what I think is wrong with your assertions about East- you diminish Eastern Catholics by your logic. You make them out to not be Catholic but only Orthodox who acknowledge Rome, you make them to be just the other part of Eastern-Wide Church instead of authentic members of One True Church, and you diminish their right to benefit from Papal Infallibility and Latin Dogmas (I mean theologia prima now), for sake of retaining their “independence”. Independence is what led Adam to first Sin, what led Arians from Church and also what led Eastern Orthodox from Church (those who did, I know Melkite Church never formally broke communion yet was considered Eastern Orthodox). To depend is not bad, in-fact it teaches us to depend on God and His Vicar. Pope is not Vicar of Church, he is Vicar of Christ. Church without communion with Vicar of God does not have perfect communion with God either. This is why only authentic Churches in Middle Ages that formed dogmas and doctrine were Latin Church and Eastern Churches that remained in communion with Rome. Eastern Orthodox were not part of it. Latin Dogmas are irreformable, true and according to will of Holy Spirit.


You really are hilarious :laughing:

We have are own theology and way of life and it’s not Roman and the Vatican is not only fine with it but encourages it.

Roman imperialism! Gotta love it :joy:



Also, I do not mean to diminish statements you and ZP are using but if someone quotes infallible documents from Ecumenical Councils or infallible proclamations ex-cathedra of Popes, and you quote Pope speaking without his infallibility, you lose. Infallible quotes are infallible, therefore there is either wrong interpretation used or what they imply is true.

this is not about thinking, this is infallible document. If Holy Roman Church professes and proclaims something in Ecumenical Council guided by Holy Spirit, then Holy Spirit guided them to this profession and proclamation. Either there is problem with terminology, or interpretation, or it is truth. Did truth change, or do you imply Holy Spirit lied, or that He was not present as Jesus promised He would be? Careful, this is clearly approach that borders modernism (proclaimed heresy, signed by Eastern Patriarchs too) and indifferentism.


You are ridiculing statements with improper arguments and thinking you are disbanding them. There is no Roman Imperialism as you stated it, there is however Infallible Vicar of Christ guiding the Church as He was guiding the Church with help Holy Spirit in the past since establishment of Church. And Church has remained infallible as it was, and Lord never left the Church to it’s own demise. This does not deny Church is only Latin, only Roman or anything like that.
Would you agree with bolded out statement, which was professed throughout history and is professed even now by Infallible Catholic Church of Christ? Yes/No?


It’s Roman Catholics who only see it as Rome’s way or the highway. If not, you ain’t Catholic! I’m kinda tired of it.



There are many of them, yes. However, it is not a highway- Catholic Church is the highway, and Rome is just the first truck that leads everybody else. No one who tries to get before it or deny it, or go other way can do so without leaving the highway.

I am just implying going Jansenist or Gallican because of some people who deny Eastern Catholics to be part of Church is just going to the other extreme. No matter if you go right or left, you are straying from the path.


It’s funny. I have read all kinds of comments about the infallibility of the Church and the Popes leadership but when the Church and Popes have handed out documents and writings concerning the East, both Catholic and Orthodox, it all seems to go out the window and is totally ignored. That’s how I see it at least because we are constantly attacked for being Eastern and “copying” the Orthodox. How ridiculous! Makes me ill :face_with_thermometer:



Thing is, those were either not dogmatic pronouncements ex-cathedra or are interpreted in their extremes. Popes affirm the truth, they do not create it. By copying Orthodox if it would mean that you adhere to being more like Orthodox without being more like Eastern Catholics were before schism (not literally, I mean taking examples from that) or it would be wrong. If someone means you are copying Orthodox by adhering to your own tradition then they are clearly wrong. Funnily enough, while here I seem like the Latin trying to enforce East to become Latin, in real life I am generally the one defending Eastern traditions and Eastern Churches to be true authentic Catholic sui iuris Churches. You can not even imagine the joy I had when I realized something like Eastern Catholic Churches, living embodiment of unity, exist. But unity is within Church, not unity with those outside it.


So ORIENTALIUM ECCLESIARUM, a document of the Second Vatican Coincil is just there to make us Easterners happy! Give me a break! It must be nice. When a Pope or the Church makes a statement of something you don’t like all you have to do is say it’s not a dogmatic pronouncement. Must be nice :+1:t3:

We’re Orthodox in communion with Rome. If you don’t like it you can send an email to the Pope. Although this Pope, as far as I have seen, doesn’t even refer to himself as Pope or Supreme Pontiff. Just as the Bishop of Rome.

Except when it comes to Purgatory or the IC. We better believe as Roman Catholics.

Until you see that we are called to be as the Orthodox are?



No, it’s not. WHAT does the Vatican encourage? The Synodikon of the Holy Spirit? Would you side with Bekkos or Gregory of Cyprus? Which of the two is authentically eastern?


Again, hilarious! You act as if Roman Catholic bishops or Popes have never had disagreements or taught differently.

From Orientalium Ecclesiarium:
~ “The Catholic Church holds in high esteem the institutions, liturgical rites, ecclesiastical traditions and the established standards of the Christian life of the Eastern Churches, for in them, distinguished as they are for their venerable antiquity, there remains conspicuous the tradition that has been handed down from the Apostles through the Fathers (1) and that forms part of the divinely revealed and undivided heritage of the universal Church.”
*I wonder who has these same “institutions, liturgical rites, ecclesiastical traditions”? The Orthodox maybe?
~ “Between these there exists an admirable bond of union, such that the variety within the Church in no way harms its unity; rather it manifests it, for it is the mind of the Catholic Church that each individual Church or Rite should retain its traditions whole and entire and likewise that it should adapt its way of life to the different needs of time and place.(2)”
*My Church practices the Byzantine Rite. Who else practices the Byzantine Rite? The Eastern Orthodox of course. A Rite is much more than a liturgical patrimony, “§1. A rite is the liturgical, theological, spiritual and disciplinary patrimony, culture and circumstances of history of a distinct people, by which its own manner of living the faith is manifested in each Church sui iuris. §2. The rites treated in this code, unless otherwise stated, are those which arise from the Alexandrian, Antiochene, Armenian, Chaldean and Constantinopolitan traditions.”
~“he Sacred Council, therefore, not only accords to this ecclesiastical and spiritual heritage the high regard which is its due and rightful praise, but also unhesitatingly looks on it as the heritage of the universal Church. For this reason it solemnly declares that the Churches of the East, as much as those of the West, have a full right and are in duty bound to rule themselves, each in accordance with its own established disciplines, since all these are praiseworthy by reason of their venerable antiquity, more harmonious with the character of their faithful and more suited to the promotion of the good of souls.”

We could go on and on from this document.



So do you side with Bekkos or lord Gregory of Cyprus regarding filioque? Does your bishop anathematize Bekkos in the Synodikon of Orthodoxy? I was Orthodox FYI, I know these issues rather well. I think anathemas contra Rome do not belong to the universal church now do they?


Please try to read my sentences before replying, I said either it is not infallible OR it is interpreted in extremes- there is nothing in that document that would assert Jansenism being fine.

Why would someone insist on being called same name those in schism are? I mean it’s just a phrase to express you are like Eastern Orthodox in your beliefs, but there are fundamental differences- key being you are part of One True Church.

Eh, is purgatory true or not? Believing in truth never hurt anyone, not spiritually anyway. It is not needed but I wouldn’t prohibit it same way you do.

Not ecclesiology-wise. Orthodox Christians use liturgical rites of Eastern Catholic Church, whom they were part of until the Schism. It’s not the other way around. Syllabus of Errors applies to Universal Church of which Eastern Catholics are rightful part.


Orientalus Ecclesiarum:

These individual Churches, whether of the East or the West, although they differ somewhat among themselves in rite (to use the current phrase), that is, in liturgy, ecclesiastical discipline, and spiritual heritage, are, nevertheless, each as much as the others, entrusted to the pastoral government of the Roman Pontiff, the divinely appointed successor of St. Peter in primacy over the universal Church. They are consequently of equal dignity, so that none of them is superior to the others as regards rite and they enjoy the same rights and are under the same obligations, also in respect of preaching the Gospel to the whole world (cf. Mark 16, 15) under the guidance of the Roman Pontiff.

By the name Eastern patriarch, is meant the bishop to whom belongs jurisdiction over all bishops, not excepting metropolitans, clergy and people of his own territory or rite, in accordance with canon law and without prejudice to the primacy of the Roman Pontiff.

(Note that while primacy is used in this document, when speaking about Eastern Patriarchs phrase “precedence of honor” is used. This indicates primacy of Roman Pontiff is therefore not the same as precedence of honor in regards of Eastern Patriarchs. After all, title of Cardinal is higher in esteem than title of Patriarch according to norms of Catholic Church. )

Also, rights of Pope:
The patriarchs with their synods are the highest authority for all business of the patriarchate, including the right of establishing new eparchies and of nominating bishops of their rite within the territorial bounds of the patriarchate, without prejudice to the inalienable right of the Roman Pontiff to intervene in individual cases (emphasis added)
It belongs to the patriarch with his synod, or to the supreme authority of each church with the council of the hierarchs, to regulate the use of languages in the sacred liturgical functions and, after reference to the Apostolic See, of approving translations of texts into the vernacular.
(again, speaks about Pope and Apostolic See having final say in Liturgical reforms regarding language)

Common participation in worship ( communicatio in sacris ) which harms the unity of the Church or involves formal acceptance of error or the danger of aberration in the faith, of scandal and indifferentism, is forbidden by divine law
Eastern Christians who are in fact separated in good faith from the Catholic Church, if they ask of their own accord and have the right dispositions, may be admitted to the sacraments of Penance, the Eucharist and the Anointing of the Sick. Further, Catholics may ask for these same sacraments from those non-Catholic ministers whose churches possess valid sacraments, as often as necessity or a genuine spiritual benefit recommends such a course and access to a Catholic priest is physically or morally impossible. (emphasis added)
(therefore attending Liturgy of Eastern Orthodoxy where Latin Rite Catholics are to fullfil Sunday Obligation is wrong, and Sunday Obligation is talked about for Eastern Catholics in this exact document- setting requirements of fulfilling it for Eastern Catholics)

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.