Are Eastern Catholics and traditional Catholics Orthodox in denial [CONTROVERSIAL]

[AlexB23]

I was talking to a traditional Catholic and they recognize the errors of Vatican 2. Byzantine / Eastern Catholics also see the error of Rome such as the filoque. Most of it seems to be over the simplifification of the liturgy by Rome. While l I do NOT harbor any animosity towards Catholics I just seems like Byzantine Catholics and traditional Catholics would be better off converting with Orthodox instead of continuing the facade of being in communion with the Roman Church which over time has seriously degraded. George Joseph and Carl have really sacrificed the faith to modernity(colloqually known as wokeness) in a futile attempt to seem relevant. Perhaps we could use a form of ecumenicalism as a form to convert them to our side. Perhaps if needed we could convert entire parishes to Orthodoxy. I encourage Christians of all denominations to return to traditionalism.IF THIS BREAKS ANY GUIDELINES I APOLOGIZE

I go to a Vatican II era church, as most Catholic churches are Vatican II, so I can not make any statements. What do you think about Vatican II?


For those unfamiliar with Vatican II, here is a Cliff's Notes rundown:
Sources: https://www.npr.org/2012/10/10/162573716/why-is-vatican-ii-so-important , An overview of the Second Vatican Council - Vatican News

Vatican II, also known as the Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, was a significant event in the history of the Roman Catholic Church that took place between 1962 and 1965. The council was convened by Pope John XXIII with the goal of updating and renewing the Church's doctrine and pastoral practices in light of the modern world. It is considered a major turning point in the history of the Catholic Church as it brought about numerous reforms that have had a profound impact on the way the Church functions and relates to the world.

The council was attended by 2,500 bishops from around the world, making it the largest ecumenical council in history. The sessions were divided into four constituent parts: the Church in relation to the modern world (aggiornamento), divine revelation and sacred scripture, the Church's sacramental life and ministry, and the Church in relation to other Christian bodies.

Some of the most important documents or decrees of Vatican II include:

1. The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium): This document called for a renewal of the liturgy and made provisions for greater use of the vernacular language in the Mass.
2. The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium): This document redefined the role of the laity within the Church and affirmed the importance of the Church as a universal community.
3. The Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes): This document addressed the relationship of the Church to the modern world and called for dialogue with other faiths, cultures, and ideologies.
4. The Declaration on Religious Freedom (Dignitatis Humanae): This document recognized the right of individuals to religious freedom and affirmed that religious belief is a matter of conscience.
5. The Declaration on Ecumenism (Unitatis Redintegratio): This document called for increased dialogue and cooperation between the Catholic Church and other Christian bodies.
6. The Declaration on Interreligious Dialogue (Nostra Aetate): This document recognized the value of other religions and called for dialogue and respect between Catholics and people of other faiths.

Vatican II brought about a new era in the history of the Catholic Church, characterized by greater openness to the world and renewed commitment to dialogue, ecumenism, and religious freedom. It marked a significant shift away from the more authoritarian and insular approach of previous centuries and helped to pave the way for greater engagement with the modern world.

 

[ArmyMatt]

As a Roman Catholic, I prefer Ad Populum in vernacular and don't think there is anything dumb about it.

none of us is saying there is.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

none of us is saying there is.

What is this?

that it exists at all shows a dumbing down.

It isn't leading you anywhere precisely because it has been dumbed down to the lowest level.

but then

I was using hyperbole. If the liturgy is being brought down to "meet us where we are", then it cannot be elevating us to a higher position.

 

[ArmyMatt]

What is this?



but then

the Liturgy doesn’t meet us where we are. Christ does. and through the Liturgy, He elevates man to His Throne.

 

[E.C.]

I need to issue a correction here: Old Catholics aren't traditionalist, and aren't even Roman Catholic. They're a group that broke away from the Roman Catholic church in the 19th century after the First Vatican Council precisely because they disagreed with its declarations regarding the power and authority of the pope. They seem more akin to Anglicans than anything else... which would explain why the biggest group of Old Catholics, the Union of Utrecht, is in full communion with the Anglicans.

They may not be traditionalist in the sense of being defined Traditionalist Catholics - meaning, Old Catholics aren't the same as more traditional minded Catholics who want the pre-Vatican II Church. However, Old Catholics are "traditionalist" in their beliefs that the Bishop of Rome isn't a requirement to being a legit Church.

Either way, there's plenty of room for Old Catholics back home in Orthodoxy provided they correct whatever new things they've come up with since 1870. For example, I've heard some allow for female priests, that doesn't fly in Orthodoxy. But that's all for bishops to figure out should Old Catholics want to make that move.

By gar, it's been a while since I've seen an iteration of the 'Orthodox in union with Rome' question! This is giving me major CAF flashbacks...

Anyway, that idea was bunkum then, and it's bunkum now, and it will be bunkum forever into the future. To say that Eastern Rite Catholics would have anything to do with Orthodoxy outside of their outer pretentions in seeking to preserve what their actual fathers in the faith had before they joined Rome is just ridiculous. You can't divorce and still claim to be 'Married to the first love, but actively living with a new partner' (~ 'Orthodox in denial', or as they'd prefer it, 'Orthodox in union with Rome'). Things do not work that way. That is fornication. Ask the woman at the well how that worked out. We are not supposed to fornicate, whether physically or spiritually.

Long time no see!

Great characterization of the Eastern Catholics. I like to tell people that Eastern Catholics (at least the formerly EO ones) are kinda like Michael Carleone's sister in "The Godfather". She married a guy she thinks that she loves, but he mistreats her. The difference is we don't send the goons out to beat up the brother-in-law no matter how tempting it may be. We may not be happy with her decision, but we try to love her anyway.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

the Liturgy doesn’t meet us where we are. Christ does. and through the Liturgy, He elevates man to His Throne.

I took issue with the "dumbing down" comment. Also "errors of Vatican 2" and "simplification of the liturgy".

I asked for examples and only got Ad Orientem which I thought had no weight.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I took issue with the "dumbing down" comment. Also "errors of Vatican 2" and "simplification of the liturgy".

I asked for examples and only got Ad Orientem which I thought had no weight.

but you have not answered why the priest’s historically faced East. you would have to know that reason and then the reason for the change to know if we are correct that it’s a dumbing down.

 

[dzheremi]

I took issue with the "dumbing down" comment. Also "errors of Vatican 2" and "simplification of the liturgy".

I asked for examples and only got Ad Orientem which I thought had no weight.

The fact that you have these things like "clown masses" in the first place, and that the response to them isn't errant priests' and bishops' heads metaphorically rolling but instead "I don't support that", tells everyone more about the RCC's priorities and seriousness than finding however many examples that you would accept ever could. There are large swaths of your particular Church that are filled to the brim with and even controlled by unserious, fad-driven, kumbaya-singing, all-religions-are-paths-to-God types, and while calling the resulting spirituality or its liturgical expression "dumbed down" may raise your hackles, it's significantly less inflammatory than such absolute spiritual poison probably deserves.

And of course "ad orientem" has weight, when you consider the sacredness of space and the deliberateness of everything we do and of everything we do not do in church, but even if you do not agree with it as a specific example, it is nevertheless helpful because it again illustrates the difference between the RCC and the Orthodox: One is willing to change something that has great spiritual and communal significance and to dismiss such a change as having "no weight", while the other -- presumably in recognition of the fact that everything that makes up the liturgy is a weighty matter (again, at the very least in the sense of deliberately doing things one way and not another) -- is not willing to do so.

The difference in phronema, to use the Greek word, is quite striking, and it understandably affects everything we do (and do not do) in fairly major ways, such that you are OK with things being done in your own parishes that would never fly in an Orthodox church.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

but you have not answered why the priest’s historically faced East. you would have to know that reason and then the reason for the change to know if we are correct that it’s a dumbing down.

What reason do you prefer?
Take your pick:

Ad orientem - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

The fact that you have these things like "clown masses" in the first place, and that the response to them isn't errant priests' and bishops' heads metaphorically rolling but instead "I don't support that", tells everyone more about the RCC's priorities and seriousness than finding however many examples that you would accept ever could. There are large swaths of your particular Church that are filled to the brim with and even controlled by unserious, fad-driven, kumbaya-singing, all-religions-are-paths-to-God types, and while calling the resulting spirituality or its liturgical expression "dumbed down" may raise your hackles, it's significantly less inflammatory than such absolute spiritual poison probably deserves.

And of course "ad orientem" has weight, when you consider the sacredness of space and the deliberateness of everything we do and of everything we do not do in church, but even if you do not agree with it as a specific example, it is nevertheless helpful because it again illustrates the difference between the RCC and the Orthodox: One is willing to change something that has great spiritual and communal significance and to dismiss such a change as having "no weight", while the other -- presumably in recognition of the fact that everything that makes up the liturgy is a weighty matter (again, at the very least in the sense of deliberately doing things one way and not another) -- is not willing to do so.

The difference in phronema, to use the Greek word, is quite striking, and it understandably affects everything we do (and do not do) in fairly major ways, such that you are OK with things being done in your own parishes that would never fly in an Orthodox church.

Sorry to see you have so much disdain for RCC. I am sorry I ventured into this libelous discussion. If there are RCCs who agree with you, I do hope they join you and find the liturgy more to their liking.

 

[dzheremi]

Sorry to see you have so much disdain for RCC. I am sorry I ventured into this libelous discussion. If there are RCCs who agree with you, I do hope they join you and find the liturgy more to their liking.

I have no such disdain for the RCC, but a great dislike of those who spiritually abuse the faithful who they are given to shepherd, whether they're in the RCC or any other communion (including my own).

And being properly reverent has nothing to do with finding the liturgy to our liking, as strange as that may sound. Indeed I do personally happen to find the Coptic Orthodox liturgies to my liking (as of course the EO would no doubt probably say about their own liturgies, and the RCs about theirs), but if that were not the case and still the only OO church within reasonable distance from me were Coptic, my faith would compel me to go there even if I'd rather attend a Syriac Orthodox liturgy, or an Armenian or whatever. There is a danger in reducing everything down to matters of personal aesthetic taste like this, because our first love is to be Christ, not the "smells and bells" that we may become accustomed to. Heck, how do you think this idea of "Orthodox in Union with Rome" even works? It is essentially a group of people who want to claim that because their liturgies look and sound as much as they are able to like the liturgies of their actually-Orthodox mother churches, therefore they (the people themselves) are Orthodox. Sort of a "if it looks like a duck..." approach to spirituality. That idea is so deeply malformed I don't even think I need to elaborate as to why, but that's the sort of thing you're likely to fall into when you see the liturgy as being primarily a matter of aesthetics rather than anything deeper than that. I had more than enough people tell me when I was wavering in my adherence to the RCC in the years-long process of leaving that I didn't need to go anywhere because "If you like X liturgy/language/culture so much, we already have that in the form of this specific Eastern Catholic Church!" That never resonated with me precisely because even an incredibly aesthetically beautiful liturgy is worthless if it does not adhere to the faith that has been once delivered to the saints.

 

[ArmyMatt]

What reason do you prefer?
Take your pick:

Ad orientem - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I’m not the one saying there was need for a change. I asked you for the reason.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Sorry to see you have so much disdain for RCC. I am sorry I ventured into this libelous discussion. If there are RCCs who agree with you, I do hope they join you and find the liturgy more to their liking.

but that’s the problem. you serve the Liturgy because it’s true, not because you like it most. the Liturgy should not change with personal taste, because it’s supposed to be patterned after what Moses saw on the mountain. there are heavy theological implications to what God commanded Moses to do, which is why the priest historically faces with the people.

to say that the priest needs face the people to show God is in the midst of His people is ignorant the importance of what Moses saw.

 

[CantorSeraphim]

As a member of one of the sui juris Eastern Churches in communion with Rome, may I ask a sincere question? (please forgive me if anyone is offended by the insinuation...):

• If the fullness of the catholic Church is primarily understood as manifest in the particular local Church - what is required for a particular church to be considered Orthodox?
• Is it enough to maintain Orthodox doctrine, liturgy and spirituality? or must we also be in communion with other orthodox jurisdictions? To put it another way, can one be Orthodox and not in communion with other Orthodox?

Anecdotally, I have heard that some EO accept the Orthodoxy of the Non-Chalcedonian Churches. If this is true - can someone help me understand how this is viewed as different from the situation of the Eastern Churches in communion with Rome?

 

[ArmyMatt]

If the fullness of the catholic Church is primarily understood as manifest in the particular local Church - what is required for a particular church to be considered Orthodox?

to maintain the teaching of the Apostles

Is it enough to maintain Orthodox doctrine, liturgy and spirituality? or must we also be in communion with other orthodox jurisdictions? To put it another way, can one be Orthodox and not in communion with other Orthodox?

no, because if you are in communion with someone, you do affirm their theology by default, even if you personally don’t express that theology.

Anecdotally, I have heard that some EO accept the Orthodoxy of the Non-Chalcedonian Churches. If this is true - can someone help me understand how this is viewed as different from the situation of the Eastern Churches in communion with Rome?

individuals do, but the Church as a whole does not, so officially it is no different aside from actual hope when it comes to union.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Liturgy should not change with personal taste, because it’s supposed to be patterned after what Moses saw on the mountain

Well I guess I am ignorant because I thought it was supposed to be about Jesus, the last supper and the Paschal mystery.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

There is a danger in reducing everything down to matters of personal aesthetic taste like this, because our first love is to be Christ, not the "smells and bells" that we may become accustomed to

I agree completely. But Christ also empowered His Church through the Holy Spirit and that sometimes brings needed change.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Well I guess I am ignorant because I thought it was supposed to be about Jesus, the last supper and the Paschal mystery.

it is about Jesus, the priest facing with the people is about Jesus because that’s what Moses saw in heaven now in the Light of Jesus.

and you didn’t answer my question.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

it is about Jesus, the priest facing with the people is about Jesus because that’s what Moses saw in heaven now in the Light of Jesus.

and you didn’t answer my question.

I am ignorant about that also.
Do you mean the change from a meal-like breaking of bread in a house church to Ad Orientem or the change from Ad Orientem to Ad Populum?

I am glad the Church is willing to dumb down for people like me.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Do you mean the change from a meal-like breaking of bread in a house church to Ad Orientem or the change from Ad Orientem to Ad Populum?

the latter, since it’s still a meal.

I am glad the Church is willing to dumb down for people like me.

you shouldn’t be, at least not in this regard.