Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
But I do understand there are particular problems with leaving Catholicism. 
Some things take time and it has often been the case that others have come from the Eastern Catholic tradition into Orthodoxy. Of course, you also have cases of others going back into Eastern Catholicism and others who grew up Cradle Orthodox going into Eastern Catholicism. In some of the older discussions, I've shared before on how I grew up going to Catholic Churches...more so within the Black community (here and here/here, here, here, and here and here). But What I experienced in the Catholic school I attended and what my sister/mother both experienced (as Afro-Hispanics) is radically different than what I saw lived out in differing Catholic Churches when there did not seem to be a lot of emphasis on the community/social justice and the poor......or a dynamic of not getting satisfied within Catholicism with regards to learning on how to be devout/love your neighbors.
I'm in the process of trying to learn as much as possible about the differences between Orthodoxy and the Roman Catholic Church, including histories.
I've shared this before - but with regards to Orthodox Communion with Rome, the the people who do so are known as Eastern Catholics and they do stand out for several reasons. Sometimes, what can help (if you're a visual person) is having a picture of how things slowly evolved. There are some good charts that can help with that (if interested), one of them showing the different districts and where things branched out from each.
Explaining the above, there are five original Patriarchs out of Jeruslam: Carthage, Rome, Antioch, Edessa, and Alexandria - all of which were established by the Apostles. There later came two others: Moscow - because it was evangelized over a thousand years ago by Sts. Cyril and Methodious. ..and the Malakarese and Malabarese, which are from St. Thomas the Apostle (and those are in the India region ). With this in mind, what is noted is that there are seven Patriarcates. And we can see this, in example, with the Melkite Greek Byzantine Catholic Church - a branch which is in Communion with Rome. It was case, during the separation of the Eastern Churches, that it never left Rome - but the Melkites have a sort of Communion with the Antiochean Greek Orthodox, which is considered a Bridge Church in many ways.
There are a lot of big difficulties for those who are Eastern Catholics..
As another EO noted elsewhere, "So much of Eastern Catholicism is IN Orthodoxy - you cannot study Eastern Catholicism in isolation." ....and on the issue, as another noted best:
Melkites certainly know the precarious situation they occupy in the great scheme of Apostolic Christianity, and I do not think my brother Neil needs a reminder of that from anyone. Nevertheless, it does not follow that Melkites are more akin to the west than the east (wishful thinking perhaps?), your argument would have to be a lot more cogent and logical to establish that.That said, I do think it really is unfortunate whenever people think that Eastern Catholics all universally serve Rome - for as it has never been just Roman Catholicism with Byzantine Liturgy and plenty of Eastern Catholics (as well as Eastern Orthodox) have noted that stereotype before when it comes to what actually goes down (more shared before here and here). Others have often had the issue come close to home when it comes to having family in differing traditions - I've had friends and family who had the same experience. I myself grew up with it (as mentioned before)
First, though there may be individual Orthodox who personally do not believe Melkites have a valid priesthood, it is not their place to judge these matters. In fact that is not the official stance of the church. Orthodox certainly see all Catholics as Christians, regardless of the fact that many are not in communion with us. The church is not in the business of pronouncing judgment upon other Christian bodies nor their sacraments, and neither expects nor seeks decrees of validation upon itself from outside.
Holy Orthodoxy routinely accords Roman Catholic hierachs respect, and neither endorses Roman Catholic orders nor condemns Roman Catholic orders. They are outside of the church, and are of no use to Orthodox.
Although it is not a formal practice, it is known that Melkite Catholics in Syria very often are communed in Melkite Orthodox churches as a matter of economia. I don't know if Syrian Latin-rite Catholics are accorded this same privilige. The special conditions there, as Christian minorities of a common sort, make it necessary. Many families, even whole towns, are mixed and often only one temple is allowed to be erected in a community. I know of at least one case of a temple being built specifically for use by both the Melkite Catholics and the Melkite (Antiochian) Orthodox, for separate liturgies and altars.
Because of it's more extensive network of parishes in North America, many Melkite Catholic immigrants from Syria and Lebanon worship in Antiochian Orthodox parishes, raising their children as Orthodox.
The reason, actually the only significant reason, Melkites are not in formal Communion and concelebration with Holy Orthodoxy is because the Melkites are in Communion with Rome. The issues in play are the errors Rome teaches, and RC attempts to assert those errors upon others. By sharing communion with the bishop of Rome and other bishops under Rome who teach these errors (out of charity no doubt, in the sense of love), the Melkite Catholics are formally cut off from the larger communion of Holy Orthodoxy.
I view this as a terrible sacrifice on their part.
In their efforts to keep the pipeline between east and west open for Rome the Melkites pay a very high price indeed, and I believe they know it. I do not think that fact is appreciated enough by most Latin Catholics nor latinized Eastern Catholics. To put it mildly it is a thankless position for them to be in.
Something to keep in mind is that Intercommunion agreements can sometimes be worked out between bodies with valid sacraments, even though the bodies are not united. What's interesting to consider is that Melkite Greek Catholics and The Antiochian Orthodox are very close in differing places places and there are indeed many places where Melkites and Antiochians receive communion in each others churches. Historically, it has been the case that the Antiochians and Melkites built a church together, with both Patriarchs blessing and dedicating the Church together in a country with many Melkites and Antiochians - this not being a necessity, but an activity of unification...and to be more specific, in the 1990s, the Antiochian Orthodox and Melkite Greek Catholics built a church, St. Paul’s, that they share in Doumar, a suburb of Damascus. More on the issue can be seen in The Melkite Initiative with the Antiochian Orthodox Church - as well as A CALL FOR UNITY – THE MELKITE SYNOD
For those who are Eastern Catholics/Byzantine Catholics , with those specific camps, there are some significant differences that many may not be aware of in all cases....as many Eastern Catholic rites are more similar to what occurs within Eastern Orthodoxy or Oriental Orthodoxy. It's often forgotten that many Eastern Catholics do not accept the Filioque, Purgatory, Transubtantion, etc - with this leading to them being deemed "herectics" by Roman Catholics and yet also accused of supporting those things by EO who do not know fully some of the backgrounds.
For those who are Jewish, interesingly enough, EC is something that has held a lot of appeal when it comes to reflecting their culture. There was a discussion on the issue elsewhere that had many great insights--entitled Can a Hebrew Catholic be comfortable in a Melkite Church? . As another noted there, the Syriac and the Chaldean/Assyrian Churches are likely the most "Semitic" traditions for a number of reasons, with their Liturgies handed down from the time when they really were Hebrew Catholics...specifically, Temple Jewish Catholics. And for other places that've given some EXCELLENT discussion on the issue:
Within the Holy Land, ECs and EOs are often having to work together on many issues when it comes to showing how to live as a citizen within the land, supporting one's country and yet promoting justice at the same time.
Elias Chacour - Archbishop of the Melkite Catholic Church - always come to mind as being excellent examples of what it means to do so.
Impact Holyland: Session 1 - Archbishop Elias Chacour
A Man of Galilee
Archbishop Elias Chacour at Montreat
Making the Holy Land Holy
Elias Chacour on Relationships in the Middle East
Archbishop Elias Chacour Unity Within Diversity: Myth or Reality?
Elias Chacour - A Palestinian Christian Working for Peace in Israel - YouTube
Q Ideas | Elias Chacour | Standing On the Wall - YouTube
And for other examples, others coming to mind are people like Joseph Raya, one extensively involved in the American civil rights movement, and later, while serving as Archbishop of Akko, Haifa, Nazareth and all Galilee while doing extensive work with Dr. Martin Luther King (as both a co-laborer and dear friend) and other rabbis working for desegration/fair treatment toward both Jews and Blacks. Being a very controversial/radical figure in the church....helping to organize marches/often suffering alongside other blacks, he was twice beaten badly by the Ku Klux Klan....but later sought to emulate Dr.King's example with the marches over in Palestine. For a Video clip of Archbishop Raya leading a peaceful protest, 1972-08-14. He has been referenced a lot by others within Eastern Orthodoxy before - more noted in The Road to Emmaus Runs Through Harlem
Hope that helps in one way or another. Blessings
Not saying I have a dog in this fight, but I was recently going through material from one of my favorite Catholic Theologians (Archbishop Joseph Raya) and I was very thankful for what he noted, if you've ever heard of him.
To be more specific, Joseph Raya is a retired Melkite Archbishop and wrote a very fascinating book on Eastern Christianity, titled The Face of God. But in regards to his stance on the papacy, it was appreciated that Raya clearly presented the following from his book Face of God:
In regards to the Melkite interpretation of papal primacy, as seen in this document:As the local church manifests its reality and union with Christ by the presence of a bishop at the Eucharistic action, so also the different bishops express their unity and identity with Christ by their union in love, and by their cooperation with each other. Christ himself established a center and a symbol of this cohesion and harmony in his Church. He made Peter the head of his college of Apostles. He clearly wanted him to be the leader and perfect example of his own love for his brothers and peers. “Feed my lambs…feed my sheep” (John 21:15-17). The primacy of Peter is, therefore, of divine institution, willed by Christ as the link and manifestation of union in his Body.
The Pope is the brother who confirms others in the faith, who runs to the aid of his brothers the bishops when they need his intervention and service. He is not the arbitrary dictator above and beyond the law of Christ who lives in the Church. At the Second Vatican Council Patriarch Maximos IV Sayeg explained clearly and unequivocally the meaning of this primacy according to Byzantine theology:
It should be clear to all of us that the only head of the Church, the only head of the Body of Christ which is the Church, is our Lord Jesus Christ and he alone. The Roman Pontiff is the head of the College of bishops, just as Peter was the head of the College of Apostles. The successor has no more power than the one whom he succeeds. For this reason it is not appropriate to say of the Roman Pontiff as we say of Christ---in the same way and without distinction---that he is the head of the Church, caput Ecclesiae.This Byzantine doctrine of the papacy does not diminish the privileged position of the Pope of Rome. It rather purifies it from human exaggerations and distortions, and presents it as a blessing instead of a domination. Explained in this way, primacy means the principal thrust of grace which calls for and sustains unity in the Church. It becomes, then, an object of gratitude to the Lord and not a cause for stumbling.
The foundation of the Church is made up not of Peter alone, but of all the other Apostles as well, as is proven by a number of texts in the New Testament. This truth is in no way opposed to the primacy of Peter and his successors, but sheds new light on it. Peter is one of the Apostles, and at the same time head of the College of Apostles. Similarly the Roman Pontiff is a member of the College of bishops and at the same time head of the College. The head is the link for the whole body. It is not separated from it.
It should be clear that the power of the Roman Pontiff over the whole Church does not take away from the power of the College of bishops as a whole over the Church as a whole…a College which always includes the Pope as its primate…nor does the Pope’s power take the place of the power of each bishop in his diocese. Every canonical delegation of authority within the limits of a diocese comes from the bishop of the diocese and from him alone.
We must emphasize that the universal power of the Roman Pontiff, complete though it is, and remaining in its own order, is given to him essentially as head of the whole hierarchy and precisely to enable him to fulfill this primatial act of service. The “You are Peter” of St. Matthew 16:18 should not be separated from the “Lend strength to your brothers” of St. Luke 2:32. Furthermore, this power is pastoral in character and strictly personal. It is pastoral by nature in this sense, that it is not a prerogative of command merely for the sake of command. It is ministry, a service, a diakonia, a pastoral charge, as His Holiness Pope Paul VI has well emphasized. This power is of a personal character and since it remains such, cannot be delegated in any way.
A general council is the place where this mutual love of Pope and the bishops is exercised and manifested, and where God manifests his will present through the Holy Spirit and living in the Body of Christ.
Also, as another noted best:The Second Vatican Council, according to His Holiness Paul VI’s beautiful words in his opening locution to the second period of the Council, proposes to prepare the paths of union. That is why, it seems to us, the Council must not be content to repeat on this point the words of Vatican Council I, which have already been stated, but must seek to clarify and complement them, in the light of the divine institution and the indefeasible rights of the episcopate.
In this sense the new wording of the schema “De Ecclesia” shows notable progress with respect to both the former wording and also the routine formulas of the theological manuals.
The fact remains, however, that from the ecumenical viewpoint several texts should still be improved so as to bring out more clearly the principles that assure the evenhanded exercise of Roman primacy willed by the divine Founder of the Church.
Leaving details of lesser importance to the written notes that we have already transmitted to the secretariat, it seems to us that the text of the schema of the council should emphasize the following principles:
1) It must be clear to all of us that the only ruler of the Church, the only head of the Body of Christ that is the Church, is our Lord Jesus Christ, and He alone. The Roman pontiff is the head of the episcopal college, just as Peter was the head of the apostolic college. The successor has no more power than the one whom he succeeds. That is why it is not fitting to say of the Roman pontiff, by the same right and without distinction, as we say of Christ, that he is the head of the Church: “caput Ecclesiae.”
2) We agree completely with the explanation given by several venerable Fathers with respect to the foundation of the Church, constituted not only by Peter but by all the other Apostles, as is proven by several texts of the New Testament. This does not in any way contradict the primacy of Peter and of his successors, but rather sheds a new light on it. Peter is one of the Apostles, and at the same time the head of the apostolic college. Likewise, the Roman pontiff is a member of the episcopal college and at the same time the head of this college. The head commands the body, but it is not outside the body.
3) It must be clear that the power of the Roman pontiff over the entire Church does not destroy the power of the whole of the episcopal college over the whole of the Church—a college which always includes the pope as its primate—nor is it a substitute for the power of each bishop over his diocese. Every canonical mission, within the limits of a diocese, stems from the bishop of the diocese, and from him alone....
Many others in the Catholic Church have noted the same (as that is the correct way the papacy should be viewed, by both eastern and western Christian ) - as it concerns my eastern Catholic brethren who do not accept papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction of the papacy. And thus it is always taken with a grain of salt (for myself) when I hear RC say the Pope is infalliable or to be followed in anything regardless. That's not even how I was raised to see it when I went to Catholic Elementary School as a child. On Joseph Raya, He has made several other amazing works..If you read Fr. John Meyendorff's work on the Primacy of Peter, you will see that the Orthodox didn't reject the primacy of St. Peter or even papal primacy as much as they rejected the medieval reinterpretation of papal prerogatives against the secular German emperors. The late Melkite Catholic theologian Fr. Joseph Raya argues much the same in his book The Face of God. http://www.christian-pages.com/si/3107.html I might also point out that the Roman Church accepts numerous post-1054 Eastern Orthodox saints as Catholic saints, which lends credibility to the idea that the split between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy was not as clear cut. St. Gregory Palamas and St. Sergius of Radonezh are prime examples. I might also note that the Church of Kiev remained in communion with both Rome and Constantinople in the 15th and early 16th centuries despite the dissolution of the Florentine Union. Papal temporal power was a result of the Dark Ages and a practical necessity for secular power after the fall of the Roman Empire. Sometimes necessity has a way of intervening into history.
Passage to Heaven
An Appreciation of the Divine Liturgy
excerpted from Archbishop Joseph M. Raya, Eyes of the Gospel
http://www.melkite.org/Passage.html
Exerpts from The Byzantine Church and Culture
http://byzantineramblings.blogspot.com/2007/11/archbishop-raya-of-blessed-memory-on.html
I find that what you noted is something many others have experienced and gone through as well - consequently leading them to feel as if they are anomalies within their fellowships or the system they live in. One individual I know had a similar situation - as she was Orthodox (and Jewish) while her husband was Catholic - and consequently, they went to two churches: Orthodox (OCA jurisdiction) and Melkite Catholic (Eastern Catholic). It was a bit difficult for them on some levels but they managed to work through it and help each other grow in the knowledge/image of CHrist.
For more:
For more clarity on her experiences, she worked with others in the Eastern Catholic world for a long time even while she was Orthodox before meeting her husband, as far as I can recall. As she noted best, in her words (for brief excerpt):
I've enjoyed keeping up with her since she's very passionate about helping others seek connection where many have said such isn't possible and doing as Psalm 133 and Ephesians 4:1-8 talk on with unity in the Gospel....A couple of years ago I spent nine months in Western Ukraine, working at the Ukrainian Catholic University. Though an Orthodox Christian by choice (including the explicit choice not to become Roman Catholic, which was my other serious alternative), I worshipped regularly and enthusiastically with the University’s Byzantine Catholic community; I came to love those people and admire their piety, and bought into a fair chunk of their nationalist narrative. I also came to see their Eastern Catholic Church as they see it: as an ecumenical bridge between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, rejecting neither, and working and praying for the unity of the two. That is not a typically Orthodox position..... But here is why I came to think the way I do. The Ukrainian Church has always been wedged, geographically and spiritually, in the middle of the battle – over land, souls, and doctrinal purity – between Rome and Constantinople, and later Moscow. The Great Schism, from the Ukrainian perspective, was a fight between the big dogs in the neighborhood. Taking a side in this fight was a painful choice forced upon the Western Ukrainian community from the outside, by both Rome and the Orthodox world; not surprisingly, their bishops resisted it, staying in communion with both centers of Christianity as long as they could get away with it. When the alternatives have been defined by those outside one’s community in the course of their own conflict, one can take a stand if one must, but it is impossible to make a meaningful choice about one’s identity.
For more reference on her journey if wanting to investigate yourself:
She tripped me out once e when it came to her sharing on Ecumenism as Household Decoration and that she/her husband hadn't even planned this particular mix of Jewish-Catholic-Orthodox religious imagery…
- A Song of Praise | The Groom's Family
- Down with Easter | The Groom's Family
- Family and People | The Groom's Family
- What The Other Jews Think | The Groom's Family
- Blog is Back! And So Is Marriage | The Groom's Family
- How To Plan A Russian-Christian-Jewish Wedding | The Groom's Family ...
- Light Unto the Nations: A Frenchwoman Paints Hanukkah | The Groom's Family ...
- What Kind of Hebrew Catholic (Orthodox? Christian?) Are You? | The Grooms Family ...
I could definately relate, as I grew up in a similar household due to the myriad of experiences my family had (living with my mother, grand-parents and great-grandparents in the same household - with Catholic imagery placed alongside things you'd see in Asian culture/icons at the same and then having African/Hispanic cultural images or items in the same house since we were multi-cultural
Ultimately, you're not alone.
At the end of our discussion last night, the authority figure said to us in general (though it felt like it was directed to me in particular), "You can choose Francis of Assisi or you can choose St. Seraphim of Sarov, but you can't have both."
This strikes me as an instance of anti-ecumenical excess. At my church in particular, this is not the first time this figure of authority has made polemical claims that I felt were unfairly anti-Catholic. I have already given my heart to Orthodoxy, but what if another potential Catholic convert comes to a class for the first time and hears words like these? Is that the the first foot Orthodoxy wants to put forward? I am not suggesting that Orthodox should canonize and begin venerating Francis of Assisi. But there is a big difference between that and suggesting he was led astray by demons and very nearly the Antichrist. I don't understand why he needs to be disparaged in this way. For me, I won't bring the topic up again at church, but I will continue to love St. Francis, wear my medal, and ask his intercession in prayer.
Many times, the accusations are unfair and based on historical prejudice, not only among "cradle" Orthodox but also Protestant converts. There are plenty of Orthodox Saints who's spirituality could perhaps be considered over the top. Think of St. Symeon the Stylite, whose repentance and mortification were very public. Hard not to notice a guy hanging out on top of a pillar. There are plenty of other cases when his mortification was very extreme. The same could be said for any Stylite Saint or even the "Fools for Christ." Think of St. Basil the Blessed, whose was also very public about his spiritual life. He went around Moscow barefoot, wearing chains, and preaching mercy. The differences are just cultural in my opinion.
The anti-Catholicism in Orthodoxy is sad. And I agree, that it should not be the first foot Orthodoxy wants to put forward. But many Orthodox feel its better to condemn others rather than show the beauty of Orthodoxy. Orthodox Christians should preach love rather than taking cheap shots at others. I'm afraid that reactionary element in Orthodoxy is the one that is becoming more popular among Orthodox converts. You can see it all over this forum. Months ago, I was very close to leaving the Orthodox Church and going back to the Catholic Church because of attitudes like that. Its something I'm still struggling with. If I hadn't read the Journals of Father Alexander Schmemann, I probably would have left. He understood the meaning of the Orthodox Church and the fact that he criticizes the tribalistic mentality of many Orthodox was refreshing and restored my hope in the Church.
Anyway, as an Orthodox Christian who also asks St. Francis for his help in my prayers, I'm happy to see that you will continue to love him and wear the medal.
I know many are going to throw a fit about it, but I'm going bring up New Skete Monastery in New York. Its a monastery under the OCA, yet they are quite open about the fact that they celebrate St. Francis' feast day liturgically. I'm going to quote something one of the monks there wrote on their website. This is probably going to offend quite a few on here, but I'd figure I'd offer a different Orthodox opinion about him:
"Francis may not have a spot on the Orthodox liturgical calendar, but he is certainly a saint of the universal church and deserves appropriate honor and respect... There won’t be an Orthodox section or a Roman Catholic section in the Kingdom of Heaven. Instead, the example of Francis cuts through the dead end of narrow confessionalism, of triumphalism, of spiritual blindness and pettiness; it encourages us to recognize Christ and his body. And while we may indeed have to live with the reality of division in the Church, we can always be mindful, as Francis was, of the deeper unity of which we are a part, and work to affirm that at every opportunity."Amen. One thing I can say about the RCC is that I never heard anyone disparaging Orthodoxy. Might some of that be down to ignorance? For sure. Most Catholics I know would have no idea who St. Seraphim of Sarov is, let alone even a pre-schism saint like St. Symeon the Stylite. I guess the size of the RCC, especially in the West, makes it fairly impossible for Orthodox to ignore the RCC. And I also don't know what goes on in RC RCIA classes, nor what went on in the RCC before Vatican II. But at least in the contemporary RCC I was part of, I was never party to any disparagement of EO. And to be clear, I'm not saying that Orthodox should refrain from pointing out where the RCC has gone astray--those things need to be said. So, more discussion of papal infallibility, less suggesting St. Francis of Assisi was inspired by demons, please
In the meantime, I will look at my experiences at my new church as an opportunity for love in complicated circumstances
