My personal reminder why I am Orthodox and not Catholic.
Posted on 12/09/2008 5:52:09 AM PST by TexConfederate1861
I am done with you.
You need to wake up and smell the coffee.
If you want to think I hate RC’s then go ahead. The sin on YOUR head not mine.
And what would give you an idea that I am a convert?
Remove the “mote” from your OWN eye, sir.
You can keep believing that fantasy if you want. We have already established WHY the Council of Florence failed. The Eastern laity wouldn't allow it. You yourself agree that the Eastern laity had to correct the Bishops who were traitors... Apparently, only pig farmers were legitimate theologians during this era... The hatred of things West is well advertised and documented among Byzantium writings - no use in pretending there isn't. This hatred was merely stoked by the encyclicals like the one you posted. Filled with strawmen to beat up the West and the Eastern laity go along, hook, line and sinker, since (as you admit) the East does not desire to know about the West's point of view. Ask an Eastern to DETAIL what the West ACTUALLY believe, and you'd hear a pin drop. Are we really supposed to believe that the typical peasant of 1400 knew ANYTHING about Aquinas except what Father whatever told them??? That is just gullible, through and through. I call them like I see them - I don't belong to the PC police...
Theology has nothing to do with it. It is perception. As long as the East looks down on the West, NO COUNCILIAR agreement has a chance of succeeding at an Eastern synod, as the ignorant Eastern laity (of things Western) wouldn't have it... Old wounds and strawmen would prevent it. Someone like Kosta would repost all the exceptions to the ordinary Western liturgy or your would huff and puff that "It's either you are right or we are right - and we are not wrong"... My exercise has proven that.
I think if you cool down and come back here and read these posts a few days later, you might see that your attitude will not allow a reunion, no matter what is decided at a Council. Some other excuse will be invented and things will go on as before.
If you want reunion, then changes have to take place. The Orthodox are happy with their beliefs.
We are happy with ours, as well. We have gotten along, had Councils, proclaimed doctrines, celebrated the Eucharist, canonized saints, spread the Gospel, etc., without the Eastern Orthodox. The point is not about "happiness" but about fulfilling the Will of Jesus Christ, who desires ALL be as one. If you recall your Nicean Creed, it says the ONE, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. Christ's Body is not MEANT to be so divided.
I can see nothing that Rome offers to be attractive.
Well, for us, it's all about those cool hats. If we could only get our hands on them... :>
But seriously, it is not a matter of finding "attractiveness" on union. You are thinking too worldly. Christianity is MEANT to be united with one faith. Only the human condition keeps us separated. Things like pride and misunderstandings.
As for who I speak for, you would be suprised at just how many of the Orthodox faithful feel the same way. I am just a Texan that tends to be more blunt about it.
I know. I wasn't being sarcastic when I said you speak for hundreds of thousands... The problem is the hatred is spread far and wide in the East and you don't see it. Which is why reunion cannot work now. Religious pride must first be admitted before it is overcome.
I'm an Arizonan who also can be blunt, if you haven't noticed by now.
Regards
OK. Question: did you or did you not read the link about the history of the council of Florence? The entire council was ARROGANCE. The Greeks were “over a barrel” and the Latins knew it. They insisted on having everything their way, the creed WITH the filioque in it, etc. It wasn’t a mutual coming together to find an answer, it was coercion to the extreme!
When I say either we are right, or YOU are, I mean that exactly.
Example: Either the Pope is the Infallible Vicar of Christ as you believe, or he is merely “primus inter pares” and Chairman of the Board, Patriarch of the West, as WE believe.
How can you possibly compromise that?
This is not hatred or anger on my part, but just plain REASON. (and I am “cool” as a cucumber!)
My personal reminder why I am Orthodox and not Catholic.
Lutheran Mass. Sure looks more Catholic than some Catholic Masses!
The "liturgical "cookie".
And, if you really want Catholic "light" why not go to a Tigger Mass?
And what about the vestal virigns (nuns) incensing the altar in the LA Cathedral? Does it get any more pagan than this?
And check out this "inspiring" place of worship they would want us to share their cookies and Cool-aid in glass containers with them.
I am sure many a Catholic is deeply troubled with what happened with their Church, and understandably so, but wy would they want to drag us into a union with a Church that so readily broke its own infallible Council pronouncements and ditched 1,400 years of liturgical tradition for this?
And how are we to know that they will not do this again with the next pope? Obviously, the Catholic laity will go along with whatever is dished out. These pictures prove it. They can't say they didn;t know this was wrong!
The real enigma is why are they angry with us for not wanting to have any of this? Who would?
“Please understand that saying it and REALLY BELIEVING IT is two different things.”
Jo, most of us really do believe it, though our parish priest says its a species of pride. Religous pride, as you say, is an extremely dangerous sentiment and almost always ends up in Pharisaical attitudes. I sincerely dounbt, however, that when +John Chrysostomos prayed before receiving the Eucharist, “I believe, O Lord, and I confess that thou art truly the Christ, the Son of the living God, who didst come into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.” he was being Pharisaical and prideful. Most faithful Orthodox Christians try to emulate +John Chrysostomos’ faith and self knowledge before “...partaking of Thy Holy Mysteries.”
“But when you say “Orthodoxy”, I presume you mean the Latin version of it?”
Exactly, though in point of fact there is only one Orthodoxy. It was here and there expressed differently in the East and the West even 1000 years ago. But that said, no Orthodox Christian can or would gainsay the Church of Rome of those days which truly and virtually alone saved Orthodoxy from vicious heresies. We remember that as much as we remember Florence and the sack of Constantinople, Jo.
“This hatred of the West seems to be very shallowly buried under the surface if I am able to stir it so quickly. I would think that any new union effort would yield the SAME results as at Florence, IF the Eastern laity had the same attitude. That is what I am seeing here. I hope this is not prevalent throughout the East, but I fear it is indicative of the attitudes towards the West.”
There is no point in denying that there is hatred in the East for the West. There is, much of it born of sad history from long ago, but frankly a good measure of it is truly modern. The social, cultural and moral depravity of the West has infected to a degree almst all areas of the Christian East and while that materialistic, hedonistic depravity attracts some in the East, it repels many more. The Roman Church fairly or unfairly is seen as the overwhelmingly dominant religious force in the West. Protestantism isn’t really even on the radar. As such, Rome is either seen as a failed Church because of the state of the society around it or, and this is something I hear all the time from monastics especially down in Greece, the Church of Rome is part and parcel of the depravity as witnessed by the destruction of the liturgy and, maybe not so surprisingly, of Western monasticism. To the extent that Orthodox people blame Rome to an extent for the disease of Western secularism, it is hated and very, very feared.
“Yes, I believe that after the Greeks had left Florence, there were further discussions with these smaller churches as the Armenians and Copts, and it appears that there was some closer ties developed after language problems were overcome.”
I was talking about very recent (30-40 years ago) talks between the Monophysites and the Orthodox. What that has lead to could be a model for what might happen between Rome and the Eastern Churches.
“No, we don’t see it as a “means towards communion”. If so, we’d also let the Protestants in.”
No you wouldn’t. Aside from a very few Lutherans, their Eucharistic theology is illicit.
“We continue to call the Orthdox a valid Church with valid sacraments and rites.”
As we do with Rome.
“We can celebrate the Eucharist together because we ARE Church, although we have differences of opinions that keep us from TOTAL reunion.”
Not at this point because we have not determined, even provisionally, that we likely believe the same things in all dogmatic areas. If we had reached that conclusion, we would have intercommunion by economia or perhaps even as it exists de facto in Lebanon (and here and there even in No. America) among the Orthodox, the Melkites and the Maronites.
“...your view of this seems to require more strict unity.”
Yes, that’s fair though I don’t think we need an Ecumenical Council for intercommunion by economia.
“That is because you are not aware of culture’s pressure on such matters over here. Woman’s rights are here to stay. It is difficult to deny their accusations when they cannot do something that WAS perfectly lecit to do long time ago - take the Eucharist to those who were sick. There is no Tradition or theological idea that I am aware of that would prevent women from handling the Eucharist already consecrated.”
Of course we are aware of it and of women’s rights. But The Church is not a creature of “today” and it is guided by the Holy Spirit not the Zeitgeist! As for the role of women and the Eucharist, we are all fully aware of the history of female deacons and their role in The Church. The Church of Greece has determined to reestablish that order under the traditional conditions, with the traditional blessings and for the traditional purposes...and they, by virtue of their offikion, will certainly be able to handle the holy vessels and the Holy Mysteries. These deaconesses will not be some random lady from the community, however, who will go home to the husband and kids or grandchildren after the liturgy. Jo, lay people have no authorization to handle the holy vessels or the Holy Mysteries. That was the universal practice before Vatican II except perhaps for reception of communion in the hands.
“The extraordinary case is not denied, however.”
Of course not. A number of Orthodox here on FR discussed once if they would receive communion, indeed seek it out, from a Latin priest if they were “in extremis”. Everyone said Yes and without hesitation. But as we lawyers say, “Hard cases make bad law”. “In extremis” is just that.
“I could ask the same question about the Orthodox,...”
For us, artificial contraception is a matter for decision between a couple and their spiritual father. Orthodoxy recognizes all sorts of reasons for the use of artificial contraception. We simply don’t view it as +Paul VI did.
“...or indeed about abortion.”
The rate of abortion among Orthodox Christians here in the US is slightly lower than that found among Roman Catholics. I’d place that statistic in the category of “damning with faint praise”, however.
“Either the laity of the entire church are to be counted or none.”
Not at all. The Western hierarchy had seen to it over the centuries that the laity’s role is to pay, pray and obey. When Vatican II came along, it had somewhat the same effect as the French Revolution on the peasantry, though not so bloody, a dangerous sort of anarchy which has lead to the clown masses, nuns in pantsuits demonstrating for abortion rights and Kosta’s naked women shaking their breasts in liturgical dance before the Bishop of Rome! I think its best we take a pass on the Western laity until they get their feet under them.
Yes, there are abuses but when trying to justify the Easter Schism, take issue with the true teachings of the Catholic Church, not with a strawman church illustrated by some of the more extreme examples of disobedience to church authority. As bland as the typical Sunday Mass is, the picture that you are trying to paint is hardly representative of Catholic worship and I find it highly dishonest.
Perhaps but depending on who you ask the highest rates of abortion are in either Russia, Romania or Greece. I will grant that Russia and Romania are still exercising the demons of Communism, but Greece?
The Western hierarchy had seen to it over the centuries that the laity’s role is to pay, pray and obey.
Let us not pretend that the laity in the East at the time of Florence were knowledgeable about Catholic theology or the intricacies of the procession of the Holy Spirit. Even St. Mark of Ephesus declared that he was unfamiliar with the teachings of the Western Fathers on the subject. No, they had been formed by their clergy to hate all things Latin and would not accept union in any form except by a full act of contrition by the entire Western church. This is an attitude that, sadly, I find alive and well today.
“I will grant that Russia and Romania are still exercising the demons of Communism, but Greece?”
Disgraceful, isn’t it!
“Let us not pretend that the laity in the East at the time of Florence were knowledgeable about Catholic theology or the intricacies of the procession of the Holy Spirit.”
I doubt they were, though interestingly, in earlier times they really were that informed. What they knew in the mid 15th century was that the Latins prayed the Creed differently from them. Since the Creed defined the Faith insofar as the Trinity was concerned, changing what the Ecumenical Fathers had ordained was wrong; it was not Orthodox and thus was heresy. One didn’t need to be a theologian to see and appreciate the difference, P. It really is the same thing, though on a much more important subject, as the reactions of the Serbian peasants to the priest who performed the final prayers of the Divine Liturgy facing the wrong way. They weren’t hierachial liturgists, P. They were simple laity who know the way things are supposed to be done. They know when things aren’t, as we say in Greek “etsi preppi”, as they should be!
“...would not accept union in any form except by a full act of contrition by the entire Western church. This is an attitude that, sadly, I find alive and well today.”
I think its fair to say that there is very little affection for the Western Church among Orthodox lay people and even less among the monastics. There are more than a few both in the East and the West who assert that that dearth of affection is well deserved. Be that as it may, it admittedly posses a problem for those who desire reunion.
Why does that table look like the “stone table” from the Chronicles of Narnia? :)
“And what about the vestal virigns (nuns) incensing the altar in the LA Cathedral? Does it get any more pagan than this?”
Where are the pantsuits? I thought their nuns wore pantsuits!
I think, what both Kolokotronis and I have in mind is a transitional period when the bishops of both Churches encourage calm and discourage disruptive discourse. During that time there is no reunification yet, but there is a spirit of mutual respect and inquiry, that proceeds from the presumtion of the best. I think at this point, the West has it more than the East. For example, serious Catholics have nothing but admiration for the Eastern Liturgy, and most -- there are exceptions -- would like to find out more about Palamist doctrines, and would listen to the insights regarding the eternal spiration, original sin, etc.This period of calm could last centuries and, of course, there should be theological discussion on the council level that clarifies the doctrines and seeks common elements in the divergent doctrines.
None of that is possible if attitudes are adjusted even more than they have been. In the attitude adjustment department, we in the West can do little to change the East, but we sure could change ourselves. The East rightly suspects that as a whole Catholicism is modernist and slouches toward liturgical Protestantism. Unless significant progress has been made here toward liturgical propriety, the suspicion won't go away. I am firmly convinced that the irritating propensity of our Eastern brethren to magnify every difference -- what I would like to call lust for separation, -- stems from their well-founded fear of getting some kind of Vatican II theological disease from a closer association with us.
Another example: we know "filioque" means "and through the Son". So what prevents ICEL and analogous bodies in other vernaculars from translating it so? It is not always included, -- it is not included in Eastern Catholic Churches, and -- correct me if I am wrong -- the creed was said without the filioque when Patriarch Bartholomew visited the Mass. It would be nice to clarify this, perhaps, with an encyclical, one way or another.
The endless references to Florence, whatever their historical merit, don't help (especially when the Florentine understanding of filioque is not supported in vernacular), because they reinforce the image of the Latin Church as something run by lawyers. It is fine to point out that the issue was bridged once and so it can be bridged again, but we often sound as if the East is already bound by Florence. This attitude does not respect the Eastern conscience, and betrays our own insecurities.
There was no reception of the host in the hand before Vatican II. It was strictly forbidden.
Apropos deaconesses, they are not ordianed, just tonsured. They must be 40 years of age or older, widowed or single.
Because LA s close to Disney world? :) Look at the positive side: at least it's stone. Latin rite actually used to require that altars be made of stone.
“There was no reception of the host in the hand before Vatican II. It was strictly forbidden.”
That’s not historically correct, Kosta. Communion was in fact taken home by communicants and consumed there in the early centuries of The Church.
“Apropos deaconesses, they are not ordianed, just tonsured. They must be 40 years of age or older, widowed or single.”
Which is why I said they were blessed and received an offikion rather than ordained. They most certainly were not ordained nor is there a plan to ordain any in Greece. In fact, there the plan is to confine the order to nuns and so far as I know, none have been tonsured yet.
...a cucumber? How about we just drop it. Nothing further can come from this but more occasions to sin. I have made my point abundantly clear and you have proven it by your responses. I am sorry if I have caused you bouts of anger through all of this, I do feel responsible, and in retrospect, perhaps my methods were not in keeping with what Jesus would do, but perhaps, when you feel better, you may realize there is truth to what I have said about the Eastern Laity, God bless them.
Have a good weekend
I think they are more "fashionable" nowadays.
St. James Cathedral, Orlando, Fl. Who is the guy on the left dressed in his "Sunday best"?
I am aware of that, but I was referring to the Tridentine tradition.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.