What I am positing is what has gone on, even in my own parish, with Copts and Armenians. What we see there in intercommunion is purely based in religion.
You don't share any cultural affinity with Copts or Armenians? I am not sure I follow - please forgive my ignorance on this matter.
Jo, all niceties aside, with the exception of some Lutherans and some C.S. Lewis style Anglicans, Protestantism is heresy. The fruit of the weed of heresy is always the same. All we have to do is look around to see it.
LOL! I am not arguing that. I deal with them daily, my friend. I am aware of our differences on key matters. The point I was making is that they DO stand by US (you as well) on a number of cultural and political issues, such as abortion, religious freedom, rights for the poor and down-trodden, immigrants, etc. We had a "40 day" thing in town recently to protest against "Roe v Wade". Some Protestants joined us as we, together, stood outside a "Planned Parent" location with billboards and offered prayers together.
I have found that when you work together and share a common goal, sometimes the other theological stuff takes a more secondary role. I'm thinking that Christ will judge us on whether we fed the poor and clothed the naked. Not that heresy is unimportant. But culturally speaking, in Evangelizing to the pagan Americans, we Christians should provide a more united front - American secularism is united, so to most effectively counter it, we must unite at some place. Though we differ, we share some common goals, primarily to bring Christ to people. One takes on a different attitude towards these "heretics" when you actually work with them and see they love God as well...
It is easy to hate or fear what we do not know or are familiar with.
The problem is that The Western Church failed to curb Modernism and the East has a somewhat inflated concept of the power of Rome.
Yes, failed. That is fair. While it may appear, when looking at the development of the Papacy, that the Church is more centralized, in reality, the Pope has very little real power outside of Rome. Look at our Liturgy! Ask Kosta for the pictures! IF Rome was so "in control" and Catholicism was so centralized, the Pope would command this crap to stop. But the mindset is different here. However, we view our church a little differently than a corporation. It's more like a family. It's time for "Dad" to get the belt, I think, though!
Your allies in the culture wars!
Yes...Like the Saxons for Napoleon. Or the Italians for the Germans and Hitler... But we go with what God has given us.
The canons and the Fathers aren’t. You see, here’s an example of what we find objectionable in the Western Church. You are flexible about something which is nearly as disgraceful, liturgically, to us (and would have been to you 50 years ago) as the clown masses and vestal virgins are. Can you imagine what the reaction to Eucharettes would be in an Orthodox temple?
Oh, you misunderstand me. I am flexible on what HAS BEEN allowed before. There were no clown masses or vestal virgins or dancing girls at mass before. There APPEARS to have been females delivering the Eucharist. I think that is unfair to categorize them in the same way. The former is an abomination, the later is a legitimate development that is not theologicaly unacceptable.
Please remember that the Liturgy is one of those things that expresses our differences in culture. We should be allowed to correct ABUSES, things that Vatican 2 NEVER allowed in the first place. You do realize that Vatican 2 did not do away with Latin or statues. Some INTERPRETED Vatican 2 incorrectly and ransacked our lovely Churches. What is sad is that the Traditionalists of the time did pretty much nothing but stand by helplessly. Now they complain.
Anyway, we are flexible in what is allowed - not flexible in everyone's personal opinion. For example, I would like to see the priest have the OPTION of turning to the people (as the NO) OR turning towards the tabernacle during the Eucharistic prayer. BOTH have legitimate symbolic meanings, since the Eucharist is a sacrifice offered to the Father AND it is the Paschal Banquet which we ALL share in. This is what I am talking about when I say being flexible. The rubics themselves are opporunities to teadch the faithful. Some variance in rubics, accepted by Rome, to me is tolerable. Not dancing women during the Eucharist. WHO IN GOD'S NAME is going to get the idea that the Eucharist is SACRED seeing such crap?
Lex orendi, lex credendi...
Regards
“There APPEARS to have been females delivering the Eucharist.”
Yes, tonsured, older widows or virgins. Your Eucharettes, so far as I know, are not tonsured. Eucharettes exist only because some women demanded it as their “right” and accused the bishops of “discriminating”. What has any of that to do with The Church? Its an outrage!
Jo, its the very “flexibility” which has become so prevalent in the Western Church and Western culture since WWII which lead to the liturgical and catechetical mess the Church of Rome finds itself in now. How far does that flexibility go? Based on what? Inspired by whom? Why is his idea better than yours? The Holy Spirit is doing a new thing!... And then, Every man a pope...and heresy! :(
“You don’t share any cultural affinity with Copts or Armenians?”
I suppose to the extent that we were all under the boot of the Mohammedan Turks, we share some common cultural experiences and, mundanely, food. The Melkites, Maronites and Antiochian Orthodox however are all Syrian/Lebanese. Copts are not Greeks and Greeks are not Armenians and none of us are Slavs.