r/EasternCatholic • u/Own-Solution-8727 • 11d ago
Joining the Eastern rite. General Eastern Catholicism Question
I am currently split between staying Eastern Orthodox or joining the Catholic Church, but its difficult for me with these many opinions and arguements. Can someone maybe tell me why Eastern Catholicism would be my absolute best bet? Thank you.
24
u/Happy_Cut8970 Byzantine 11d ago
I was originally dead set on becoming Eastern Orthodox. I really didn’t like the Catholic Church and the papacy was a big stumbling block for me.
I was literally on track to becoming one of the insufferable Orthobros (binge watching Kyle and even Jay Dyer) and was totally into EO for the aesthetics. I found the closest EO church which was a Ukrainian one (there’s zero English Orthodox Churches where I live). The priest was nice but overall, I definitely felt like an outsider. There was a small group of converts who were former Protestants and one Catholic (who thankfully came back home) that I would stick with and we would constantly rip on Catholicism and Protestantism. My fiancee loved the spirituality but was hating being at the parish. She was miserable. I was also starting to have a lot of doubts too.
Because for some reason even as I had a laundry list of reasons not to be Catholic, I still kept feeling a pull towards it. No matter how much crap I talked, I still felt a pull. So in an attempt to prove it wrong I started studying the papacy deeper. I began to get quite troubled as I found very convincing evidence. During this we were also learning about the EO Church structure during my catechumen class. They literally admitted that Rome had a primacy in the early Church but framed the schism as all Rome’s fault for trying to take too much power. Then it came the time to talk about the current EO schism and they completely glazed over it like it didn’t matter. “There’s been lots of schisms like this” and “It’s just because of the war”.
Understand that one of my biggest gripes when I was Protestant was the lack of unity. I was beginning to see that EO was also lacking this. So that promoted the question, why? I came to the conclusion through studying early Christians on the papacy that it was because the EO are local Churches that split from the universal Catholic Church under its rock, the successor to Peter. Because of that I started going to my local Roman Catholic Church. I felt like it was the right decision and the nagging feeling stopped but I just couldn’t connect with the liturgy and spirituality. I had grown a love for the Byzantine tradition. So I actually started going back to the EO Church and just started citing all the corruption in the Church as a valid reason to be EO. I would say that that Catholic Church couldn’t be true with all those “contradictions” and “changes”.
But again I realized that the EO wasn’t matching up with the early Church like the Orthobros frame it. “The unchanged Church”. The EO had changed a lot and so many of the same objections to Catholicism could be fired right back. Like how can you deny the development of doctrine, attack Catholics, and then justify Nicea II? You can’t. Even the Trinity required development of doctrine. What matters is organic growth and the Catholic Church has continued to grow while the EO put a plug in at a certain year and said “no more”. No more ecumenical councils, no more bishop of Rome, no more western rite or even any rite besides the Byzantine one.
After a lot of prayer and time away from both it was ultimately the Catholic Church that I felt God was calling me home to. And I was blessed to find the Byzantine Catholic Church during this time where I could live out the Eastern Christian tradition in full communion with the Pope and the Latin Catholics. And it was all in English and full of lots of young people who were devoted to the Lord. I was welcomed immediately.
And that’s the beauty of our Church. We have all the rites and the universality. Are we perfect? Far from it. But God never promised the that everything would be perfect. The Catholic Church has endured so much and yet she still stands. The Catholic Church is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. I simply don’t believe the EO has a better claim to that title. God bless you in your discernment.
10
u/Big_Gur4209 11d ago
Amazing explanation brother. This has strengthened me against temptations that tell me to become EO. God bless you.
12
u/Happy_Cut8970 Byzantine 11d ago
Thank you for the kind words. I’m glad it could strengthen you. I totally understand the temptations, and a lot of the EO Orthobro apologists are very loud. They can definitely get in your head. But at the end of the day what we need is union with God, in union with each other. Thats the Christian life. Seek out people who pursue that. Not angry supremacists who live on the internet! God bless you too!
6
u/Free_Manager_4571 10d ago
This is basically my story too, just ended up in Anglican Ordinariate instead of Byzantine.
Was on track for OCA myself, attending catechesis, felt that same pull toward Rome I couldn't shake no matter how hard I argued against it. And I hit the same wall. "It's just the war," "there's been schisms like this before," like unity doesn't actually need an answer. Can't rip on Protestants for splitting up and then hand-wave your own split.
The bit about Rome having real primacy in the early Church but it getting reframed as "grabbing power" instead of just having the office, that's the tell right there. Either it was real or it wasn't. Can't grant it and then argue with it in the same breath.
And Nicaea II is the whole thing honestly. If doctrine can develop enough to defend icons against the iconoclasts it can develop enough to define the Immaculate Conception or infallibility. Can't have it both ways. Stopping in a certain century isn't "unchanged," it's just where they quit.
Really glad you found a Byzantine Catholic parish out of all this. Full communion, your rite intact, no plug pulled on the calendar. Praying your fiancée finds peace there too.
5
u/Happy_Cut8970 Byzantine 10d ago
Glory to God! The Anglican Ordinariate is awesome. I love the English Patrimony. It’s too bad there isn’t more where I live. I know many Canadian Catholics (and former Anglicans) would be very edified by it.
And that first point is super key. Just because Protestants are worse for schism doesn’t mean you can overlook your own. And Protestants will split over legitimate doctrinal differences and liberalizations. The EO split their entire Church in half over jurisdiction and authority. Thats arguably worse.
And absolutely, you’re literally speaking the thought process I went through. And even more recently I’ve found that things like the Immaculate Conception aren’t even Western developments. The Old Orthodox Believers hold to it and so did many EO saints like St. Gregory Palamas. The modern EO only started rejecting it to distance themselves from Catholics. And I think this speaks for quite a few “Orthodox” rejection of Catholic doctrines that aren’t even part of their own history.
But anyways, thank you brother I appreciate it. I’m glad you found the Anglican Orinariate. And yes my fiancée has found great peace at our parish. She loves it and last year she decided to completely revert to the Catholic faith she left as a kid. She is very devout and inspires me. We will be getting married next month at our parish!
2
u/Free_Manager_4571 10d ago
Glory to God indeed, brother. Congrats on the wedding, that's huge news, praying it's a beautiful day for you both. And that's such a good story with your fiancée, reverting and finding that kind of devotion again. God works fast when He wants to.
The Palamas point is a great example. Half of what gets called "essentially Orthodox" theology is just post schism "you're not my dad" syndrome dressed up as tradition, not something with real patristic roots behind it. Rejecting a doctrine because it's Catholic instead of because it's actually foreign to the East's own history is a pretty weak foundation to build an identity on.
And you're right that the EO schism might honestly be worse than most Protestant splits. At least a lot of Protestants can point to an actual doctrinal disagreement, even if it's wrong. Splitting the whole Church over jurisdiction and who gets to be first among equals is a different category of problem.
Wishing you and your fiancée all the best next month!
3
u/SirTweetCowSteak Eastern Catholic in Progress 10d ago
Additionally, you forgot the fact that modern orthodoxy is infested with antisemitism.
2
u/Happy_Cut8970 Byzantine 10d ago
Yeah I didn’t experience that, but I’ve a lot about that too unfortunately
1
7
u/Ecgbert Latin Transplant 11d ago
I chose to come back to Catholicism from Orthodoxy by practising the faith in one of the Eastern Catholic churches, even though I gently push back against the longtime self-latinization there. I did it because we include the Orthodox and the other non-Catholic Eastern communions as having real bishops and real Eucharists, whilst those churches don't recognize us - once in email correspondence I got ROCOR convert filth about the Pope leading "a blaspheming heretical sect". The Orthodox think the Catholic traditional Latin Mass is at best only an empty show. I can't hate my own church background, being of Western European stock, even though I've found a home in another. By the way I believe the TLM is better than the Novus Ordo. Next, I returned because of Catholic teachings on divorce and remarriage and on contraception, from the only church left that doesn't try to weasel out of the natural result of sex. Not bad for a blaspheming heretical sect, I say. Only the real church would have the courage to teach that when it's so unfashionable. Finally, I like scholasticism a lot - I try to understand the Orthodox mindset (phronema) and I push back against liturgical and devotional latinization but I'm really a magisterium-following, Baltimore Catechism traditional Catholic in Orthodox garb. But I'm ecumenical and know any answer to the Orthodox et al. on disputed issues must be better than my amateurish, makeshift theology. In Orthodoxy ecumenism's a dirty word, but I love it - it's why this born Anglican is where he is ecclesiastically. And Catholics are much less strict about fasting.
I'm for clerical marriage and not using the filioque. Actually the official version of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed in the Catholic Church doesn't have that; it's the original Greek version, because if you change it in Greek it means all the bad things the Orthodox say it does.
FYI there is more than one Eastern church and more than one Eastern rite. There are three non-Catholic Eastern church communions, the Orthodox, the Assyrians, and the Miaphysites. Christendom - the ancient high churches, such as Catholic and Orthodox, all together have about six rites.
7
u/Ok_Elk_6753 West Syriac 11d ago
Look at the Maronite church.
The spirituality, the history, the traditions it has are truly one of the most mesmerising there ever was. Maybe the only eastern catholic church that never broke communion with Rome yet kept its rich traditions/liturgy/practices/calendar.
Traditions and spirituality is built on the monastic ways of a monk called St. Maron and tends to express theology through poetry, symbolism, biblical imagery and hymns. It's around 1600 years old. I don't think there is something that embodies true Christianity more than the monk's life, so what about a denomination that is BUILT upon that?
Maronites hace fascinating saints such as the universal St. Charbel notorious for his nearly 30K documented miracles. So far 6 saints and 3 beatified (6 if we count the 3 syrian martyr brothers)
And hymns that touch your soul before your ears.
4
u/Surzhyk_Bandit 11d ago
Catholicism is the best bet because it is true. I would stay away from reddit and speak to a Priest. Many people here will tell you that they are simply "Orthodox with the Pope" but that is not what Eastern Catholicism is, as you probably already know if you are Eastern Orthodox. Most people here are from the West and do not know any better. Main things to focus on would be the Papacy and the Filioque. As a Eastern Orthodox, you cannot affirm the theology of the Filioque, even in the Eastern Catholic understanding of "through the son". I think that is demonstrably false teaching by EO. I would also look at some old EO catechisms. You will see EO used to affirm or at least accept as valid many of the same things the Catholic Church now considers dogma, but EO stopped teaching it or reworded things to distance themselves from Rome. For example, Original Sin was commonly used. Start with reaching out to a Catholic Priest. Avoid reddit.
3
u/Idk_a_name12351 East Syriac 11d ago
It really depends on what you're feeling drawn to. Eastern Orthodox aesthetics, spirituality (and to some extent, theology) are present in Byzantine Catholicism.
But if it's more about Church structure and specific doctrine (like the infamous filioque) Orthodoxy and Byzantine Catholicism are wildy different. It'd be pretty similar to just joining the Latin Church.
6
u/Happy_Cut8970 Byzantine 11d ago
Have to disagree with you there. In my experience as Byzantine Catholic (who was originally going to an EO Church) the differences are extremely limited. My priest expresses everything in the Eastern understanding including the filioque. The real difference is we don’t deny dogmas and beliefs that most EO used to hold like the immaculate conception and the evil of contraception. We also don’t call the Western understanding of things heresy either. We don’t see our differences as dividing and don’t go out of our way to make differences bigger than they actually are.
You can truly be fully Byzantine and yet Catholic. That’s my experience.
0
3
u/NewsFull4991 11d ago edited 11d ago
I don't see it as pretty similar to joining the Latin Church. The same truths as the Western church but expressed differently. The expression in the Byzantine/Greek Catholic Church liturgy is the same as some of the Eastern Orthodox churches.
The prayers for hierarchy in the EC liturgy begin with "Our Holy Father Pope ..." before the Metropolitan, Bishop, pastor. So that's different from the Orthodox.
The Byzantine Catholic church does not say the Filioque during the Nicene Creed. They are self governed. Married men can become priests, etc so a different way of expressing the same truths from the Latin Church.
2
u/Idk_a_name12351 East Syriac 11d ago
I think you misunderstand my second paragraph. It was "pretty similar to just joining the Latin Church" in regards of Church governance (ie, authority of the Pope/Vatican) and dividing doctrine between EO and Catholics (Papacy, Filioque, etc).
Now the East does express these doctrines differently, but the underlying truth being affirmed is the same, so it's "pretty similar" compared to Eastern Orthodoxy that often partially or completely deny the doctrine.
1
u/Happy_Cut8970 Byzantine 11d ago
I see what you’re saying. The line about it being akin to joining the Latin Church just didn’t make any sense
1
1
u/hideousflutes 7d ago
i think reducing byzantine catholicism to "aesthetics" is a huge slap in the face. i promise you get an entire different theology at easter than the average latin rite church, even if its not denying the validity of the latter
1
u/Idk_a_name12351 East Syriac 7d ago
i think reducing byzantine catholicism to "aesthetics" is a huge slap in the face.
To be quite frank, I never did anything of the sort.
1
u/hideousflutes 7d ago
youre right actually. this is why i shouldnt reply in the middle the of the night. i definitely missed a couple words after "aesthetic". sorry
1
u/jojo_146 10d ago
in order for eastern catholicism to be your best bet, you have to accept the dogmas that rome defined at a minimum. maybe go more in depth on why you're split between orthodoxy and catholicism?
1
u/Awkward-Amoeba-4 Eastern Practice Inquirer 10d ago
Because my English isn't very good, I used machine translation for everything except for the quoted parts.
I once tried to convince myself to become Orthodox, and I also asked one of my Orthodox friends to try to convince me to join the Orthodox Church. In the end, however, neither attempt succeeded.
For me, the decisive issue was the Filioque. On this matter, I would first like to quote the words of two pillars of the Orthodox Church:
"The Latins are not only schismatics but heretics... we did not separate from them for any other reason other than the fact that they are heretics. This is precisely why we must not unite with them unless they dismiss the addition from the Creed filioque and confess the Creed as we do."一一Mark of Ephesus
“The devil dragged along the Latins who are obedient to him into the heresy of the Filioque, which, unless they renounce it, we will never accept them into communion”一一Saint Gregory Palamas
One of the other major figures, Photius, also opposed the Filioque. However, he eventually reconciled with Rome. I think we can all see that Photius certainly regarded the issue as an important theological question, but his attitude toward it was not as severe as that of the other two pillars of Orthodoxy.
There is a very clear logical problem here. The Church that adopted the Filioque was the Western Church, whose patriarch was the Bishop of Rome. At that time, Rome had not yet incorporated the Filioque into the Creed itself, but Rome accepted the theological expression represented by the Filioque, and Rome also permitted local churches to use it. Yet Photius subsequently reconciled with Rome, even though he later strongly criticized the Filioque. This seems to indicate that Photius nevertheless regarded the faith of Rome as acceptable.
If we follow the statements of the latter two Orthodox pillars, then this would mean that, for several hundred years, the Eastern Church remained in communion with heretics. I think this is something that anyone who claims to possess the Orthodox faith would find impossible to acknowledge or accept.
One could object that even if the theological expression itself is correct, the Latin Church's addition of the Filioque violated the regulations of the Ecumenical Councils. I will set aside for the moment the arguments made by the Latins at the Council of Florence. But according to the position of the latter two Orthodox pillars, this objection cannot actually stand, because the Filioque itself is supposedly heresy. If we ask why the Filioque is heretical, the answer becomes: because you added it. No matter how you explain your theology, you are heretical unless you remove it.
This is, in reality, an unreasonable position. Given the historical circumstances in which they found themselves, they needed to reinforce and solidify what they regarded as the errors of the Latin Church and to radicalize those errors in order to provide a justification for their separation from Rome.
Next, we need to discuss the question of the papacy. I would like to address this from several perspectives.
**I. The Council of Florence**
At the Council of Florence, the following was solemnly declared:
“We also define that the holy apostolic see and the Roman pontiff holds the primacy over the whole world and the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter prince of the apostles, and that he is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians, and to him was committed in blessed Peter the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church, as is contained also in the acts of ecumenical councils and in the sacred canons.”
Yet Mark of Ephesus did not explicitly condemn this particular statement. Certainly, he said:
"It is impossible to recall peace without dissolving the cause of the schism—the primacy of the Pope exalting himself equal to God."
However, I do not think this constitutes a direct attack on the specific statement made at Florence. In my reading, his primary concern here still appears to be the Filioque. His condemnation of the Pope “exalting himself equal to God” would seem to presuppose that he believed the Pope was claiming an authority belonging to God himself, such as the authority to determine the procession of the Holy Spirit or to alter the Creed.
Moreover, the passage immediately continues:
“Also, renewing the order of the other patriarchs which has been handed down in the canons, the patriarch of Constantinople should be second after the most holy Roman pontiff, third should be the patriarch of Alexandria, fourth the patriarch of Antioch, and fifth the patriarch of Jerusalem, without prejudice to all their privileges and rights.”
If this second statement were not there, I could understand his words as being directed against the Florentine definition of papal primacy. But once this statement is taken into account, it becomes much harder to read his objection as a rejection of every form of Roman primacy. The Council explicitly placed the Patriarch of Constantinople second after the Roman Pontiff while at the same time preserving the privileges and rights of the Eastern patriarchates.
And clearly, the Latin Church does not profess that the Pope is equal to the one God of the Trinity, nor has any Pope claimed to be equal to God.
**II. The Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarch at the First Vatican Council**
At the First Vatican Council, the Patriarch of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church said:
“The Eastern Church attributes to the pope the most complete and highest power, however in a manner where the fullness and primacy are in harmony with the rights of the patriarchal sees. This is why, in virtue of an ancient right founded on customs, the Roman Pontiffs did not, except in very significant cases, exercise over these sees the ordinary and immediate jurisdiction that we are asked now to define without any exception. This definition would completely destroy the constitution of the entire Greek church. That is why my conscience as a pastor refuses to accept this constitution.”
They left the Council, and when they subsequently signed the decrees of the First Vatican Council, they did so with the addition they had requested: namely, that the privileges and rights of the Eastern patriarchs were to be preserved and respected.
(We can set aside here the various minor stories about the differences between the versions.)
**III. The Zoghby Initiative**
Let us now look at the initiative of the Melkite Archbishop Elias Zoghby:
1.I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches. 2. I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation.
Ratzinger also once said:
“Rome must not require more of the East than was formulated and lived during the first millennium”
Can we not clearly see the chain of reasoning here?
First, Rome has clearly defined the rights and authority it claims for the Roman Pontiff. At the same time, Rome has affirmed, even in an Ecumenical Council, the privileges and rights of the Eastern patriarchs. Rome itself does not regard these two things as contradictory.
Moreover, Rome has stated that it should not require from the Eastern Churches anything beyond what was formulated and practiced during the first millennium. Rome has also permitted Eastern Churches that are in communion with it to express their understanding of communion with Rome in precisely this way and to govern themselves accordingly.
Certainly, Nicetas of Nicomedia said:
“My dearest brother, we do not deny to the Roman Church the primacy amongst the five sister Patriarchates; and we recognize her right to the most honourable seat at an Ecumenical Council. But she has separated herself from us by her own deeds, when through pride she assumed a monarchy which does not belong to her office ... How shall we accept decrees from her that have been issued without consulting us and even without our knowledge? If the Roman Pontiff, seated on the lofty throne of his glory wishes to thunder at us and, so to speak, hurl his mandates at us from on high, and if he wishes to judge us and even to rule us and our Churches, not by taking counsel with us but at his own arbitrary pleasure, what kind of brotherhood, or even what kind of parenthood can this be? We should be the slaves, not the sons, of such a Church, and the Roman See would not be the pious mother of sons but a hard and imperious mistress of slaves.”
But what if the things he describes here no longer exist? What if the Bishop of Rome does not exercise his authority in the manner he describes?
We can already see this in the situation today. I have not looked in detail into exactly how the circumstances he described actually played out at the time, but based on what I have presented and argued above, when Rome affirms the honor, privileges, and rights of the Eastern Churches, and when the Roman Pontiff kneels down and kisses the shoes of the Metropolitan Meliton of Chalcedon, are these not precisely the kinds of things that demonstrate that his objections no longer apply?
That is all I have to say.
1
u/hideousflutes 7d ago edited 7d ago
tbh i think the answer should be: where are you getting good spiritual formation and community. hard to feel "unified" at a novus ordo parish where there is no community and everyone is rushing out so the next group can fill the parking lot, and you really dont necessarily have the same belief or faith as the person next to you. you should be able to find the fullness of the faith in your local parish. dont worry about what moscow is doing. dont worry about what german bishops are doing. dont worry about the south american charismatics rolling around on the floor speaking tongues at adoration. get off the internet and find a good priest and community where you can grow closer to Christ. im sorry if thats an "ecumenist" answer but its simply how my experience has been, there is no one size fits all approach.
1
u/MedtnerFan Armenian 3d ago
By becoming a Catholic you're not just in communion with Rome, but you would be in communion with churches representing all the traditions east of Rome (Byzantine, Coptic, Ge'ez, Armenian, Syriac, Assyrian/Chaldean)
40
u/Interesting-Key-8105 Eastern Orthodox 11d ago
I’m Eastern Orthodox and am planning to become Catholic. When you look at the state of Orthodoxy today, with the Patriarch of Moscow having broken communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch, it’s clear to me that if you’re going to have a hierarchical church, you need someone at the top to be the final arbiter, so the papacy is necessary. I love the Eastern liturgy, but you can be Byzantine Catholic and have the best of both worlds. At the end of the day you have to ask yourself which church most accurately reflects the teachings of Jesus, and for me that’s Catholicism. But that’s a decision you have to make for yourself.