Yes just being mostly silly.

But for me it's like all of these things came about as some kind of secret knowledge, probably because I've just been in a bubble for a lot of my life I suppose. But at the same time, still don't quite follow it all.

I guess in a simple way, I'm looking for some kind of works cited or proof on why things are the way they are. So if there is not a scripture reference, what else can be used as the basis. I'm speaking specifically from the very early church period prior to Constantine.

I think you have to start somewhere and work backwards. It is historically pretty easy to know that the ancient church didn't look anything like the average US non denom.

It comes back to continuity and the evidence we do have in the fathers. The fabric of early small-o orthodox Christianity is amazingly formed, common, sophisticated, the same all over, teaching the same stuff in the 300s and 400s.

Then when you compare that to the fathers before Nicaea they say they're teaching the same things, and there's no evidence they're not. At some point it came from somewhere, and they all say from the earliest their whole project is preserving apostolic teaching and practice.

It becomes very difficult to argue they didn't, they failed, etc.

Here's the simple way: follow what the church teaches lol. But seriously, there is no quick and simple way to go through the differences without novels worth of explanation and back story. That's how tradition works. It's why Calvin, Luther and the others wrote tomes of their own to explain their view of the Bible and faith.

That's why any text used as the basis of belief is prone to being twisted. Think of our constitution. How can we have a Supreme Court find that segregation is legal and another find that it's not? Or that abortion is a constitutional right and another does not? There are many of these example. The words didn't change but the interpretation did.

Now the Supreme Court isn't infallible, nor is the constitution, but the premise is the same: interpretation is going to dictate how it is acted upon. The same will happen with any other text we use. Take the letter of Clement that you cited in the other thread. Looks like it could go the monergistic way, then in other places it looks opposite. We can go through 2000 years of document over the next however many years, but if the interpreter is me vs you, we're going to have the same issues.

Does this mean text, especially the Bible, isn't good for teaching? Absolutely not. Does this mean that oral tradition is superior to text? Absolutely not. But they NEED to go together if you want to prevent church splits. To stay one, you have to have an ultimate authority over what this stuff means. That could be Jesus. He could appear to us all to clarify everything, but He is choosing not to. So we have to look at what He left, and what He left was the apostles. Because of that, I think the furthest I could get away from the Catholic Church is EO. Everything else is too subjective.

And because this is so foreign to the average Protestant at absolutely no fault of their own, we teach the irregular union part. I have no doubt there are many that want to be one church but it's complicated after 500 years of contrary teaching and traditions.

" I think the furthest I could get away from the Catholic Church is EO."

For you or anyone else-

This implies that there is some distance either in doctrine or mission between the two in my opinion. When it has been written by both in the 1981, " Statement on the Catholic-Orthodox Dialogue at the Dawn of a New Millennium" that we are in fact closer than the statement above implies.

Further, my mentor, is Serbian Orthodox and attends St. Elias in downtown Austin. We have actually collaborated on some drawings for a new church many years ago and it was then that we discussed our respective religions. Aside from the liturgy, it all seemed very similar. So I don't see the distance as you do.

Can you elaborate on what you mean?

PabloSerna said:

---

" I think the furthest I could get away from the Catholic Church is EO."

For you or anyone else-

This implies that there is some distance either in doctrine or mission between the two in my opinion. When it has been written by both in the 1981, " Statement on the Catholic-Orthodox Dialogue at the Dawn of a New Millennium" that we are in fact closer than the statement above implies.

Further, my mentor, is Serbian Orthodox and attends St. Elias in downtown Austin. We have actually collaborated on some drawings for a new church many years ago and it was then that we discussed our respective religions. Aside from the liturgy, it all seemed very similar. So I don't see the distance as you do.

Can you elaborate on what you mean?

---

Filioque

Papal Authority

Litergy changes of Vatican 2

There's others

Most of the differences are downstream of papal supremacy/infallibility. We aren't in communion, so by definition there is SOME distance. I don't see it as a massive one, but from the EO's I've talked to, they see it almost as a chasm that can't be crossed

https://greekreporter.com/2024/03/24/catholic-church-orthodox-church-differences/

The Banned said:

---

Most of the differences are downstream of papal supremacy/infallibility. We aren't in communion, so by definition there is SOME distance. I don't see it as a massive one, but from the EO's I've talked to, they see it almost as a chasm that can't be crossed

---

EO is the only place I'd consider leaving Anglicanism for.

Maybe this thread or a new one, but I'd love to have an EO here walk me through why the reunification agreement that was reached in the 1400s rejected after the fact.

The Banned said:

---

Maybe this thread or a new one, but I'd love to have an EO here walk me through why the reunification agreement that was reached in the 1400s rejected after the fact.

---

Just wondering


Is there REALLY a desire on either side to re-unify?

I don't think there is. I've never witnessed a single Catholic spend 5 seconds stewing over the split or hope for re-unification

You ask your run of the mill Catholic anything about the EO and they're like "what is that? Is it like Muslims?"

And even if there's some fleeting desire, I doubt anybody on either side cares enough to spend any meaningful energy on it

Because it was political, superficial, under duress from the emperor, and was unanimously rejected by the churches.

Zobel said:

---

Because it was political, superficial, under duress from the emperor, and was unanimously rejected by the churches.

---

And that's that

So who cares, right?

I think people want unity. They don't want it at the expense of their traditions. The problem is the western churches have changed a lot. Vatican I and II took that and put into hyperdrive. Most orthodox look at the stuff going on in RCC services right now and say - no, not with that.

Zobel said:

---

Because it was political, superficial, under duress from the emperor, and was unanimously rejected by the churches.

---

Rejected by the whole church? There were a large number of eastern bishops there. I know it's wiki, so maybe you have a better explanation, but it's put this way:

Upon their return, the Eastern bishops found their attempts toward agreement with the West broadly rejected by the monks, the populace, and by civil authorities (with the notable exception of the Emperors of the East who remained committed to union until the fall of the Byzantine Empire to the Turkish Ottoman Empire two decades later). Facing the imminent threat, the Union was officially proclaimed by Isidore of Kiev in Hagia Sophia on 12 December 1452.[11]

Zobel said:

---

I think people want unity. They don't want it at the expense of their traditions. The problem is the western churches have changed a lot. Vatican I and II took that and put into hyperdrive. Most orthodox look at the stuff going on in RCC services right now and say - no, not with that.

---

Plenty of eastern Catholic Churches keep their liturgies. I don't know why that would be a serious issue

Captain Pablo said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Maybe this thread or a new one, but I'd love to have an EO here walk me through why the reunification agreement that was reached in the 1400s rejected after the fact.

---

Just wondering


Is there REALLY a desire on either side to re-unify?

I don't think there is. I've never witnessed a single Catholic spend 5 seconds stewing over the split or hope for re-unification

You ask your run of the mill Catholic anything about the EO and they're like "what is that? Is it like Muslims?"

And even if there's some fleeting desire, I doubt anybody on either side cares enough to spend any meaningful energy on it

---

Christ's desire is for us to be one. So if we don't want that here on earth, that's a failure on our part. And to your point, that's mostly because most people don't know about it.

ETA: this is a thread on ONE church. Obviously in America we spend so much time discussing Protestantism vs Catholicism that the EO don't get much attention. If it went back down to Catholic and EO only, I think you'd see the attention return. Sort of how there were consistent talks between east and west before the reformation. After the reformation there have been so many cats needing to be re-bagged that it's lower down the list.

The bishops aren't the church. The church rejected it. You can tell, because none of them accepted it… this is just a reality.

The bishops at Florence were basically starved into accepting union. The emperor wanted military aid and union was the price he was going to pay. Even when they did, at a joint service they did not commune or recite the filioque. In the way back through Venice they were asked to perform the DL and did, but again did not commune with the Roman clergy or use their chalices, or recite the filioque. And as soon as they got home, most recanted.

Zobel said:

---

The bishops aren't the church. The church rejected it. You can tell, because none of them accepted it… this is just a reality.

The bishops at Florence were basically starved into accepting union. The emperor wanted military aid and union was the price he was going to pay. Even when they did, at a joint service they did not commune or recite the filioque. In the way back through Venice they were asked to perform the DL and did, but again did not commune with the Roman clergy or use their chalices, or recite the filioque. And as soon as they got home, most recanted.

---

Interesting. I've had a hard time finding good sources on this council. I guess because it ultimately failed.

This sounds like the faithful are able to overrule the teachings of the bishops. Maybe I'm misreading you, but that's how it comes across.

Then I don't think you have thought about it from the other perspective very hard. It'd not about our liturgy… it's about what's going on in yours.

Zobel said:

---

Then I don't think you have thought about it from the other perspective very hard. It'd not about our liturgy… it's about what's going on in yours.

---

Then use specifics. What is going on in ours.

I don't think it is charitable of me to do that, but there have been plenty of threads and discussions about it on this forum.

The Banned said:

---

Zobel said:

---

The bishops aren't the church. The church rejected it. You can tell, because none of them accepted it… this is just a reality.

The bishops at Florence were basically starved into accepting union. The emperor wanted military aid and union was the price he was going to pay. Even when they did, at a joint service they did not commune or recite the filioque. In the way back through Venice they were asked to perform the DL and did, but again did not commune with the Roman clergy or use their chalices, or recite the filioque. And as soon as they got home, most recanted.

---

Interesting. I've had a hard time finding good sources on this council. I guess because it ultimately failed.

This sounds like the faithful are able to overrule the teachings of the bishops. Maybe I'm misreading you, but that's how it comes across.

---

Zobel's history is consistent with what I've been taught. The RCC conditioned aid on conversion/submission, which the bishops rejected and thus the east fell.

Zobel said:

---

I don't think it is charitable of me to do that, but there have been plenty of threads and discussions about it on this forum.

---

Then generics? You think the Eucharist isn't truly consecrated anymore? You think it's irreverent? I've heard plenty, so I doubt you'll say anything I haven't before

Or links to the threads so I don't have to search aimlessly

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Zobel said:

---

The bishops aren't the church. The church rejected it. You can tell, because none of them accepted it… this is just a reality.

The bishops at Florence were basically starved into accepting union. The emperor wanted military aid and union was the price he was going to pay. Even when they did, at a joint service they did not commune or recite the filioque. In the way back through Venice they were asked to perform the DL and did, but again did not commune with the Roman clergy or use their chalices, or recite the filioque. And as soon as they got home, most recanted.

---

Interesting. I've had a hard time finding good sources on this council. I guess because it ultimately failed.

This sounds like the faithful are able to overrule the teachings of the bishops. Maybe I'm misreading you, but that's how it comes across.

---

Zobel's history is consistent with what I've been taught. The RCC conditioned aid on conversion/submission, which the bishops rejected and thus the east fell.

---

I'd love some sources if anyone has them. Not doubting y'all but would like to read up on it

ETA: nevermind. The wiki article has linked numerous.

For me it boils down to the fruit of the tree.

PabloSerna said:

---

For me it boils down to the fruit of the tree.

---

Please elaborate. I love this concept myself. I just want to see how you mean it.

Oh no. I'm talking about the abuses to the NO, and the NO itself. And things like the Pachamama.

Zobel said:

---

Oh no. I'm talking about the abuses to the NO, and the NO itself. And things like the Pachamama.

---

Abuses to the NO I get.
Pachamama I get.
Neither of those are teachings, which I think you'd agree

But the NO itself?

Teachings are a whole 'nother issue.

There's a straight line between the NO itself and the abuses to it. Just like there's a straight line between changes to fasting discipline and most Catholics not fasting at all any more.

The Banned said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Oh no. I'm talking about the abuses to the NO, and the NO itself. And things like the Pachamama.

---

Abuses to the NO I get.
Pachamama I get.
Neither of those are teachings, which I think you'd agree

But the NO itself?

---

All 7 sacraments changed by committee, some members of which were of dubious character. Severed the apostolicity of the liturgy. Liturgical calendar removed some seasons and further decimated our required penances. How many Catholics abstain from meat on every Friday (or substitute an equal penance)? Lectionary revised. Feasts shifted.

Zobel said:

---

Teachings are a whole 'nother issue.

There's a straight line between the NO itself and the abuses to it. Just like there's a straight line between changes to fasting discipline and most Catholics not fasting at all any more.

---

Teachings being different from disciplines is the whole point. Disciplines can change when they are seen as ineffective or even damaging without changing the tenets of the faith.

Teachings can not change without committing heresy. Which is why I find the change to teachings on contraception in the EO church so troubling.

747Ag said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Oh no. I'm talking about the abuses to the NO, and the NO itself. And things like the Pachamama.

---

Abuses to the NO I get.
Pachamama I get.
Neither of those are teachings, which I think you'd agree

But the NO itself?

---

All 7 sacraments changed by committee, some members of which were of dubious character. Severed the apostolicity of the liturgy. Liturgical calendar removed some seasons and further decimated our required penances. How many Catholics abstain from meat on every Friday (or substitute an equal penance)? Lectionary revised. Feasts shifted.

---

And all of these invalidated the faith and sacraments? They are no longer true and licit?

Read this again. Severed the apostolicity? Is this a sedevecantist argument?

The Banned said:

---

747Ag said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Oh no. I'm talking about the abuses to the NO, and the NO itself. And things like the Pachamama.

---

Abuses to the NO I get.
Pachamama I get.
Neither of those are teachings, which I think you'd agree

But the NO itself?

---

All 7 sacraments changed by committee, some members of which were of dubious character. Severed the apostolicity of the liturgy. Liturgical calendar removed some seasons and further decimated our required penances. How many Catholics abstain from meat on every Friday (or substitute an equal penance)? Lectionary revised. Feasts shifted.

---

And all of these invalidated the faith and sacraments? They are no longer true and licit?

Read this again. Severed the apostolicity? Is this a sedevecantist argument?

---

Lololol... No, not sede. It's a new and novel set of rites, rites not of apostolic origin. Like I said, it was written by a committee. It didn't grow organically like the rites of the east and the ancient Roman rite.

And no, I'm not making a validity/liceity argument either. Vatican II and its resultant liturgical committee said our eastern brethren should retain their traditional liturgies whereas the Romans got something all together new. My guess is that we Catholics wanted to be like the others more than being ourselves. In the east, we stayed looking more like the Orthodox. In the west, we adopted more protestant ideas. Basically, most of us just have no clue as to who we are as Catholics.

747Ag said:

---

The Banned said:

---

747Ag said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Oh no. I'm talking about the abuses to the NO, and the NO itself. And things like the Pachamama.

---

Abuses to the NO I get.
Pachamama I get.
Neither of those are teachings, which I think you'd agree

But the NO itself?

---

All 7 sacraments changed by committee, some members of which were of dubious character. Severed the apostolicity of the liturgy. Liturgical calendar removed some seasons and further decimated our required penances. How many Catholics abstain from meat on every Friday (or substitute an equal penance)? Lectionary revised. Feasts shifted.

---

And all of these invalidated the faith and sacraments? They are no longer true and licit?

Read this again. Severed the apostolicity? Is this a sedevecantist argument?

---

Lololol... No, not sede. It's a new and novel set of rites, rites not of apostolic origin. Like I said, it was written by a committee. It didn't grow organically like the rites rites of the east and the ancient Roman rite.

And no, I'm not making a validity/liceity argument either. Vatican II and its resultant liturgical committee said our eastern brethren should retain their traditional liturgies whereas the Romans got something all together new. My guess is that we Catholics wanted to be like the others more than being ourselves. In the east, we stayed looking more like the Orthodox. In the west, we adopted more protestant ideas. Basically, most of us just have no clue as to who we are as Catholics.

---

I can resonate with this. I think the primary issue is that much of the rite AS IT WAS WRITTEN is not nearly the monumental change as we ended up seeing. The novus ordo still had ad orientum. It was supposed to retain Latin in pride of place. It what the bad actors did with it (bad interpretation or intentional misinterpretation) is the problem. This is why you can find reverent and beautiful novus ordos, as rare as they may be. I've been blessed to attend two in my entire life.

That said, I don't think the average Catholic wanted it. The stories I hear from the olds are stories of horror, but they stayed anyway. I think it was some very bad actors that wanted this and got it. I don't think it will stand for long. We're seeing a small movement in certain larger parishes towards a more traditional novus ordo mass. I pray it picks up steam until/if/when the TLM or a very recently novus ordo is reinstated.