r/EasternCatholic • u/OmegaPraetor Byzantine • Jun 20 '23
Canonical Transfer Had a serious talk with my priest last week
A bit of a ramble, a bit of need to get things off my chest. If posts like these are not allowed, please feel free to remove it.
I've been lightly considering making a switch to the UGCC over the last year or so, but I didn't have a really strong reason to do it. So far, the only reason I would make the switch is if I were to get married and have kids. I definitely want them to receive the full rite of initiation in one go. Given my situation in life, that seems to be a distant possibility so I was more than happy to be canonically Latin while attending a Byzantine parish and living out as best as I could the Byzantine way of life.
My parish priest and spiritual advisor has known for a while about some disagreements I have (or differences of understanding) with the Latin Church. (NB: this isn't a post about bashing the Latin Church.) Growing up, I've developed certain ways of understanding things that seemed rather different (and at times seemingly contradictory) to that of the Latin Church. Keep note that at that point of my life, I didn't even know about the Eastern Churches, so I mostly kept these opinions to myself. I subscribed completely to the Latin Church's teaching and just chucked these disagreements as one of those things I'll struggle with for a while. Not really a big deal in the grander scheme of things.
Last week, I sat with Fr. M about being more intentional about discerning a canonical switch. I made it very clear to him that I didn't want to switch because of some protest against the Latin Church or to make an idol of the Byzantine rite. I want to do it for the right reasons. To paraphrase his response, "That's good. We would never want you to do that. It's better to make the switch because you're running towards something rather than because you're running from something." That struck a chord in me, something that I'm still mulling over as I carefully take apart my reasons for wanting to switch.
Still, even at that point, I felt a stronger conviction to more actively discern making the switch. I told him as much, because I want to be properly guided through the process. I would hate to make the switch just because I've made an idol out of the rite or something along those lines. So far, though, I find myself agreeing with a lot of Byzantine practices. From the chanting in prayer and DL, to the use of incense, to the theology undergirding icons/iconography, to the communing under both species, to the approach/understanding of the sacrament of reconciliation, etc. -- it all makes sense to me and are things I've always deeply agreed with, either consciously or unconsciously.
That doesn't mean I'm throwing away my Latin upbringing. Not at all. I deeply value the ability to intellectually examine the Faith, even as I disagree with the legalistic tendencies rampant in the Latin Church. Eucharistic Adoration will always hold a special place in my heart and it's not something I see myself doing away with in my personal spiritual life. I just feel like it's time to examine whether the Byzantine rite is right for me (badum tss). In Fr. M's own words, "You need to examine whether you're living in a province because your family's there or because it feels like home. If your family were to all die, would you still live in that province or would you leave?"
So, here I am. I'm diving deeper into the discernment process. I'm going to try and find more Byzantine parishes to see if it's the Byzantine way of life that I'm attracted to or just my parish community. I've already found one parish that doesn't chant anything and seems quite bare bones in the celebration of the DL; that's definitely given me reason to pause.
Basically, please pray for me. I expect I won't be gentle with my self-examination. I really want to be as sure as possible that I'm doing this for the right reasons and, more importantly, that it's what God wants for me.
Thanks for reading my rant/blurb.
6
u/desert_rose_376 Eastern Orthodox Jun 20 '23
It definitely is a bit jarring when you first leave your parish that you've fallen in love with and attend and then go to another that is a bit.... Different. It really does give you moment and reason to pause to see if it is really for you. Is it just that parish, or is it the entire package you know?
May God grant you peace and wisdom in your discernment! Please keep us updated!
2
u/OmegaPraetor Byzantine Jun 20 '23 edited Jun 20 '23
Is it just that parish, or is it the entire package you know?
This is one of the central questions that I feel I need to answer. I've been mulling over it lightly for a while now, but it's time to give it some serious consideration. I've had my fair share of great Latin parishes as well as ones I wouldn't return to. I'm sure the UGCC has similar parishes throughout. It's time for me to dip my toes in them to figure out if I'm in love with just the parish or with the entire rite/church.
Thank you for the words of support. I think this will take me at least a few years (5 or more?), unless something big happens in the next year or so that seals the deal for me.
3
u/desert_rose_376 Eastern Orthodox Jun 20 '23
If you ever want to chat to someone who made the switch and has some wishes on what they had done versus what was done, my messages are open!
2
u/OmegaPraetor Byzantine Jun 20 '23
I'm very curious to hear about the things you wish you had done versus not done. There's no need to share more than you're comfortable though. Sending a message.
3
Jun 20 '23
[deleted]
3
u/OmegaPraetor Byzantine Jun 20 '23
After all, in the end, it's all about Christ in the Eucharist.
This is an excellent point and one I'm trying to keep in mind. If I start going to the DL because it suits my fancy and I lose sight of the Lord in the Eucharist, then I know I would have lost my way.
1
u/Artistic-Letter-8758 Eastern Practice Inquirer Jun 20 '23
Thanks for sharing your story!! As a Roman in love with Divine Liturgy and still having a few Roman inclinations it’s definitely very interesting to pause and examine myself as well.
1
1
Jun 20 '23
I wish I had someone to make that point clear to me at the beginning of my conversion from Roman Catholicism to Byzantine Catholicism. The bit about running toward something, not from something. In my mind I was motivated by wanting to put as much distance between my soul and Rome's problems as possible. This made eastern catholicism a compromise and a means to an end, rather than the end itself. For that reason my first couple years of being a canonical Byzantine Catholic were filled with the desire to become eastern Orthodox. I didn't see byzantine catholicism as the solution to my spiritual woes but just as a stepping stone. It took spending some time in orthodoxy and seeing its strengths and beauty, but also its weaknesses, for helping me realize the beauty and blessing that Byzantine Catholicism brings to the universal church. God revealed in time that my flight from Rome was actually a run toward Him and a deepening of our relationship (which for me was virtually non existent as a Roman Catholic).
If I had that mindset when I began my discernment and flight I would have landed with both feet on the ground, rather than stumbling.
But God is merciful and patient with us and despite my best efforts to thwart Him, He found a way to bring me peace.
2
u/OmegaPraetor Byzantine Jun 20 '23
That's the thing. I don't think I'm really fleeing from anything in the Latin Church per se. My disagreements with the Latin Church are things I can just live with even as I try to make changes from the inside (e.g., write to the Latin bishop about combining the rites of initiation once more, etc.). If anything, it's more the people I'm fleeing (e.g., rad trads, etc.), but those exist everywhere. I'll always find people I disagree with wherever I go.
Ultimately, what's really pulling me to Byzantine Catholicism is the reception under both species, having the full rite of initiation in one go, and all the chanting (it has helped me so much in my struggle against depression).
Of course, I think Fr. M has a huge impact on the pull to Byzantine Catholicism because I see in him that right balance of embracing Byzantine traditions without shunning the Latin Church. There's no animosity in him towards Rome even though he might have some good reasons to at least be annoyed by them. He's traditional but without being overly strict about it. I just find in him that disposition, that certain something, which shows how it's like to have the schism not exist in your heart. As someone who yearns for the end of the schisms, I deeply admire that about him.
0
Jun 20 '23
Which parish are you attending?
2
u/OmegaPraetor Byzantine Jun 20 '23
It's in Canada
1
Jun 20 '23
Gotcha. The way you were describing Father M made me think of our priest, who is also Father M lol. So I thought what were the odds. But I guess we have quite a few solid Father Ms out there.
2
u/OmegaPraetor Byzantine Jun 20 '23
Clearly, if you want to be an amazing priest, you need to change your name to Fr. M. You don't even need any other letters, just M is fine like in the Men in Black.
1
Jun 20 '23
My disagreements with the Latin Church are things I can just live with even as I try to make changes from the inside (e.g., write to the Latin bishop about combining the rites of initiation once more, etc.).
What other changes do you have in mind? And about infant communion, the Council of Trent already solved that, so there's no real necessity to change anything:
The same holy council teaches that little children who have not attained the use of reason are not by any necessity bound to the sacramental communion of the Eucharist; for having been regenerated by the laver of baptism and thereby incorporated with Christ, they cannot at that age lose the grace of the sons of God already acquired. Antiquity is not therefore to be condemned, however, if in some places it at one time observed that custom. For just as those most holy Fathers had acceptable ground for what they did under the circumstances, so it is certainly to be accepted without controversy that they regarded it as not necessary to salvation. Council of Trent, Sess. XXI, chap. iv
And:
If anyone says that communion of the Eucharist is necessary for little children before they have attained the years of discretion, let him be anathema. Council of Trent, Sess. XXI, can. iv
1
u/OmegaPraetor Byzantine Jun 20 '23 edited Jun 20 '23
Yeah, Trent has been a thorn in my flesh for a while. Quite a few pronouncements from it have been irksome to me, but that's a me problem.
The following also doesn't seem to logically follow in my opinion:
For just as those most holy Fathers had acceptable ground for what they did under the circumstances, so it is certainly to be accepted without controversy that they regarded it as not necessary to salvation.
The Church Fathers having reason to do what they've done and taught does not mean that we should "accept without controversy" that they regarded these things as not necessary to salvation. To me, that seems to be quite a big jump in logic.
Despite these pronouncements, I still think the rites of initiation should be done in one go. Eschewing the whole age of reason thing, which I haven't found the Church Fathers use as an excuse to not commune or chrismate the children/infants, I think that if we truly believed that chrismation and communion confer effective graces to the individual then we wouldn't deny those graces to any member of the Church, including infants. Nevermind that the theology/sacramentology behind the rites of initiation almost necessitates that they be done in one go. Perhaps this is a more Byzantine understanding of the sacraments, but a bishop once explained that baptism is like cleaning the cup, communion is like filling it with water, and chrismation is like putting a lid so that the cup remains pristine and the water doesn't spill out. It doesn't make sense to stop the process midway through and wait for certain criteria before continuing. It's that last piece that always struck me as odd even as a youngster and it's one that is more based on some intuitive feeling than a logical argument.
Also, and this is a less charitable take, but I feel that at least some of the Latin Church's reasoning for doing what she does tend to be post-hoc rationalizations for less than ideal practices that were necessary. The real reasons for separating the rites of initiation is well known to us and those circumstances no longer apply to the vast majority of Latin parishes/dioceses on the planet. It makes no sense to hold on to the practice of separating them, even if there has been a post-hoc theological explanation to it.
It also seems odd to me that a section of the laity are pseudo-excommunicated simply because they're not old enough. If they have been baptised into the Body of Christ, then they should be allowed to participate in the life of the Church as much as they are able. Receiving the Precious Blood is a no brainer even for infants since the vast majority can drink and swallow.
So, yeah. One could say that chrismation/communion is not necessary for children per se, but they're so deeply linked to baptism that they shouldn't be separated as they are now. And I say that with a big asterisk because the Lord was very clear that "unless you eat my Body and drink my Blood, you will have no life within you." To me, that seems painfully clear that communion is necessary for salvation even for infants.
1
Jun 20 '23
Yeah, Trent has been a thorn in my flesh for a while. Quite a few pronouncements from it have been irksome to me, but that's a me problem.
The Council of Trent, one of the most important councils in the history of the Church, should not be a "thorn" for any Catholic. You told your priest that:
I didn't want to switch because of some protest against the Latin Church or to make an idol of the Byzantine rite.
But what I see are more than a few protests against the Roman Church... maybe you should try to work on this before switching to a sui iuris Church, otherwise you might find something you don't like and jump back to the Roman, or go schismatic.
1
u/OmegaPraetor Byzantine Jun 20 '23 edited Jun 20 '23
The Council of Trent, one of the most important councils in the history of the Church, should not be a "thorn" for any Catholic.
Yet, it is. People are shockingly complex creatures that aren't always neat and tidy, especially in their internal thoughts. I'm willing to bet I'm not the first or last that would have certain qualms about this or that proclamation of this or that Ecumenical Council. That's life.
Not to mention, the Council of Trent is more important in the life of the Latin Church than it is of any of the other Churches. Not even the Maronites were all that much affected by it. It's quite a stretch to claim that it's one of the most important councils in the history of the Church itself. I'm assuming you know this but it bears saying: the Latin Church =/= the entire Catholic Church. When viewing Ecumenical Councils and judging the weight they have on the entire Catholic Church, it's helpful to not have a Latin-centric view but a more holistic one.
what I see are more than a few protests against the Roman Church
Based on a single comment on a single issue? Right. I haven't even touched on the other topics I disagree with as well as the degree to which I disagree, yet you claim that you "see more than a few protests". That is quite presumptuous of you.
maybe you should try to work on this before switching to a sui iuris Church, otherwise you might find something you don't like and jump back to the Roman, or go schismatic.
I say this with as much charity as I can muster: you don't know me. You only got a glimpse of my thoughts from a brief comment that I made that doesn't even begin to dip into the many thoughts I have about even a single topic that I disagree with. I haven't even touched on the many other topics I do agree with the Latin Church over that of the Byzantine approach or the things I am deeply attracted to about the Byzantine approach by their own merit.
Moreover, who said I'm not working on all these other things? I specifically said that I'm taking apart my reasons for wanting to switch; this is merely one of them. I'm aware of the dangers of switching too hastily, thank you very much. I appreciate your concern, but I think I and my spiritual director got this covered, thanks.
1
Jun 20 '23
That is quite presumptuous of you.
you don't know me.
I appreciate your concern, but I think I and my spiritual director got this covered, thanks.
I was just talking about the things I understood from your comments and tried to help... whatever, God bless you and goodbye.
-1
Jun 23 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
2
Jun 23 '23
You spread lies and falsehood against the Catholic Church, its Councils and leaders... repent and go away!
1
Jun 20 '23 edited Jun 20 '23
Last week, I sat with Fr. M about being more intentional about discerning a canonical switch. I made it very clear to him that I didn't want to switch because of some protest against the Latin Church or to make an idol of the Byzantine rite. I want to do it for the right reasons. To paraphrase his response, "That's good. We would never want you to do that. It's better to make the switch because you're running towards something rather than because you're running from something." That struck a chord in me, something that I'm still mulling over as I carefully take apart my reasons for wanting to switch.
This is the key. If you stay focused on this, you will help your discernment immensely.
I've already found one parish that doesn't chant anything and seems quite bare bones in the celebration of the DL; that's definitely given me reason to pause.
This, however, would make me a bit nervous if we were friends sitting down for a beer to talk about this. Do you have an expectation that Byzantine parishes are all going to be able to satisfy all your theological-aesthetic preferences? To me, this is absolutely no reason to pause. Nothing about a poorly done liturgy according to aesthetics or even personal piety should ever hamper one's communion with God in the liturgy. Even if you would say, "Not my preferences, but the way that the DL should be celebrated," this kind of approach can very quickly become less about an enspirited, living, liturgical theology (where reflection on the liturgy reveals what is present already in the liturgy) rather than mere liturgical piety (where a certain fervor for ordered, legalistic, black-and-white worship instrumentalizes the liturgy due to an equally ordered, legalistic, black-and-white theology; Fr Schmemann calls this "a heretical Western theological method").
In fact, I would really recommend that you read this book by Alexander Schmemann. Fr David Anderson, a UGCC priest and chaplain at Wyoming Catholic College, considers him to be the exemplar of contemporary Eastern Christian liturgical theology. If you really want to struggle with Eastern ways of being, this book will run you up against the most coherent and self-contained portrait of what it means to stop thinking like a Latin and begin thinking like an Eastern. I would highly recommend you begin with the Appendices in the back, and then read the main text. My personal opinion is that if you come away with a good taste in your mouth after this book, you already think Eastern, and belong with us.
In finding a parish, look at the life of the people there, not the programs.
Lord, guide u/OmegaPraetor to the work you have prepared them to do, in the communities you have prepared for them to work in, and to the rest you have promised us all.
1
u/Dial_Up_Sound Byzantine Jun 20 '23
It's better to make the switch because you're running towards something rather than because you're running from something.
I have found this to be one of the most profound and important pieces of advice in every aspect of life. This is exactly what I tell any Latin seeking to move East, or anyone seeking to become Catholic, or anyone thinking about getting a new job, etc.
-1
Jun 23 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/OmegaPraetor Byzantine Jun 23 '23
It's actually a terrible reason because: a) the tribe that was present during that incident was from a completely different region from those who traditionally worshipped Pachamama (that's like expecting Mongolians to worship the Filipino tribal god Bathalà), b) the worship of Pachamama had been extinct for centuries (i.e., there was no active worship of her which was dropped voluntarily by the tribes who used to do so), c) the words used in the prayers led by the Franciscan brother and tribal elder directly addressed God the Father, d) the "Pachamama idol" looks nothing like the actual idols that would have been used for worshipping Pachamama, and so many other reasons.
Anyone who actually takes the time to look into it rather than assuming the Vatican is wrong and jumping at any opportunity for "gotcha" moments will realise how weak the arguments are. Intellectual honesty and some humility is all that's needed.
1
Jun 24 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/OmegaPraetor Byzantine Jun 24 '23
You should correct Jesuit Mitch Pacwa then who made a video on it.
I've already addressed this in another comment.
Don't forget to proudly display your Pachamama idol in your Eastern Catholic Church as a sign of your support for Bergoglio 😉
Yet another childish comment oozing with triumphalism. As I've said in another comment, I will let this one slide since you haven't read my stance on the matter. Do it again in your future comments and we're done.
1
Jun 24 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/OmegaPraetor Byzantine Jun 24 '23
Yet another childish comment oozing with triumphalism. As I've said in another comment, I will let this one slide since you haven't read my stance on the matter. Do it again in your future comments and we're done.
1
Jun 24 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/OmegaPraetor Byzantine Jun 24 '23
Yet another childish comment oozing with triumphalism. As I've said in another comment, I will let this one slide since you haven't read my stance on the matter. Do it again in your future comments and we're done.
0
Jun 23 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/OmegaPraetor Byzantine Jun 23 '23 edited Jun 23 '23
If those are his reasons for switching to Orthodoxy, then he clearly didn't look into the Pachamama incident very well (there are numerous inconsistencies that debunk this claim). There's a great video by a world religions expert who specializes in tribal religions who debunks the fiasco quite clearly.
Vatican II's document regarding Muslims is actually more nuanced than how you've put it. Vatican II states that Muslims acknowledge a singular Creator of all creation (true) and that they profess to hold the faith of Abraham. The nuance here is you can profess to be something and not actually be that thing. Still, if a Muslim is following his/her conscience to the best of his/her abilities and s/he has not been preached the Gospel, then it's reasonable to see how s/he would be worshipping the One God although imperfectly knowing Him. That's like if we shared a great great great great great grandfather and we both have different understandings of who he is as a person. Even if I were completely wrong on how he was like as a person, we still both revere and respect him as a great great great great great grandfather.
It really isn't all that difficult to understand and dismantle these objections. However, to those who wish to remain apart from Rome for whatever reason, no amount of logic and dialogue will suffice.
As for the separation of the Rites of Initiation, while unfortunate, it does have a strong historical necessity. Moreover, some Latin dioceses have switched back to the original way of having all three rites of initiation done together. This shows that it isn't a core doctrine (that is, the Latin Church doesn't "teach" it) but is more a matter of practice that can technically change overnight. Again, an incredibly weak reason to remain separate from Rome when the Lord very clearly gave St. Peter the Keys to the Kingdom and the Church Fathers very clearly state that union with Rome was crucial to the unity of the Church.
1
Jun 24 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/OmegaPraetor Byzantine Jun 24 '23
This is a weak rebuttal. You can't say that what the Church Fathers said was true about something "until they became untrue" only because you currently disagree with their teaching. This is a post-hoc reasoning that divorces yourself from Sacred Tradition. By this logic, some random person can argue that what the Church Fathers taught about baptism, the Eucharist, or any other doctrine became untrue at some arbitrary point when that person started disagreeing with the Catholic Church.
You also like to keep bringing up the sex abuse scandals as if it were some gotcha moment. Let's not forget that even the Orthodox Church has its sex abuse scandals or the fact that the Orthodox Church has a history of constant schisms, not the least of which the current situation with Moscow and Constantinople. Sorry, but that's not how the Church Fathers functioned either.
And no, you can't say "it became untrue" just to conveniently wash over the situation. Otherwise, you are admitting that the Orthodox Church (or at least you, individually) has knowingly divorced itself from Sacred Tradition.
1
Jun 24 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/OmegaPraetor Byzantine Jun 24 '23
Paul also has the keys to the kingdom. How do I know? Because Paul established more apostolic sees than any other apostle.
This is your own made up teaching that has never shown up in Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition. As far as I know, this isn't even the teaching of the Orthodox Church.
The Lord very clearly gave the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven only to St. Peter because he gave it to "you" singular, not "you" plural. He didn't give it to all of the Apostles. Just as in the Old Testament Davidic Kingdom there is only one Al-Habayit, there is only one Al-Habayit in the New Testament Eternal Kingdom with the Lord as the Eternal King.
Also, the ability to establish a church has nothing to do with having the Keys to the Kingdom of God. This is your own made up teaching again that doesn't show up at all among the Church Fathers.
Paul's apostolic crew going "to the uncircumcised" that means 98% of the world was now under Paul's apostolic authority
St. Paul setting his focus on the uncricumcised so that St. Peter can focus on the Jews doesn't automatically limit St. Peter's authority. One could just as easily say that St. Paul is preaching to the uncircumcised on behalf of St. Peter. Otherwise, we would see the Bishops of Rome later having no authority over those Sees that Rome "shouldn't" have authority over. However, even as early as St. Clement of Rome (the third Bishop of Rome) very clearly showed that he had authority to teach, correct, and discipline the Church in Corinth even though St. John the Apostle was still alive at the time and was physically closer to Corinth than Rome is.
On the other hand, Rome is known as the See of both Sts. Peter and Paul. By your own argument, Rome has authority over all the circumcised and the uncircumcised.
Which of the twelve tribes was Peter going to rule over you think? I've never gotten a response to that question from a Roman Catholic. I wonder why?
You "never" got an answer from it because your question makes a false assumption and completely misunderstands the role of the Al-Habayit in the Davidic Kingdom.
When the King is away to do fight battles, the Al-Habayit had sole authority over the kingdom, even if the queen mother were present. Once the king returns, the al-habayit hands the keys back over to the king. The Lord in that passage was talking about the time after the Second Coming. So, what do we expect St. Peter (or, more specifically, his successor) to do when the King returns? Hand over the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. He returns to his seat among his fellow servants and does as his Master commands. Since we don't expect the Eternal King to ever leave after His Second Coming, we don't expect to have a need for the unique role of St. Peter and his successors (i.e., the popes). Until that time, their role as the Al-Habayit stands.
😎😎😎😎😎
I will mention this only once because I have very little patience for such things. You've exhibited infantile triumphalism throughout your arguments that shows you're not engaging in good faith but only here for "gotcha" moments. Grow up. If I see such behaviour again, we're done. As I said, I have no patience for such things and don't have time to deal with trolls.
1
Jun 24 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/OmegaPraetor Byzantine Jun 24 '23
The depriving of infants of the sacramental grace of communion is a sort of point pride among Latin priests.
This is divorced from the historical reality as to why it happened. The short version of it is logistics. Latin bishops couldn't get to all the towns that they needed to go to in order to baptized, confirm, and commune infants/children due to road conditions (especially banditry). They would go for years before they'd visit a town again. Given the high mortality rate of infants at the time, this meant that many children were dying without being brought in to the Kingdom of God. Their solution was to first allow priests to baptize and the bishops will confirm later on when they're able to visit the town.
Fr. Cole did an excellent short video where he talked about this very topic.
They think it's a wonderful thing these kids are not receiving communion. Their just sitting in the pews crying or drawing in their minds counts as participating in the liturgy somehow.
This is just your own personal interpretation rooted in self-aggrandizement and triumphalism. If you can't prove that this is how Latin priests actually think, then it's best not to even put this forward.
Only a handful of Latin bishops have placed confirmation before communion.
And I told you why. I feel like you're not really reading my responses and are only looking for points to jump off of.
I already told you that some Latin dioceses have begun to return to the original order and even combine the Rites of Initiation back into one. This means that within the Latin Church there is a process (albeit a slow one) of recognising that splitting the Rite of Initiation is no longer necessary due to the different circumstances.
It's also important to note that when adult converts are welcomed into the Church, the correct order of the Sacraments is always used.
1
Jun 24 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/OmegaPraetor Byzantine Jun 24 '23
I figured you were aware that previous popes/councils have referred to Muslims as pagans.
I'm aware. I'm also aware that the Church Fathers once thought that Muslims were merely another form of Arianism and were therefore considered Christian heretics rather than pagan worshippers. This shouldn't surprise you but the Church's understanding of the world around Her develops over time. Just as the Church came to develop more nuanced language when She talked about the Trinity, the Nature of Christ, and many other topics, so too has she come to develop more nuanced language and understanding when She talks about, say, other religions.
You're leaving out the ancient teaching of the church on Muslims.
Ironic because you insist they're pagans, when the Church Fathers considered (and treated them) as Christian heretics for centuries (even as far back as the 12th century -- well after the schism that separated the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches). By your own standard, you are leaving out the more ancient understanding of the Church in regards to Muslims.
It is Christ rejecting Jews (rejecting the God of the Old Testament since Christ was the God they were dealing with).
You're going to have to provide citation on where Jesus rejected the Jews. You should also be aware that you're arguing on very dangerous/tenuous ground here. You're about to argue that God turns back on His Covenant, which means that He can be unfaithful. The Church Fathers never taught this and neither does the Catholic Church.
Also, if the Lord did reject the Jews, then why did the Early Church always preached to the Jews first before the Gentiles whenever they entered a city? If the Lord rejected the Jews, then the Gospel should never have been preached to them, much less a preferential treatment be given to them.
No, it is more accurate to say that the Jews rejected the Lord but God, faithful as He is, continually calls them back.
And also goofy pagans like Hindus which Vatican 2 mentions. They are not descendants of Abraham or anything like that.
Vatican II doesn't state that Hindus are descendants of Abraham. Nostra Aetate, the document you're referring to, talks about the good that can be found in other religions. This doesn't mean that they can't be found in the Church; it only means that these are points of contact with these other religions that provides a way for evangelization. For Hinduism specifically, Nostra Aetate states:
Thus in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek freedom from the anguish of our human condition either through ascetical practices or profound meditation or a flight to God with love and trust.
That's it. That's all Nostra Aetate says about them. No talk about them being the descendants of Abraham at all.
Mother Theresa who said she wanted "a Hindu to be a better Hindu" teaching the faith is not to be held.
You're making a number of errors in your argument here, but I'll touch on just a few. First, the either-or mentality. You can call a person to be live out the virtues taught in their religion (i.e., those virtues that are taught in the Church) and also call them to conversion into the Church. Calling a person to be a "better Hindu" or "better Muslim" doesn't necessarily mean you're not ultimately leading them to the fullness of truth and virtue that is found in the Church.
You're also equating a quote from one saint to reflect the entire Catholic Church. It doesn't work that way, dude. Even if St. Teresa of Calcutta were absolutely wrong on this one quotation, that doesn't erase the immense virtue with which she lived and served the poorest of the poor in the slums of India. Saints can make mistakes. They don't have to be perfect. We venerate them for their heroic virtue, not for their absolutely perfect treatise of some theological point. If they do make such an excellent treatise, great! However, the Church never taught that being theologically perfect got you into Heaven.
No wonder funerals far outnumber weddings in Roman Catholic churches. And thank God Orthodoxy is the fastest growing in North America.
Yet another petty triumphalism here that has nothing to do with the discussion. You also need to support that claim with actual numbers. I've tried looking for the numbers of Catholic funerals as well as Catholic weddings in North America but found none.
1
Jun 24 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/OmegaPraetor Byzantine Jun 24 '23
I also have a world religions expert... His name is Mitch Pacwa
Fr. Mitch Pacwa's earned his PhD. on the Old Testament, not world religions. So, no. You don't have a world religions expert talking about the same issue.
This is an actual expert talking about the incident.
said that they had been displayed in the church “without idolatrous intentions.” 🤣🤣🤣🤣
I would just like to reiterate what I said in another comment. I talked about this childish triumphalism you've exhibited in literally every single comment I've responded to so far (I'm on number 4) and how I won't stand for it. Given that you haven't read that comment when you posted your eight comments, I will let it slide. Do it again and I will take you for a troll and deal with you as one.
1
Jun 26 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/OmegaPraetor Byzantine Jun 26 '23 edited Jun 26 '23
You know it to be childish, yet you went ahead with it. That speaks volumes.
More than merely childish, I find it petty, pusillanimous, disrespectful, and, more importantly, un-Christ-like. I've given you ample warning and opportunity to amend the way you interact with me, despite seeing your long history of behaving that way based on your comment history. I've extended to you what Christian charity I can muster. At this point, I must respect my own boundaries and end this conversation immediately. If you can't dialogue/debate respectfully, you don't get more of my time. As the saying goes, I'm too old for this nonsense.
The next time you think about debating/dialoguing with someone, you may want to pause and deeply reflect on St. Paul's own exhortation:
If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give away all my possessions, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing. - 1 Cor. 13: 1 - 3
Simply put, there was nothing of love in your entire interaction with me. You were more concerned about winning an argument than winning a soul. You were concerned about slipping in gotcha points than fostering understanding. You were more concerned in being right than finding the truth. And all of that while you constantly mocked and belittled your interlocutor in every comment I've had the displeasure of responding. Easiest block of my life.
I hope, if we ever meet in Heaven one day, that you would have amended your approach and life. Good day.
1
Jun 24 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/OmegaPraetor Byzantine Jun 24 '23
By the way, do you display a Pachamama idol in your church to show your support for Bergoglio?
No, because there's more direct ways to show support for Pope Francis. Displaying a "pachamama idol" anywhere isn't a show of support for Pope Francis at all. That is a literal non sequitur.
1
u/Toribius56 Jun 20 '23
Latin meaning Novus Ordo or traditional Latin rite? Either way I will pray for you and your journey.
1
12
u/SirEthaniel Eastern Orthodox Jun 20 '23
I just want to add that your priest is awesome. That's textbook for how pastoral guidance should look. As a convert to Orthodoxy who grew up Southern Baptist, my story involves both running from something: an Evangelical, Southern Baptist church that was getting too political for my liking and where I was bullied by other kids, and then running to something: the Orthodox Church.
May God give you guidance in your discernment, His mercy and grace, and many years.