OrthodoxChristianity.net

Moderated Forums => Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion => Orthodox-Catholic Discussion => Topic started by: lovesupreme on May 02, 2013, 12:50:31 AM

Title: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: lovesupreme on May 02, 2013, 12:50:31 AM
I told the Roman Catholic deacon I had been working with of my decision to be baptized into the Orthodox Church, and I'm very happy that he took the news well and is completely supportive. Today, he sent me an interview with Archimandrite Robert Taft, SJ, an Eastern Catholic theologian, who I was not familiar with before. The interview discusses Fr. Taft's views on the current state of Orthodox-Catholic relations.

An excerpt:

Quote
CWR: How could the papal claims of Rome be modified in a way that would be both acceptable to the Orthodox Churches and faithful to the tradition of the Catholic Church? Do you think the jurisdiction issue really is a hang-up for the Orthodox since they also practice cross-jurisdiction throughout Western Europe, the Americas, Australia, and East Asia?

Taft: The new Catholic “Sister Churches” ecclesiology describes not only how the Catholic Church views the Orthodox Churches. It also represents a startling revolution in how the Catholic Church views itself: we are no longer the only kid on the block, the whole Church of Christ, but one Sister Church among others. Previously, the Catholic Church saw itself as the original one and only true Church of Christ from which all other Christians had separated for one reason or another in the course of history, and Catholics held, simplistically, that the solution to divided Christendom consisted in all other Christians returning to Rome’s maternal bosom.

Vatican II, with an assist from those Council Fathers with a less naïve Disney-World view of their own Church’s past, managed to put aside this historically ludicrous, self-centered, self-congratulatory perception of reality. In doing so they had a strong assist from the Council Fathers of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church whose concrete experience of the realities of the Christian East made them spokesmen and defenders of that reality.

Read the full interview here (http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/2223/Building_Bridges_between_Orthodox_and_Catholic_Christians.aspx?utm_source=feedly#.UYGPEfq9K0c)

---

Now, I know I'm just a bright-eyed convert with dangerous ecumenical hopes, but I was very pleased to read some (but not all) of the things that Fr. Taft said. Just earlier today, I listened to a guest on a Catholic radio show tell listeners that the Eastern Orthodox Churches don't get along with each other, implying that they weren't even in communion. If anything, this article might have been God's gift to me, showing that there are certainly Catholic voices with a more nuanced understanding of the situation. :)
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: quietmorning on May 02, 2013, 06:46:48 AM
I will come back and read the article, but very quickly I wanted to mention that for some reason the prayer 'union of all men' kept sticking out to me like a light beacon this past week. 

Who knows the mind of God, but can it be anything but GOOD?

:) 

My family remains RC - and for me, the hope is that we will be one before the judgement seat.  I love them.  Can love ask for anything less for ANY person who calls upon the Name of Christ?
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Sinful Hypocrite on May 02, 2013, 07:29:15 PM
I was baptized and raised Greek Orthodox and I love my faith.

I have come to see though that all men are flawed and so are all the respective denominations, No disney fairy tail for me either.
Only God is Good so we all fail miserably, but Putting one church above another is the worst in my humble opinion.

If we despise another church and God dwells in it, we are despising God.

My prayers are that we can all be as one with Christ, because that is what he said we were to do, one nation of people of God , The Holy Spirit and Jesus.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Kra-nion on May 13, 2013, 10:14:42 PM
# you need a starting place...............for unity.......'the only place i know of for orthodox thought is ; golgotha'.........and,..aaah?........ catholic thought ; most seem to think it's the pope, BUT......JohnPaul ll {a pope} it's, "those to whom Sts. Cyril & Methodius went"......latins don't keep up , it don't make no cents to them.....................how can you impart the ancient mysteries to some college edu cated can't remember what it was so they make a goofy guess to prove to people how special they are....................................//.................  [ i think an orthodox will get this  before catholic ]..........orth. looks at icon St. Cyril = monk , St.Methodius = bishop.......orth. thinks christ sent his apostles to all nations, baptizing them, ..christ is king of kings...god gave us the kingdom of his son...god is the god of our Fathers+.......................lati. looks at pope sees  mary....  lati. thinks.....pope.........,< there's not much different, no, congrurency >.........so what went wrong?...is something missing?.... .? ,.  &?.  ,.~.....~~~~......,,,,,,..........,,,,..?..your orthodox,so; Do priest evangelize priest?......... historically Sts.Cyril&Methodius were received by a royal house..[notpriests]...,lati.thinks(pope). ....=.so what did lati. thought do?  get this!....pope talks with queen of england......but. for 'those to whom Sts.Cyril&Methodius went'...pope talks to college edu.priests......so, Do priests evan. priests?....12THsnod.....*******........//...^^^^^.....   starting place  ; learn more about golgotha, (start w/dictionary's & maps) know the scripture...then maybe you can help the latins find continuity.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: William on May 13, 2013, 10:18:20 PM
Just earlier today, I listened to a guest on a Catholic radio show tell listeners that the Eastern Orthodox Churches don't get along with each other, implying that they weren't even in communion.

I don't get why this is a thing. My dad kind of thinks along the same lines. We were on a vacation and he found an Antiochian parish for us to visit because he said staying within one's own "fief" was important in Orthodoxy (he said this in a mocking way).
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: stanley123 on May 13, 2013, 11:19:28 PM
I told the Roman Catholic deacon I had been working with of my decision to be baptized into the Orthodox Church, and I'm very happy that he took the news well and is completely supportive. Today, he sent me an interview with Archimandrite Robert Taft, SJ, an Eastern Catholic theologian, who I was not familiar with before. The interview discusses Fr. Taft's views on the current state of Orthodox-Catholic relations.

An excerpt:

Quote
CWR: How could the papal claims of Rome be modified in a way that would be both acceptable to the Orthodox Churches and faithful to the tradition of the Catholic Church? Do you think the jurisdiction issue really is a hang-up for the Orthodox since they also practice cross-jurisdiction throughout Western Europe, the Americas, Australia, and East Asia?

Taft: The new Catholic “Sister Churches” ecclesiology describes not only how the Catholic Church views the Orthodox Churches. It also represents a startling revolution in how the Catholic Church views itself: we are no longer the only kid on the block, the whole Church of Christ, but one Sister Church among others. Previously, the Catholic Church saw itself as the original one and only true Church of Christ from which all other Christians had separated for one reason or another in the course of history, and Catholics held, simplistically, that the solution to divided Christendom consisted in all other Christians returning to Rome’s maternal bosom.

Vatican II, with an assist from those Council Fathers with a less naïve Disney-World view of their own Church’s past, managed to put aside this historically ludicrous, self-centered, self-congratulatory perception of reality. In doing so they had a strong assist from the Council Fathers of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church whose concrete experience of the realities of the Christian East made them spokesmen and defenders of that reality.

Read the full interview here (http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/2223/Building_Bridges_between_Orthodox_and_Catholic_Christians.aspx?utm_source=feedly#.UYGPEfq9K0c)

---

Now, I know I'm just a bright-eyed convert with dangerous ecumenical hopes, but I was very pleased to read some (but not all) of the things that Fr. Taft said. Just earlier today, I listened to a guest on a Catholic radio show tell listeners that the Eastern Orthodox Churches don't get along with each other, implying that they weren't even in communion. If anything, this article might have been God's gift to me, showing that there are certainly Catholic voices with a more nuanced understanding of the situation. :)
In his interview, Father Taft speaks of the bigotry of many of the Orthodox monastics and the idea that representatives of Orthodoxy  speak out of both sides of their mouth, saying one thing at ecumenical conferences, and something else for the consumption of Orthodox audiences. Somehow, I don’t see this as going over well with many of the Orthodox faithful.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: JamesR on May 13, 2013, 11:33:16 PM
If Rome rejoins the Orthodox Church then I'm leaving. I don't want to be united to the Church that colonized my ancestors.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: dzheremi on May 13, 2013, 11:42:24 PM
That same Church colonized some of my ancestors, too, James. Sometimes you have to look at the big picture (beyond your feelings) to see what the best response is. If Rome embraces the Orthodox faith, then do we forgive her her former errors or not? I would like to think that the most Christian thing to do is always to forgive. Leaving the Church in a huff does not bring back your ancestors nor their pre-Christian religions (which are not always all that much better, I'm sorry to say; I'm pretty happy that there are no human sacrifices going on at Palenque or wherever these days...call me imperialista if you want).
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: JamesR on May 13, 2013, 11:46:49 PM
Well you can do that, but I'd rather leave. It's about pride.

EDIT: I guess I'd just join one of the Traditionalist Orthodox Churches
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: SolEX01 on May 14, 2013, 12:02:19 AM
Well you can do that, but I'd rather leave. It's about pride.

Pride - a deadly sin.  It's about the present and the future, not re-enacting the past.

EDIT: I guess I'd just join one of the Traditionalist Orthodox Churches

Their numbers are dwindling; many of them are in communion with themselves and very few (if any) others and their Bishops are dying off.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: truthseeker32 on May 14, 2013, 12:12:57 AM
If Rome rejoins the Orthodox Church then I'm leaving. I don't want to be united to the Church that colonized my ancestors.
1. I don't know if it is fair to place the blame entirely on the Church itself.
2. Severing ties with Orthodoxy because it unites with a Roman church with skeletons in its closet seems like de-friending your best friend because you find out his great great great great great grandfather mistreated your great great great great great grandfather. We aren't guilty for the sins of our predecessors.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: lovesupreme on May 14, 2013, 02:01:15 AM
Well you can do that, but I'd rather leave. It's about pride.

EDIT: I guess I'd just join one of the Traditionalist Orthodox Churches

James, I pray that when and if there is reunion in your lifetime, you will be mature enough not to say such foolish things.

Why are we Orthodox? I would hope it's because we follow the True Church that Christ has established us, regardless of its members. I would hope that we would stay in the Church even if something that we didn't want happened, like a revised calendar, a new council, or the acceptance of a large group of people, such as Roman Catholics, back into the fold.

"If the Church doesn't do what I want... I'll just join the Church that does." Do you understand what sort of logic you're setting up? You're implying that membership in the Church is a matter of personal preference, and that if it no longer serves our needs or it makes us angry, we're free to hop somewhere else. And you would hop to a schismatic church, for the sole purpose of avoiding communion with many faithful men and women.

Maybe you were just joking, but I am genuinely concerned about the views that you have espoused, and the pride to which you have readily admitted. Pride is the mother of all sins, James. And I'm certainly not without it myself. Pray to God that He may heal you of this accursed affliction.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: mike on May 14, 2013, 04:24:59 AM
If Rome rejoins the Orthodox Church then I'm leaving. I don't want to be united to the Church that colonized my ancestors.

The Orthodox Church colonised my ancestors. At least two times. What should I do?
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: jmbejdl on May 14, 2013, 04:39:38 AM
If Rome rejoins the Orthodox Church then I'm leaving. I don't want to be united to the Church that colonized my ancestors.

The Orthodox Church colonised my ancestors. At least two times. What should I do?

Honestly, I don't think any church ever colonised anyone's ancestors. Converted, yes (sometimes and regrettably forcefully) but not colonised. JamesR's ancestors were colonised by the Spaniards who happened to be Roman Catholic, they weren't colonised by the Roman Catholic church.

If we're to base our membership of churches on them having never been adhered to by peoples that colonised, oppressed or subjugated our ancestors, I guess I'm left having to leave Christianity altogether. I suppose I could go and role play worshipping Saxnot but I'd be forever worried that maybe the Saxons oppressed some even earlier ancestor I'm currently unaware of.

James
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Ignatius II on May 14, 2013, 06:24:56 AM
Well you can do that, but I'd rather leave. It's about pride.

EDIT: I guess I'd just join one of the Traditionalist Orthodox Churches

James, I pray that when and if there is reunion in your lifetime, you will be mature enough not to say such foolish things.

Why are we Orthodox? I would hope it's because we follow the True Church that Christ has established us, regardless of its members. I would hope that we would stay in the Church even if something that we didn't want happened, like a revised calendar, a new council, or the acceptance of a large group of people, such as Roman Catholics, back into the fold.

"If the Church doesn't do what I want... I'll just join the Church that does." Do you understand what sort of logic you're setting up? You're implying that membership in the Church is a matter of personal preference, and that if it no longer serves our needs or it makes us angry, we're free to hop somewhere else. And you would hop to a schismatic church, for the sole purpose of avoiding communion with many faithful men and women.

Maybe you were just joking, but I am genuinely concerned about the views that you have espoused, and the pride to which you have readily admitted. Pride is the mother of all sins, James. And I'm certainly not without it myself. Pray to God that He may heal you of this accursed affliction.

Excellent comments and observations.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Fabio Leite on May 14, 2013, 11:59:15 AM
I think there will be some kind of union either in this century or the next.

If it will be a true union where we put away sins that have been committed (mainly papal supremacy and infallibility on the Roman side, phyletism on the Orthodox side), I'll rejoice. If, on the other hand, it's some sort of "you can understand papal supremacy in any way you want but submitt to it" I'll glady stay in the Orthodox Catholic Church even if all patriarchs deflected to heresy.

While Rome enforces Unam Sanctam, Cum Simus Super and Pastor Aeternus, all "union" under explicitily relativistic terms will be a contract with spiritually lethal small print.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Papist on May 14, 2013, 12:15:18 PM
If Rome rejoins the Orthodox Church then I'm leaving. I don't want to be united to the Church that colonized my ancestors.
This is a silly post. I'm hispanic too, and my religious devotion has nothing to do with what happened to my ancestors. It has to do with what I believe to be true.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Papist on May 14, 2013, 12:15:18 PM
Well you can do that, but I'd rather leave. It's about pride.

EDIT: I guess I'd just join one of the Traditionalist Orthodox Churches
You do realize that our ancestors (yours and mine) practiced human sacrifice before the Spanish Catholics arrived and put an end to this, right?
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Papist on May 14, 2013, 12:15:18 PM
If Rome rejoins the Orthodox Church then I'm leaving. I don't want to be united to the Church that colonized my ancestors.

The Orthodox Church colonised my ancestors. At least two times. What should I do?

Honestly, I don't think any church ever colonised anyone's ancestors. Converted, yes (sometimes and regrettably forcefully) but not colonised. JamesR's ancestors were colonised by the Spaniards who happened to be Roman Catholic, they weren't colonised by the Roman Catholic church.

If we're to base our membership of churches on them having never been adhered to by peoples that colonised, oppressed or subjugated our ancestors, I guess I'm left having to leave Christianity altogether. I suppose I could go and role play worshipping Saxnot but I'd be forever worried that maybe the Saxons oppressed some even earlier ancestor I'm currently unaware of.

James
BTW, being Mexican, James probably has some Spanish ancestors as well.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Fabio Leite on May 14, 2013, 12:36:55 PM
Everybody's ancestor killed and tortured someone else's ancestor.

Basically a hates b because x killed z. Compensation and pride ideology is just silly.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: primuspilus on May 14, 2013, 12:46:32 PM
Quote
If Rome rejoins the Orthodox Church then I'm leaving. I don't want to be united to the Church that colonized my ancestors.
"Too bad youth is wasted on the young."
Mark Twain
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: WPM on May 14, 2013, 12:55:54 PM
I don't have a problem with Rome ... Catholics can be doctrinally orthodox with a lowercase 'o' as compared the capital "O" in Orthodox.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: dzheremi on May 14, 2013, 01:05:26 PM
BTW, being Mexican, James probably has some Spanish ancestors as well.

Thank you! I wasn't going to say it, but I was thinking it pretty loudly after looking at James' avatar. :)

Just like in the USA (or Australia, or the Middle East, or anywhere, really), unless you're a 100% native/indigenous person, you're at least partially from somewhere else, and it's a wee bit incredibly hypocritical to choose to be outraged on behalf of whatever percentage of you actually belongs to the land you've probably never been to, or went to on vacation once, or otherwise have very little connection to. The vast majority of Mexicans are mestizo/mixed native and Spanish ancestry. This is the case with everyone in my family who is Mexican.

I mean, let's be real here: My grandmother came to this country from Mexico when she was very young. My great grandmother (who I don't remember; she died when I was two) apparently spoke no English for her entire life, despite coming here in her 20s or thereabouts with my grandmother. They had a hard life for a while, but it was still a heck of a lot better than it was or would have been back in the old country. Let's not romanticize Mexico or any place as being great before X (the Catholics, the Orthodox, the Mormons, the white people, the whatevers) showed up. Chances are if they hadn't, you wouldn't be who you are, and you might even be stuck living on some tiny plot of land, or no land at all, working essentially in serfdom and never being able to better your life at all. Go ahead and be mad at your chosen colonial symbol all you want, but don't let it cloud your perception of reality. The fact that you're getting mad 500 years after the fact on behalf of some long lost ancestor whose name you probably don't even know is already doing that enough for you. Live in now. Now is, by all accounts, pretty good.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Papist on May 14, 2013, 01:13:43 PM
BTW, being Mexican, James probably has some Spanish ancestors as well.

Thank you! I wasn't going to say it, but I was thinking it pretty loudly after looking at James' avatar. :)

Just like in the USA (or Australia, or the Middle East, or anywhere, really), unless you're a 100% native/indigenous person, you're at least partially from somewhere else, and it's a wee bit incredibly hypocritical to choose to be outraged on behalf of whatever percentage of you actually belongs to the land you've probably never been to, or went to on vacation once, or otherwise have very little connection to. The vast majority of Mexicans are mestizo/mixed native and Spanish ancestry. This is the case with everyone in my family who is Mexican.

I mean, let's be real here: My grandmother came to this country from Mexico when she was very young. My great grandmother (who I don't remember; she died when I was two) apparently spoke no English for her entire life, despite coming here in her 20s or thereabouts with my grandmother. They had a hard life for a while, but it was still a heck of a lot better than it was or would have been back in the old country. Let's not romanticize Mexico or any place as being great before X (the Catholics, the Orthodox, the Mormons, the white people, the whatevers) showed up. Chances are if they hadn't, you wouldn't be who you are, and you might even be stuck living on some tiny plot of land, or no land at all, working essentially in serfdom and never being able to better your life at all. Go ahead and be mad at your chosen colonial symbol all you want, but don't let it cloud your perception of reality. The fact that you're getting mad 500 years after the fact on behalf of some long lost ancestor whose name you probably don't even know is already doing that enough for you. Live in now. Now is, by all accounts, pretty good.
Here in Albuquerque, NM, there is a funny little debate on whether or not native New Mexicans are Mexican or Spanish. The whole conversation is quite silly, since we are all probably both.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Cyrillic on May 14, 2013, 01:16:35 PM
Back in the days the Orthodox Church chopped down sacred Dutch trees.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: dzheremi on May 14, 2013, 01:38:12 PM
Here in Albuquerque, NM, there is a funny little debate on whether or not native New Mexicans are Mexican or Spanish. The whole conversation is quite silly, since we are all probably both.

Yes. I am not from here, so I cannot participate in it, but I have been privy to that debate due to my career choice. I think it's pretty interesting, actually. Once again, you essentially are what you say you are. It's funny to explain to people back home in N. California (which has its own Spanish -- as well as indigenous, Mexican, Russian, etc. -- heritage) how Albuquerque has a Hispanic majority thanks to all the white people claiming Hispanic ancestry (as the census does not differentiate between different Hispanic races; if I recall correctly, the category is "Hispanic (including white)", though there may be other, more fine-grained distinctions to be made within that). It seems to bug people that Hispanics/Latinos/whatever can be of any race.

For instance, all of these people are Mexicans:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3e/Louis_CK_2012_Shankbone.JPG/220px-Louis_CK_2012_Shankbone.JPG)
(Euro-Mexican [Hungarian Jewish])

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-JLtWlvDWxO0/TcLBvmlJYGI/AAAAAAAAAS8/YJjvK8Hlj3E/s1600/blk+mexicans.jpg)
(Afro-Mexicans)

(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS-hpY_kSP7q0fL3YGt7SJ0R0xhkoCM6pnDQp-lRweJO2-QIuhx)
(Asian-Mexican)

(http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lel02nXU7u1qehw2t.jpg)
(Arab-Mexican)

I think the real question is: Which half of these people gets to be upset and take their ball and go home? (And to where?)

Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: JamesR on May 14, 2013, 02:33:12 PM
1. I don't know if it is fair to place the blame entirely on the Church itself.
2. Severing ties with Orthodoxy because it unites with a Roman church with skeletons in its closet seems like de-friending your best friend because you find out his great great great great great grandfather mistreated your great great great great great grandfather. We aren't guilty for the sins of our predecessors.

I'm just not going to accept the marks of colonialism. No Mexican is Roman Catholic because they "think it's true." They're Roman Catholic because they had it forced on them in the past and their parents forced it on them and so on. Then again, pretty much everyone who adheres to a religion (other than converts) are like that.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: JamesR on May 14, 2013, 02:33:40 PM
Back in the days the Orthodox Church chopped down sacred Dutch trees.

You should demand that the EP plant you a new tree :)
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: JamesR on May 14, 2013, 02:36:30 PM
Well you can do that, but I'd rather leave. It's about pride.

EDIT: I guess I'd just join one of the Traditionalist Orthodox Churches
You do realize that our ancestors (yours and mine) practiced human sacrifice before the Spanish Catholics arrived and put an end to this, right?

That's questionable as nearly every Aztec document prior to the arrival of the Spanish was destroyed, and most of the sources we get this information from come from Spaniards who wanted to demonize the enemy for permission to exploit them for gold. And even if it did happen, so what? The Spanish didn't make it any better by bashing their heads against the trees after baptizing them and enslaving them at plantations. Europe was practicing imperialism for years and no one stopped them until the Ottomans gave them a run for their money.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: JamesR on May 14, 2013, 02:38:33 PM
BTW, being Mexican, James probably has some Spanish ancestors as well.

German actually, which is rather rare.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: lovesupreme on May 14, 2013, 02:55:08 PM
1. I don't know if it is fair to place the blame entirely on the Church itself.
2. Severing ties with Orthodoxy because it unites with a Roman church with skeletons in its closet seems like de-friending your best friend because you find out his great great great great great grandfather mistreated your great great great great great grandfather. We aren't guilty for the sins of our predecessors.

I'm just not going to accept the marks of colonialism. No Mexican is Roman Catholic because they "think it's true." They're Roman Catholic because they had it forced on them in the past and their parents forced it on them and so on. Then again, pretty much everyone who adheres to a religion (other than converts) are like that.

James, how are you to know the true motivations of every single Mexican man, woman, and child who has ever lived? It's reasonable to assert that there's a correlation between Roman Catholicism in Mexican populations and colonialism. It's absolutely unreasonable to assert that no Mexican has ever had a sincere belief in his faith, but accepts it merely because he was born into it, because his ancestors were at one point forced to accept it. Please, my friend, I implore you to have more faith in other people.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: stanley123 on May 14, 2013, 03:31:44 PM
Here in Albuquerque, NM, there is a funny little debate on whether or not native New Mexicans are Mexican or Spanish. 
It is easy to determine if someone is Mexican or Spanish. Have them say "gracias." Or ask them the word for computer. Is it a “computadora” or an “ordenador”.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Papist on May 14, 2013, 03:46:54 PM
1. I don't know if it is fair to place the blame entirely on the Church itself.
2. Severing ties with Orthodoxy because it unites with a Roman church with skeletons in its closet seems like de-friending your best friend because you find out his great great great great great grandfather mistreated your great great great great great grandfather. We aren't guilty for the sins of our predecessors.

I'm just not going to accept the marks of colonialism. No Mexican is Roman Catholic because they "think it's true." They're Roman Catholic because they had it forced on them in the past and their parents forced it on them and so on. Then again, pretty much everyone who adheres to a religion (other than converts) are like that.
Because the human sacrificing religions of pre-christian mexico were soooooo much better.  ::)
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Papist on May 14, 2013, 03:46:54 PM
Well you can do that, but I'd rather leave. It's about pride.

EDIT: I guess I'd just join one of the Traditionalist Orthodox Churches
You do realize that our ancestors (yours and mine) practiced human sacrifice before the Spanish Catholics arrived and put an end to this, right?

That's questionable as nearly every Aztec document prior to the arrival of the Spanish was destroyed, and most of the sources we get this information from come from Spaniards who wanted to demonize the enemy for permission to exploit them for gold. And even if it did happen, so what? The Spanish didn't make it any better by bashing their heads against the trees after baptizing them and enslaving them at plantations. Europe was practicing imperialism for years and no one stopped them until the Ottomans gave them a run for their money.
Its not debatable. Even Atzec and Mayan art testify to the practice of human sacrifice. Have you ever visited an ancient mayan or aztec city?
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Papist on May 14, 2013, 03:46:54 PM
BTW, being Mexican, James probably has some Spanish ancestors as well.

German actually, which is rather rare.
Wait... You are German and complaining about the atrocities committed by the Spanish??? Dude, your ancestry is a clear indication that everyone's ancestors have blood on their hands.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Papist on May 14, 2013, 03:46:54 PM
1. I don't know if it is fair to place the blame entirely on the Church itself.
2. Severing ties with Orthodoxy because it unites with a Roman church with skeletons in its closet seems like de-friending your best friend because you find out his great great great great great grandfather mistreated your great great great great great grandfather. We aren't guilty for the sins of our predecessors.

I'm just not going to accept the marks of colonialism. No Mexican is Roman Catholic because they "think it's true." They're Roman Catholic because they had it forced on them in the past and their parents forced it on them and so on. Then again, pretty much everyone who adheres to a religion (other than converts) are like that.
You must must think that I don't exist, because I am Catholic because I think it's true. If I didn't think Catholicism was true, I'd be Orthodox.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: JamesR on May 14, 2013, 05:20:44 PM
Well you can do that, but I'd rather leave. It's about pride.

EDIT: I guess I'd just join one of the Traditionalist Orthodox Churches
You do realize that our ancestors (yours and mine) practiced human sacrifice before the Spanish Catholics arrived and put an end to this, right?

That's questionable as nearly every Aztec document prior to the arrival of the Spanish was destroyed, and most of the sources we get this information from come from Spaniards who wanted to demonize the enemy for permission to exploit them for gold. And even if it did happen, so what? The Spanish didn't make it any better by bashing their heads against the trees after baptizing them and enslaving them at plantations. Europe was practicing imperialism for years and no one stopped them until the Ottomans gave them a run for their money.
Its not debatable. Even Atzec and Mayan art testify to the practice of human sacrifice. Have you ever visited an ancient mayan or aztec city?

Have you ever looked at that art with unbiased eyes that weren't influenced by Spanish documents? After all, someone could easily misinterpret this art as being something horrible and barbaric...

(http://becomingorthodox.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/crucifixion1.png)

(http://www.iconograms.org/images/igimages/I0219001217S0341AA_daniel_three_youths.jpg)

(http://www.pc-freak.net/images/St_Stephen_Martyrdom_orthodox_christian_icon.jpg)

People used to think we were cannibals because of the Eucharist. I'm just saying, the Aztecs and other American civilizations aren't given a fair shake because so much of our perception on them is based off of Spanish propoganda. And even if they did practice human sacrifice, doesn't mean that the Spanish made it any better with how brutal they were.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Jonathan Gress on May 14, 2013, 05:52:04 PM
No one is saying the Spanish didn't behave brutally. But the brutality of the Spanish does not negate the brutality of the Mexicans. And I think you could make a case that at least the Spanish had a Church that frequently objected to this brutality (e.g. Father de las Casas); I am not aware of any movement within pre-Columbian Mexican culture that opposed human sacrifice or other barbarities.

And yes the Mexicans did practice human sacrifice; the archeological evidence for this is overwhelming on its own. Check out "1491" for the details (a book highly sympathetic to the natives, by the way, but it still reports the facts).

Also, even if the ancestors of today's Mexicans were forced to convert, that does not mean their current faith is inauthentic.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Sinful Hypocrite on May 14, 2013, 06:12:16 PM
Well you can do that, but I'd rather leave. It's about pride.

EDIT: I guess I'd just join one of the Traditionalist Orthodox Churches
You do realize that our ancestors (yours and mine) practiced human sacrifice before the Spanish Catholics arrived and put an end to this, right?

Yes and there was plenty of war and killing and slaves held by indigenous peoples before  the Spanish got there.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: jmbejdl on May 15, 2013, 03:14:14 AM
If Rome rejoins the Orthodox Church then I'm leaving. I don't want to be united to the Church that colonized my ancestors.

The Orthodox Church colonised my ancestors. At least two times. What should I do?

Honestly, I don't think any church ever colonised anyone's ancestors. Converted, yes (sometimes and regrettably forcefully) but not colonised. JamesR's ancestors were colonised by the Spaniards who happened to be Roman Catholic, they weren't colonised by the Roman Catholic church.

If we're to base our membership of churches on them having never been adhered to by peoples that colonised, oppressed or subjugated our ancestors, I guess I'm left having to leave Christianity altogether. I suppose I could go and role play worshipping Saxnot but I'd be forever worried that maybe the Saxons oppressed some even earlier ancestor I'm currently unaware of.

James
BTW, being Mexican, James probably has some Spanish ancestors as well.

I know. I just thought that was too obvious to mention really and I was more interested in pointing out the idiocy in rejecting a religion because someone with that same religion did something terrible to some distant ancestor than I was in pointing out how ridiculously over simplistic JamesR's identification with his pre-Columbian ancestors was.

James
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: orthonorm on May 15, 2013, 04:05:36 AM
(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS-hpY_kSP7q0fL3YGt7SJ0R0xhkoCM6pnDQp-lRweJO2-QIuhx)
(Asian-Mexican)I think the real question is: Which half of these people gets to be upset and take their ball and go home? (And to where?)



* ain't here, so I'll do it for him.

She does. His place.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Romaios on May 15, 2013, 05:42:13 AM
People used to think we were cannibals because of the Eucharist. I'm just saying, the Aztecs and other American civilizations aren't given a fair shake because so much of our perception on them is based off of Spanish propoganda. And even if they did practice human sacrifice, doesn't mean that the Spanish made it any better with how brutal they were.

The Eucharist didn't leave enormous piles of mutilated human skeletons (beheaded/rib cage opened) behind as your ancestors did at the bottom of their temple-pyramids.

Quote
According to these early accounts, some sacrificial victims were not eaten, such as children offered by drowning to the rain god, Tlaloc, or persons suffering skin diseases. But the overwhelming majority of the sacrificed captives apparently were consumed. A principal -- and sometimes only -- objective of Aztec war expeditions was to capture prisoners for sacrifice. While some might be sacrificed and eaten on the field of battle, most were taken to home communities or to the capital, where they were kept in wooden cages to be fattened until sacrificed by the priests at the temple-pyramids. Most of the sacrifices involved tearing out the heart, offering it to the sun and, with some blood, also to the idols. The corpse was then tumbled down the steps of the pyramid and carried off to be butchered. The head went on the local skull rack, displayed in central plazas alongside the temple-pyramids. At least three of the limbs were the property of the captor if he had seized the prisoner without assistance in battle. Later, at a feast given at the captor's quarters, the central dish was a stew of tomatoes, peppers, and the limbs of his victim. The remaining torso, in Tenochtitlán at least, went to the royal zoo where it was used to feed carnivorous mammals, birds, and snakes.

Recent archeological research leads support to conquistadores' and informants' vivid and detailed accounts of Aztec cannibalism. Mexican archeologists excavating at an Aztec sacrificial site in the Tlatelolco section of Mexico City between 1960 and 1969 uncovered headless human rib cages completely lacking the limb bones. Associated with these remains were some razor-like obsidian blades, which the archeologists believe were used in the butchering. Nearby they also discovered piles of human skulls, which apparently had been broken open to obtain the brains, possibly a choice delicacy reserved for the priesthood, and to mount the skulls on a ceremonial rack.
 
Through cannibalism, the Aztecs appear to have been attempting to reduce very particular nutritional deficiencies. Under the conditions of high population pressure and class stratification that characterized the Aztec state, commoners or lower-class persons rarely had the opportunity to eat any game, even the domesticated turkey, except on great occasions. They often had to content themselves with such creatures as worms and snakes and an edible lake-surface scum called "stone dung," which may have been algae fostered by pollution from Tenochtitlán. Preliminary research seems to indicate that although fish and waterfowl were taken from the lakes, most of the Aztec poor did not have significant access to this protein source and were forced to be near-vegetarians, subsisting mainly on domesticated plant foods such a maize and beans.  

Source (http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/aztecs/sacrifice.htm)
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: dzheremi on May 15, 2013, 06:19:13 AM
I don't understand where the impetus to somehow disprove what the Aztecs and Mayans own writings say (and we have more of those than JamesR seems to think; while they are only a tiny fraction of what must've been produced before the Spanish arrived and burned most everything, the numerous codices, monumental inscriptions, and other examples of writing have long been the subject of study by Western philologists and linguists) comes from. I mean, I have relatives from some of those places, too, but I don't feel that they're beyond reproach just because Spaniards were brutal to the people sometimes. After my grandmother died a few years ago, we were going through her personal effects and I found some photos of what I assume to be a relative circa the Mexican Revolution, dressed up in the full military uniform of the counter-revolutionary forces, i.e., government forces loyal to Porfirio Diaz (my grandmother was born in the 1920s, and the effect of that conflict was apparently part of the reason her mother fled the country with her). That made me pretty sad, since I grew up with the standard view of Mexican history that they taught us in school: Benito Juarez (who had fought alongside Diaz to kick out the French before being elected president) was a hero, and Porfirio Diaz was a jerk and a dictator who turned on him and the Mexican people. Guess what? I still fricking think that, despite the clear evidence that at least one person in my family fought on his behalf. Your ancestors and relatives are not perfect people, and never have been, and since morality is not context-dependent (i.e., we cannot say "So what if X did something awful; so did Y/Y is not better!"), if you're really going to be upset about how badly some people treated a distant relative centuries before you were born, you ought to be just as upset by how badly some of your distant (or not so distant) relatives undoubtedly treated other people. No one is innocent; everyone is fallen. That is not an excuse for anyone to do anything terrible, and we should also not treat it as a free pass to complain as though the historical record is clear and the people in it were monoliths of pure evil/pure good. That's not even close to reality. That's just a reworking of the "noble savage" myth that, if it came from the keyboard of someone who didn't have all their "I'm Mexican" ducks in a row beforehand, would probably be a prime target for accusations of racism and colonializing mindset by some of our more politically-charged posters. (I swear I'm not usually one of them; the particular way that this topic is being discussed is just bothering me more than usual.)
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Papist on May 15, 2013, 07:41:19 AM
Well you can do that, but I'd rather leave. It's about pride.

EDIT: I guess I'd just join one of the Traditionalist Orthodox Churches
You do realize that our ancestors (yours and mine) practiced human sacrifice before the Spanish Catholics arrived and put an end to this, right?

That's questionable as nearly every Aztec document prior to the arrival of the Spanish was destroyed, and most of the sources we get this information from come from Spaniards who wanted to demonize the enemy for permission to exploit them for gold. And even if it did happen, so what? The Spanish didn't make it any better by bashing their heads against the trees after baptizing them and enslaving them at plantations. Europe was practicing imperialism for years and no one stopped them until the Ottomans gave them a run for their money.
Its not debatable. Even Atzec and Mayan art testify to the practice of human sacrifice. Have you ever visited an ancient mayan or aztec city?

Have you ever looked at that art with unbiased eyes that weren't influenced by Spanish documents? After all, someone could easily misinterpret this art as being something horrible and barbaric...

(http://becomingorthodox.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/crucifixion1.png)

(http://www.iconograms.org/images/igimages/I0219001217S0341AA_daniel_three_youths.jpg)

(http://www.pc-freak.net/images/St_Stephen_Martyrdom_orthodox_christian_icon.jpg)

People used to think we were cannibals because of the Eucharist. I'm just saying, the Aztecs and other American civilizations aren't given a fair shake because so much of our perception on them is based off of Spanish propoganda. And even if they did practice human sacrifice, doesn't mean that the Spanish made it any better with how brutal they were.
Excuse me, but I remember watching a national geographic type documentary on the mayans several years back. One of the discoveries they discussed was ancient mayan art in a cave, depicting the mayan practice of human sacrifice.
I don't have a reference handy, so I'm calling Dr. Isa. Isa, do you have a reference on the practice of human sacrifice in ancient Mayan and Aztec cultures?
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Arachne on May 15, 2013, 08:08:59 AM
Pre-Columbian Studies Online Publications (http://www.doaks.org/resources/publications/doaks-online-publications/pre-columbian-studies)

You might find something there - I haven't searched too deeply yet.

But I admit I'd pay for the sight of James in full Feathered Serpent regalia. Quetzalcoatl for President, compadres! :D
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Papist on May 15, 2013, 12:29:48 PM
Pre-Columbian Studies Online Publications (http://www.doaks.org/resources/publications/doaks-online-publications/pre-columbian-studies)

You might find something there - I haven't searched too deeply yet.

But I admit I'd pay for the sight of James in full Feathered Serpent regalia. Quetzalcoatl for President, compadres! :D
I'm suprised that James hasn't started a thread on why he can't wear full Feathered Serpent Regalia to Liturgy.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Peter J on May 17, 2013, 08:08:05 PM
2. Severing ties with Orthodoxy because it unites with a Roman church with skeletons in its closet seems like de-friending your best friend because you find out his great great great great great grandfather mistreated your great great great great great grandfather.

Hard to comment, since I'm not familiar with defriendings. Debriefings, yes, but defriendings, no.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Peter J on May 17, 2013, 08:10:04 PM
No Mexican is Roman Catholic because they "think it's true."

I'm not sure whether to argue with you, ignore you, humor you, or just make fun of you.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Arachne on May 17, 2013, 08:17:02 PM
No Mexican is Roman Catholic because they "think it's true."

I'm not sure whether to argue with you, ignore you, humor you, or just make fun of you.

All of the above? ;D
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: podkarpatska on May 17, 2013, 08:31:16 PM
Pre-Columbian Studies Online Publications (http://www.doaks.org/resources/publications/doaks-online-publications/pre-columbian-studies)

You might find something there - I haven't searched too deeply yet.

But I admit I'd pay for the sight of James in full Feathered Serpent regalia. Quetzalcoatl for President, compadres! :D
I'm suprised that James hasn't started a thread on why he can't wear full Feathered Serpent Regalia to Liturgy.

That reminded me of the thread about wearing a robe..... oh no, here we go again!
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: theistgal on May 18, 2013, 09:32:28 AM
It's pretty much because of attitudes expressed in this thread (for example) that I decided to remain Catholic. I do love the Orthodox Churches I've attended but even there, I've had to deal with so many people like "James" that I don't think I'd have the energy to do it on a regular basis. I'd always feel the need to defend the Catholic Church from unfair attacks, even if I left it. So I think I'll just stay where I am and keep asking God for mercy.  ;)
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: biro on May 18, 2013, 01:56:30 PM
Whatever happened to neighborhood baseball leagues? When I was a kid, all the churches and local businesses sponsored softball or baseball teams, and this got the kids to form good friendships. I grew up RCC and many of my friends were Greek Orthodox, Armenian, etc. It may not have been a meeting on a theological level, but there's a lot to be said for the after-game pizza.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Cavaradossi on May 18, 2013, 03:29:31 PM
Excuse me, but I remember watching a national geographic type documentary on the mayans several years back. One of the discoveries they discussed was ancient mayan art in a cave, depicting the mayan practice of human sacrifice.
I don't have a reference handy, so I'm calling Dr. Isa. Isa, do you have a reference on the practice of human sacrifice in ancient Mayan and Aztec cultures?

Clearly, I must be hallucinating.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: lovesupreme on May 19, 2013, 02:55:15 AM
It's pretty much because of attitudes expressed in this thread (for example) that I decided to remain Catholic. I do love the Orthodox Churches I've attended but even there, I've had to deal with so many people like "James" that I don't think I'd have the energy to do it on a regular basis. I'd always feel the need to defend the Catholic Church from unfair attacks, even if I left it. So I think I'll just stay where I am and keep asking God for mercy.  ;)

Lord have mercy on us all!

I'm sorry for opening this thread and inviting hostilities. There is truly a vast cloud of ignorance that keeps the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches apart. I was hoping that the article I posted would encourage unity (not necessarily canonical, just more understanding); unfortunately, this thread has turned into a vehicle for pride and mudslinging.

Mods, I wish this thread to be closed, but I will respect whatever decision you make.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: lovesupreme on May 19, 2013, 03:08:46 AM
All -

The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches are not the same. There are very important distinctions between the two and we cannot ignore them. Until we both meet where the truth is, there will be no reunion.

Now, why can't we just leave things at that? Why do we feel the need to prove Catholics wrong, or compare our practices to theirs? Why do we feel entitled to make sweeping generalizations about our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters, to question their sincerity, to mock their piety, and to speak on their behalves?

Why don't we realize that all this hatred masked as "theological debate" is the work of Satan and simply love and pray for our separated brothers and sisters? And not just give lip service to such a sentiment, but really embrace it, or at least TRY.

All we can do is share our faith in love with others. We know nothing of the magnitude of God's love and mercy. If we really are concerned with someone else's salvation, can we do no more than pray for them?

Please forgive me, I am a worthless sinner (and I mean that with all the false modesty that I have). I am very distraught by how we treat each other in the name of "being correct." I wanted this article to be an encouragement to you all, but the Evil One and Master of Lies has transformed this thread into yet another den of hatred and ignorance.

Lord have mercy, Lord have mercy, Lord have mercy.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Nephi on May 19, 2013, 03:42:56 AM
That's questionable as nearly every Aztec document prior to the arrival of the Spanish was destroyed, and most of the sources we get this information from come from Spaniards who wanted to demonize the enemy for permission to exploit them for gold. And even if it did happen, so what? The Spanish didn't make it any better by bashing their heads against the trees after baptizing them and enslaving them at plantations. Europe was practicing imperialism for years and no one stopped them until the Ottomans gave them a run for their money.

While many documents were indeed destroyed by the Spaniards (for a rather interesting, albeit cruel, reason I might add), this is not true. There are a plenty of surviving documents, ranging from important cultural works to effectively market-transaction notes/receipts. I remember reading Aztec works (translated into English) in my Meso-American course. One was a poem written by an eagle or jaguar warrior about being a butterfly, and other was a father's letter to his coming-of-age son (insisting on pursuing important matters rather than chasing women).
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Nephi on May 19, 2013, 03:54:36 AM
Excuse me, but I remember watching a national geographic type documentary on the mayans several years back. One of the discoveries they discussed was ancient mayan art in a cave, depicting the mayan practice of human sacrifice.

IIRC, the Mayans tended to be rather diverse regarding sacrifice with many not participating. The Aztecs and the Toltecs, especially, were predominately sacrifical cultures.

The Aztec combat was largely built around slavery and sacrifice, which is why warriors were rewarded with prestige (e.g. eagle/jaguar title) for capturing enemy combatants.

Importantly their architecture shows very well the reality of their sacrificial rituals, and if I had better Googling skills I'd show pictures. Some of their stonework shows grotesque scenes of undeniable sacrifice.

Anyway, from what I've learned, the scholarly consensus is pretty much against the outdated 70's-80's mentality of the "Aztecs were a bunch of loving, friendly natives that would never hurt a soul." There's just too much evidence, archaeological/literary and otherwise, to the contrary.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Peter J on May 19, 2013, 06:45:15 AM
I'm sorry for opening this thread

I'm glad you did.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: theistgal on May 19, 2013, 04:15:14 PM
Lord have mercy, Lord have mercy, Lord have mercy.

Amen! Amen! Amen!
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: TheTrisagion on May 19, 2013, 08:00:02 PM
As in any group of people you encounter, you will always find radicals who feel so insecure about their belief system that they feel the need to denigrate those around them.  This is not unique to Orthodoxy, Protestantism or Roman Catholicism.  It is a sad commentary on humanity rather than religion.  

I suppose it can also be looked upon in a familial sense.  I am pretty sure my siblings and I fought and yelled at each other far more than with anyone else in our lives.  Familiarity breeds contempt I suppose.  Given the similarities between Christians, I guess we feel we have the right to run each other down.  :(

I shall now go back to begrudging St. Patrick for crushing my ancestor's pagan beliefs.  And for taking our snakes away.  Unforgiveable.  ;D
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Opus118 on May 19, 2013, 10:33:14 PM
It's pretty much because of attitudes expressed in this thread (for example) that I decided to remain Catholic. I do love the Orthodox Churches I've attended but even there, I've had to deal with so many people like "James" that I don't think I'd have the energy to do it on a regular basis. I'd always feel the need to defend the Catholic Church from unfair attacks, even if I left it. So I think I'll just stay where I am and keep asking God for mercy.  ;)

Lord have mercy on us all!

I'm sorry for opening this thread and inviting hostilities. There is truly a vast cloud of ignorance that keeps the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches apart. I was hoping that the article I posted would encourage unity (not necessarily canonical, just more understanding); unfortunately, this thread has turned into a vehicle for pride and mudslinging.

Mods, I wish this thread to be closed, but I will respect whatever decision you make.

Lovesupreme,

Back in the pre-internet days of my youth (teen years in this case), there was a misunderstanding of the significance of the lifting of the anathemas between the Roman and Greek Orthodox Catholic Churches. At least in some communities we temporarily became one. In my case an entire Roman Catholic Church participated "fully" in the Divine Liturgy. It was reverential, beautiful, wonderful, and something I will never forget.

Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: orthonorm on May 19, 2013, 10:36:19 PM
Back in the pre-internet days of my youth (teen years in this case), there was a misunderstanding of the significance of the lifting of the anathemas between the Roman and Greek Orthodox Catholic Churches. At least in some communities we temporarily became one. In my case an entire Roman Catholic Church participated "fully" in the Divine Liturgy. It was reverential, beautiful, wonderful, and something I will never forget.



I hoped you later served a severe penance for such outrageous behavior.

Are the Bishops still alive so I can write the Metropolitan to complain about them?

If the are no longer living, does the Orthodox Church have post-mortem penances they can impose?

Thanks!
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Opus118 on May 19, 2013, 11:00:53 PM
Back in the pre-internet days of my youth (teen years in this case), there was a misunderstanding of the significance of the lifting of the anathemas between the Roman and Greek Orthodox Catholic Churches. At least in some communities we temporarily became one. In my case an entire Roman Catholic Church participated "fully" in the Divine Liturgy. It was reverential, beautiful, wonderful, and something I will never forget.



I hoped you later served a severe penance for such outrageous behavior.

Are the Bishops still alive so I can write the Metropolitan to complain about them?

If the are no longer living, does the Orthodox Church have post-mortem penances they can impose?

Thanks!

All that was done was a collection for purchasing smelling salts for Isa I am afraid. I am pretty sure he never received them.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: TheTrisagion on May 19, 2013, 11:23:05 PM
In the spirit of disunity here, I will post funny comparison videos between Liturgy and Mass.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=fHZtbnaXuGk

The best part is the circus roller skates around 5:39. lol

Or if you prefer, the twirling procession at 1:41 in this one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxcOv4zPoVo
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Opus118 on May 19, 2013, 11:39:05 PM
In the spirit of disunity here, I will post funny comparison videos between Liturgy and Mass.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=fHZtbnaXuGk

The best part is the circus roller skates around 5:39. lol

Or if you prefer, the twirling procession at 1:41 in this one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxcOv4zPoVo

It is not funny.

Do you feel threatened?
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: NicholasMyra on May 19, 2013, 11:48:38 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=fHZtbnaXuGk
The girl at the top of the lotus hourglass looked so happy.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: TheTrisagion on May 20, 2013, 07:59:43 AM
In the spirit of disunity here, I will post funny comparison videos between Liturgy and Mass.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=fHZtbnaXuGk

The best part is the circus roller skates around 5:39. lol

Or if you prefer, the twirling procession at 1:41 in this one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxcOv4zPoVo

It is not funny.

Do you feel threatened?


What would I feel threatened about?  Other than the assault on my ears by the carnival music, I found it quite entertaining and like no other religious service I've ever seen.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Peter J on May 20, 2013, 08:12:20 AM
As in any group of people you encounter, you will always find radicals who feel so insecure about their belief system that they feel the need to denigrate those around them.  This is not unique to Orthodoxy, Protestantism or Roman Catholicism.  It is a sad commentary on humanity rather than religion.  

I suppose it can also be looked upon in a familial sense.  I am pretty sure my siblings and I fought and yelled at each other far more than with anyone else in our lives.  Familiarity breeds contempt I suppose.  Given the similarities between Christians, I guess we feel we have the right to run each other down.  :(

I shall now go back to begrudging St. Patrick for crushing my ancestor's pagan beliefs.  And for taking our snakes away.  Unforgiveable.  ;D

St. Patrick in Ireland (http://youtu.be/KQLfgaUoQCw?t=3m14s)
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Surnaturel on May 21, 2013, 12:07:40 AM
As in any group of people you encounter, you will always find radicals who feel so insecure about their belief system that they feel the need to denigrate those around them.  This is not unique to Orthodoxy, Protestantism or Roman Catholicism.  It is a sad commentary on humanity rather than religion.  

I suppose it can also be looked upon in a familial sense.  I am pretty sure my siblings and I fought and yelled at each other far more than with anyone else in our lives.  Familiarity breeds contempt I suppose.  Given the similarities between Christians, I guess we feel we have the right to run each other down.  :(

I shall now go back to begrudging St. Patrick for crushing my ancestor's pagan beliefs.  And for taking our snakes away.  Unforgiveable.  ;D
Lol, best post ITT. I, too, have a vendetta for St. Patrick disposing of my Irish ancestors of their Celtic fables :-)
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Fabio Leite on May 21, 2013, 02:03:17 PM
God did not say "I am union, tolerance and life." He said "I am the Way, the Truth and Life."

Because Way=Life=Truth=Christ, being in Christ equals being in Truth, aka, being correct. And we also have the commandment to love God above everything else. What distraughts me is to see people who say truth is as important as love, but in practice think of truth as discourse built and agreed by consensus. Political action is and should be built and agreed by consensus. You cannot decide truth that way.

I insist that today people trust science more than the Church for several reasons, but one stands above all the others: even atheist scientists have more faith in the power and glory of the Spirit of Truth than many Christians, clergy included. They trust that truth is something worth being worshipped (it is! that's what we should be confessing every day with the prayer "O Heavenly King, the Comforter, the Spirit of Truth, Who art everywhere"!)

But we are afraid. We are afraid and ashamed of society's judgment over our disagreements. We are afraid that they will marginalize us and that history will leave us behind. We are afraid that a new civilization will rise where our dearest beliefs will be held as irrelevant and our grandchildren will take us as ignorant provincial supertitious people - we are afraid of having to carry a cross like that of the first-born in the Faith. And we are willing to give up He who named Himself Truth to appease our collective cultural overlords. And yet, Truth told us: "Be not afraid, for I have conquered the world". How can we have forgotten that truth and life are the same thing? How can we put union above truth and try to "reinterpret", relativize known historical facts, even propose that we should accept ambiguous terms in any interpretation that fits us? When has truth been ambiguous? When was Jesus not simple, not trueful? How there will ever be true love without putting truth and being in truth (correct) first?

I am very distraught by how we treat each other in the name of "being correct."
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: lovesupreme on May 21, 2013, 02:53:22 PM
I think I've made it clear (in this and other threads) that I don't think we should ever even consider placing reunion above Truth. I am just upset by the attitudes we exhibit to those who we believe are fundamentally wrong.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: TheTrisagion on May 21, 2013, 03:07:53 PM
I think I've made it clear (in this and other threads) that I don't think we should ever even consider placing reunion above Truth. I am just upset by the attitudes we exhibit to those who we believe are fundamentally wrong.
+1
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Peter J on May 21, 2013, 03:51:09 PM
I think I've made it clear (in this and other threads) that I don't think we should ever even consider placing reunion above Truth. I am just upset by the attitudes we exhibit to those who we believe are fundamentally wrong.
+1

I'd like to chime in that Catholics believe exactly the same thing. It's just a question of applicability -- for example, that principle is certainly applicable with respect to Catholic-Anglican dialogue.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Fabio Leite on May 22, 2013, 08:51:27 AM
Would you accept union with RC under the terms that primacy, even in a ligther non-authoritarian form, is a privilige of Rome and in that union we would have to put Rome as first again?

I think I've made it clear (in this and other threads) that I don't think we should ever even consider placing reunion above Truth. I am just upset by the attitudes we exhibit to those who we believe are fundamentally wrong.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: The young fogey on May 22, 2013, 09:52:43 AM
My take on Taft, etc.: relativism that is not Catholic teaching and deserves the Orthodox' scorn (http://sergesblog.blogspot.com/2013/05/catholicism-and-orthodoxy-relativistic.html).

Quote
Branch-theory nonsense, or why ‘ecumenist’ is a fightin’ word among convert online Orthodox. The Zoghby Initiative. ‘Orthodox in communion with Rome’, which means Greek Catholic converts who reject some defined doctrines, which makes them neither good Catholics nor good Orthodox, denying the true church. Bill Tighe puts paid to all that: while it’s true and helpful to remember that the pre-‘Reformation’ churches have lots in common, none believe the true church is juridically divided against itself.

I think the change is that before, Orthodox bishops were seen as real bishops but lacking jurisdiction, because they seem outside the church, not under the Pope. ... Today it’s clearer and fair that born Orthodox get the benefit of the doubt about schism, so Orthodox bishops are an estranged part of the church, having apostolic authority over their own people, other born Orthodox.

The only way that can happen according to Catholicism is if the Orthodox accept Catholic defined doctrine about the nature of the papacy. Not the same as ultramontanist opinion, unlike what many think. The Pope’s at the top of the chain of command but historically is laissez-faire; traditional Catholicism largely runs itself. (Vatican II was an aberration and bad mistake, of course nothing to do with doctrine.) He’s only used papal infallibility a few times the last couple of centuries to rubber-stamp what Catholics have long believed. Getting upset about the Pope is a red herring. Mostly a cover for Western liberals who really hate him for being Catholic; he can’t change the church to be what they want. (Right: they want more papal power, like what a mainline denomination claims for itself.)

More. (http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/394401/Re_Recent_interview_with_Fr_Ta#Post394401)
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Fabio Leite on May 22, 2013, 10:11:29 AM
I can understand why some convets are anti-ecumenists. They lived their previous religion. They studied it. They understood it. Then, they get to know the new one and obviously the differences are what call their attention. To their astonishment, in the subjects where both religions differ, the new one makes more sense to them. That is a cause of distress and discomfort. If this pre-convert gets convinced the other side is right *and* has commitment to truth greater than to family ties, cultural environment, even to his own life history to that point, he switches sides. This may take a couple of years, a lot of effort, a lot of sacrifice in personal and social life.

Then, there come ecumenists and say: "You know what, these differences are really unimportant or non-existant, we should just love each other and put them aside". This goes against every single quark of the existential experience the convert has about those differences. And even for the cradle who consider them to be important. It's not only cultural identity. That is what the convert abdicated - with all the psychological and social problems that go along - to adopt the new faith. It's really an existential thing.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: TheTrisagion on May 22, 2013, 10:13:11 AM
I can understand why some convets are anti-ecumenists. They lived their previous religion. They studied it. They understood it. Then, they get to know the new one and obviously the differences are what call their attention. To their astonishment, in the subjects where both religions differ, the new one makes more sense to him. That is a cause of distress and discomfort. If this pre-convert gets convinced the other side is right *and* has commitment to truth greater than to family ties, cultural environment, even to his own life history to that point, he switches sides. This may take a couple of years, a lot of effort, a lot of sacrifice in personal and social life.

Then, there come ecumenists and say: "You know what, these differences are really unimportant, we should just love each other and put them aside". This goes against every single quark of the existential experience the convert has about those differences. And even for the cradle who consider them to be important. It's not only cultural identity. That is what the convert abdicated - with all the psychological and social problems that go along - to adopt the new faith. It's really an existential thing.

I think this is very true.  Well said.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: The young fogey on May 22, 2013, 10:32:29 AM
Depends what you mean by 'ecumenism'. Being nice to Protestants, et al., and having official talks with them in order to teach them are good. They don't go against the true-church claim and shouldn't rankle converts' understandably strong emotions about their former faiths. That's what official Catholicism and official Orthodoxy mean by ecumenism.

Then there's the 'ecumenism' that's relativism denying the true church, which rightly gets online Orthodox' hackles up! Every now and then a Catholic posts an opinion like that. It's like the Anglicans' branch theory, where they're trying to be nice by including 'the Roman Church' (what they call Catholics: hail, Caesar!) and the Orthodox as 'branches' of the true church, but it really insults both by making light of each's teaching on the true church.

Then in this online circle you get a few, mostly converts, in Greek Catholicism who thumb their noses at post-schism Catholic defined doctrines and agree with Orthodox opinions on everything, but they don't join the Orthodox. Again, thinking they're better than either church. Basically, Stuart Koehl (their doyen, who's been preaching essentially himself for nearly 20 years online), maybe Fr. Bob Taft, an occasional Melkite such as Bp. Elias (Zoghby) of the Zoghby Initiative, and some high-turnover traffic of converts to Greek Catholicism who might start there as liturgically Orthodox and doctrinally Catholic (what Rome wants Greek Catholics to be) but get fed up with the latinizations and second-class treatment so they buy into Orthodoxy and convert.

proper titles added - MK
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: lovesupreme on May 22, 2013, 10:43:45 AM
Would you accept union with RC under the terms that primacy, even in a ligther non-authoritarian form, is a privilige of Rome and in that union we would have to put Rome as first again?

I think I've made it clear (in this and other threads) that I don't think we should ever even consider placing reunion above Truth. I am just upset by the attitudes we exhibit to those who we believe are fundamentally wrong.

What? No. Please stop suggesting that I'm in any way advocating a compromise of Orthodox Christianity for the sake of union.

Whether or not Rome returns to its "first among equals" status is not my decision to make.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: The young fogey on May 22, 2013, 10:53:55 AM
Right. Most Orthodox who are willing to have talks with Catholics are not about to try to sell the farm.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Peter J on May 22, 2013, 11:39:08 AM
I can understand why some convets are anti-ecumenists. They lived their previous religion. They studied it. They understood it. Then, they get to know the new one and obviously the differences are what call their attention. To their astonishment, in the subjects where both religions differ, the new one makes more sense to them. That is a cause of distress and discomfort. If this pre-convert gets convinced the other side is right *and* has commitment to truth greater than to family ties, cultural environment, even to his own life history to that point, he switches sides. This may take a couple of years, a lot of effort, a lot of sacrifice in personal and social life.

Yes, I've known some converts like that.

But I'd like to add that I have also witnessed a very different phenomenon among some converts -- perhaps most clearly illustrated by those converts who see nothing wrong with receiving communion in the very church that they left.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: The young fogey on May 22, 2013, 11:42:23 AM
I'm sure it happens but it doesn't sound like online Orthodox! Maybe an ex-Catholic or ex-Orthodox marriage convert to the other church. I understand most converts to Orthodoxy are still marriage converts: Tom Hanks and the plot of My Big Fat Greek Wedding.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Fabio Leite on May 22, 2013, 01:21:16 PM
I'm not sugesting, I'm asking.

Would you accept union with RC under the terms that primacy, even in a ligther non-authoritarian form, is a privilige of Rome and in that union we would have to put Rome as first again?

I think I've made it clear (in this and other threads) that I don't think we should ever even consider placing reunion above Truth. I am just upset by the attitudes we exhibit to those who we believe are fundamentally wrong.

What? No. Please stop suggesting that I'm in any way advocating a compromise of Orthodox Christianity for the sake of union.

Whether or not Rome returns to its "first among equals" status is not my decision to make.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Opus118 on May 22, 2013, 11:55:01 PM
I think I've made it clear (in this and other threads) that I don't think we should ever even consider placing reunion above Truth. I am just upset by the attitudes we exhibit to those who we believe are fundamentally wrong.

This plays out here quite frequently and it has nothing to do with the topic.

Quite often, the vast majority of readers do not agree with the minority of posters that post on any given topic. We are fortunate that our opinions do not undergo primary election screening to root out people that are in between on some issues.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Jonathan Gress on May 23, 2013, 12:10:11 AM
This may have been mentioned already, but I just found out that Pope Francis only has one functioning lung, which makes the whole "two lungs" thing ironic.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: lovesupreme on May 23, 2013, 01:07:41 AM
I think I've made it clear (in this and other threads) that I don't think we should ever even consider placing reunion above Truth. I am just upset by the attitudes we exhibit to those who we believe are fundamentally wrong.

This plays out here quite frequently and it has nothing to do with the topic.

Quite often, the vast majority of readers do not agree with the minority of posters that post on any given topic. We are fortunate that our opinions do not undergo primary election screening to root out people that are in between on some issues.

Wow, you're right that this has nothing to do with the topic. I'm fine with people criticizing the article that I posted. What bothers me is when a poster comes in with no intention of discussing the article and says something incredibly foolish, like, oh, I don't know, "if Catholics ever rejoin us, I'll join a schismatic group because of some ancestral grudge." And then the thread devolves into taking potshots at eachother.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: primuspilus on May 24, 2013, 09:59:26 AM
After reading this, all I can think is that Im glad Im not a bishop and not deciding such matters. If Rome ever came back to Orthodoxy I'd rejoice from the mountain tops (of which there are many in Central Virginia ;) )

I wouldn't join a schismatic group if I didnt agree with the way they rejoined. Thats kind of like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

PP
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Peter J on May 25, 2013, 08:00:28 AM
I can understand why some convets are anti-ecumenists. They lived their previous religion. They studied it. They understood it. Then, they get to know the new one and obviously the differences are what call their attention. To their astonishment, in the subjects where both religions differ, the new one makes more sense to them. That is a cause of distress and discomfort. If this pre-convert gets convinced the other side is right *and* has commitment to truth greater than to family ties, cultural environment, even to his own life history to that point, he switches sides. This may take a couple of years, a lot of effort, a lot of sacrifice in personal and social life.

Yes, I've known some converts like that.

But I'd like to add that I have also witnessed a very different phenomenon among some converts -- perhaps most clearly illustrated by those converts who see nothing wrong with receiving communion in the very church that they left.

I'm sure it happens but it doesn't sound like online Orthodox! Maybe an ex-Catholic or ex-Orthodox marriage convert to the other church. I understand most converts to Orthodoxy are still marriage converts: Tom Hanks and the plot of My Big Fat Greek Wedding.

P.S. I should have added that it's only on the internet (as far as I know) that I've encountered the sort of convert I mentioned -- I mean the I-haven't-left-anything converts who see intercommunion as "refusing to participate in schism" and what-not. (On a side note, it strikes me that they might be the "other side of the coin" of the entitled-OicwR. :thoughtful:)
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: The young fogey on May 25, 2013, 08:06:26 AM
I can understand why some convets are anti-ecumenists. They lived their previous religion. They studied it. They understood it. Then, they get to know the new one and obviously the differences are what call their attention. To their astonishment, in the subjects where both religions differ, the new one makes more sense to them. That is a cause of distress and discomfort. If this pre-convert gets convinced the other side is right *and* has commitment to truth greater than to family ties, cultural environment, even to his own life history to that point, he switches sides. This may take a couple of years, a lot of effort, a lot of sacrifice in personal and social life.

Yes, I've known some converts like that.

But I'd like to add that I have also witnessed a very different phenomenon among some converts -- perhaps most clearly illustrated by those converts who see nothing wrong with receiving communion in the very church that they left.

I'm sure it happens but it doesn't sound like online Orthodox! Maybe an ex-Catholic or ex-Orthodox marriage convert to the other church. I understand most converts to Orthodoxy are still marriage converts: Tom Hanks and the plot of My Big Fat Greek Wedding.

P.S. I should have added that it's only on the internet (as far as I know) that I've encountered the sort of convert I mentioned -- I mean the I-haven't-left-anything converts who see intercommunion as "refusing to participate in schism" and what-not. (On a side note, it strikes me that they might be the "other side of the coin" of the entitled-OicwR. :thoughtful:)

Exactly.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: theistgal on May 25, 2013, 10:00:31 PM
This may have been mentioned already, but I just found out that Pope Francis only has one functioning lung, which makes the whole "two lungs" thing ironic.

Or deeply poignant, depending on the depths of your compassion.  8)
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: stanley123 on May 26, 2013, 01:53:44 AM
This may have been mentioned already, but I just found out that Pope Francis only has one functioning lung, which makes the whole "two lungs" thing ironic.
The two lungs theory does not refer to the two biological  lungs of the Roman Pope. It is a metaphorical description invented by ecumenists to imagine the Christian Church as a whole entity but living and breathing as two Churches, East and West. 
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Peter J on May 26, 2013, 06:10:05 AM
This may have been mentioned already, but I just found out that Pope Francis only has one functioning lung, which makes the whole "two lungs" thing ironic.
The two lungs theory does not refer to the two biological  lungs of the Roman Pope. It is a metaphorical description invented by ecumenists to imagine the Christian Church as a whole entity but living and breathing as two Churches, East and West. 

I think that was implied in Jonathan's statement about irony. If you to be a stickler about something, you could talk about how it isn't technically irony (not even dramatic irony since he was talking about real life).  :angel:
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: The young fogey on May 27, 2013, 08:12:33 AM
This may have been mentioned already, but I just found out that Pope Francis only has one functioning lung, which makes the whole "two lungs" thing ironic.
The two lungs theory does not refer to the two biological  lungs of the Roman Pope. It is a metaphorical description invented by ecumenists to imagine the Christian Church as a whole entity but living and breathing as two Churches, East and West.  

At best, it's a way of saying Catholics don't hate the Orthodox, recognize their grace, and envision a place for their tradition in the Catholic Church (again). At worst, it's a branch theory, relativism that insults both churches exactly as you say (why I object to the few OicwR: being Catholic but thumbing your nose at Catholic authority, while saying you agree with the Orthodox but don't join; it's making religion a game).
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: theistgal on May 27, 2013, 10:06:52 AM
it's making religion a game).

Interesting you should make that point, because I just read an article about how one reason Westerners and Easterners should stick to their own traditions (i.e. Eastern Christians shouldn't pray the Rosary, Western Christians shouldn't pray the Akathist, etc.) is that if you're playing baseball you don't use a football or vice versa.  ::)
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Mor Ephrem on May 27, 2013, 10:48:11 AM
...because I just read an article about how one reason Westerners and Easterners should stick to their own traditions (i.e. Eastern Christians shouldn't pray the Rosary, Western Christians shouldn't pray the Akathist, etc.) is that if you're playing baseball you don't use a football or vice versa.  ::)

In general, I think it's a good idea for people to stick to the liturgical and devotional tradition of their own rite, whether they were born into it or chose it.  Too much mixing and matching will not work; a "rite" is a life, it has its own order and logic.  Schizophrenia is to be avoided. 

But I don't see the harm in adopting one or the other practice here and there, subject to one's confessor's blessing and/or other considerations.  You could make the argument that the Rosary (sans mysteries) is a different form of the Jesus Prayer, since the focal point of the Hail Mary is the name of Jesus, or that the Litany of Loreto can be considered a descendant, in a way, of the Akathist.  When picking and choosing in this way, you have to do it responsibly, but the best of the "devotional" practices of the "laity" seem to have a more universal core, and could certainly be adapted if not adopted wholesale. 

Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: The young fogey on May 27, 2013, 11:35:44 AM
More or less what Mor Ephrem said.

I've long said:

Rite controls what you do in church. Privately you may do anything. But it's emotionally and spiritually healthier for most of your practices to come from your rite.

That's why I don't like seeing Greek Catholic churches without iconostases or even using the Western paschalion putting them out of sync with their mother churches and thus damaging their witness to them, but Ukrainian Catholics praying the rosary is fine with me. The first Ukrainian Catholic church I saw was hybridized but mostly Eastern, with a beautiful wooden full iconostasis but kneeling Communion, with a unique practice of passing the priest's blessing crucifix down the row of kneeling communicants to kiss before receiving (I later learned this is like the pax-brede in the traditional Roman Rite). Fine with me.

Used to know an Orthodox priest who was stationed in Palestine so he got to know Arab Christians well; lots of Orthodox have the Sacred Heart picture at home, etc. Rite is about discipline in church and should be upheld there (no mixing of rites; you can't venerate the other side's post-schism saints in church, with an exception: advanced rebyzantinized Greek Catholics, a tiny minority, do venerate the post-schism Orthodox ones, who get the benefit of the doubt), but purity of rite at home, in much of the apostolic Christian world, is probably an ex-Protestant, anti-Catholic, Orthodox convert fantasy. Big difference between your American ex-Baptist turned Orthodox priest and your typical Syrian or Lebanese Christian.

Not the same as ecumenists flouting both churches' teachings. More an affirmation of the Catholic teaching that the East has grace, rather than Eastern agnosticism about grace in the West.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Jonathan Gress on May 27, 2013, 02:23:55 PM
This may have been mentioned already, but I just found out that Pope Francis only has one functioning lung, which makes the whole "two lungs" thing ironic.
The two lungs theory does not refer to the two biological  lungs of the Roman Pope. It is a metaphorical description invented by ecumenists to imagine the Christian Church as a whole entity but living and breathing as two Churches, East and West. 

I think that was implied in Jonathan's statement about irony. If you to be a stickler about something, you could talk about how it isn't technically irony (not even dramatic irony since he was talking about real life).  :angel:

Yes, that's right, I was referring to the "two lungs" version of ecumenism.

I don't get how it's not ironic. The Popes believe that the RC and EO churches are "two lungs" of one Church, and yet the Pope has only one lung. To me this is symbolic of the falsity of the "two lungs" theory.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Arachne on May 27, 2013, 02:32:56 PM
But I don't see the harm in adopting one or the other practice here and there, subject to one's confessor's blessing and/or other considerations.  You could make the argument that the Rosary (sans mysteries) is a different form of the Jesus Prayer, since the focal point of the Hail Mary is the name of Jesus, or that the Litany of Loreto can be considered a descendant, in a way, of the Akathist.  When picking and choosing in this way, you have to do it responsibly, but the best of the "devotional" practices of the "laity" seem to have a more universal core, and could certainly be adapted if not adopted wholesale.

St. Seraphim's (of Sarov) Rule of the Theotokos is, for all intents and purposes, an Orthodox rosary. :)

I use a rosary, because I prefer the feel of wooden beads to that of woollen knots, but I don't pray it. It's just a prop that really helps with my concentration.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Fabio Leite on May 27, 2013, 02:35:56 PM
BUENOS AIRES, Argentina (AP) — Does the pope have only one lung?

Despite erroneous reports that Pope Francis has lived most of his life with just one lung, the surgery actually only removed the upper part of his right lung, and his friends and family say he remains in good health for a 76-year-old man.

http://news.yahoo.com/pope-francis-still-most-lung-201740259.html

This may have been mentioned already, but I just found out that Pope Francis only has one functioning lung, which makes the whole "two lungs" thing ironic.
The two lungs theory does not refer to the two biological  lungs of the Roman Pope. It is a metaphorical description invented by ecumenists to imagine the Christian Church as a whole entity but living and breathing as two Churches, East and West. 

I think that was implied in Jonathan's statement about irony. If you to be a stickler about something, you could talk about how it isn't technically irony (not even dramatic irony since he was talking about real life).  :angel:

Yes, that's right, I was referring to the "two lungs" version of ecumenism.

I don't get how it's not ironic. The Popes believe that the RC and EO churches are "two lungs" of one Church, and yet the Pope has only one lung. To me this is symbolic of the falsity of the "two lungs" theory.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Mor Ephrem on May 27, 2013, 06:06:08 PM
Maybe the Oriental Orthodox are the upper part of the "Eastern" lung.  SOL yet again...  :P
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: stanley123 on May 27, 2013, 09:09:49 PM
BUENOS AIRES, Argentina (AP) — Does the pope have only one lung?

Despite erroneous reports that Pope Francis has lived most of his life with just one lung, the surgery actually only removed the upper part of his right lung, and his friends and family say he remains in good health for a 76-year-old man.

http://news.yahoo.com/pope-francis-still-most-lung-201740259.html

This may have been mentioned already, but I just found out that Pope Francis only has one functioning lung, which makes the whole "two lungs" thing ironic.
The two lungs theory does not refer to the two biological  lungs of the Roman Pope. It is a metaphorical description invented by ecumenists to imagine the Christian Church as a whole entity but living and breathing as two Churches, East and West. 

I think that was implied in Jonathan's statement about irony. If you to be a stickler about something, you could talk about how it isn't technically irony (not even dramatic irony since he was talking about real life).  :angel:

Yes, that's right, I was referring to the "two lungs" version of ecumenism.

I don't get how it's not ironic. The Popes believe that the RC and EO churches are "two lungs" of one Church, and yet the Pope has only one lung. To me this is symbolic of the falsity of the "two lungs" theory.
Well, since the Pope has two lungs and not one, I guess that proves that the two lung theory was right all along.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Jonathan Gress on May 27, 2013, 09:25:03 PM
BUENOS AIRES, Argentina (AP) — Does the pope have only one lung?

Despite erroneous reports that Pope Francis has lived most of his life with just one lung, the surgery actually only removed the upper part of his right lung, and his friends and family say he remains in good health for a 76-year-old man.

http://news.yahoo.com/pope-francis-still-most-lung-201740259.html

This may have been mentioned already, but I just found out that Pope Francis only has one functioning lung, which makes the whole "two lungs" thing ironic.
The two lungs theory does not refer to the two biological  lungs of the Roman Pope. It is a metaphorical description invented by ecumenists to imagine the Christian Church as a whole entity but living and breathing as two Churches, East and West. 

I think that was implied in Jonathan's statement about irony. If you to be a stickler about something, you could talk about how it isn't technically irony (not even dramatic irony since he was talking about real life).  :angel:

Yes, that's right, I was referring to the "two lungs" version of ecumenism.

I don't get how it's not ironic. The Popes believe that the RC and EO churches are "two lungs" of one Church, and yet the Pope has only one lung. To me this is symbolic of the falsity of the "two lungs" theory.
Well, since the Pope has two lungs and not one, I guess that proves that the two lung theory was right all along.

Argumentum e pulmonibus
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: stanley123 on May 27, 2013, 09:58:38 PM
BUENOS AIRES, Argentina (AP) — Does the pope have only one lung?

Despite erroneous reports that Pope Francis has lived most of his life with just one lung, the surgery actually only removed the upper part of his right lung, and his friends and family say he remains in good health for a 76-year-old man.

http://news.yahoo.com/pope-francis-still-most-lung-201740259.html

This may have been mentioned already, but I just found out that Pope Francis only has one functioning lung, which makes the whole "two lungs" thing ironic.
The two lungs theory does not refer to the two biological  lungs of the Roman Pope. It is a metaphorical description invented by ecumenists to imagine the Christian Church as a whole entity but living and breathing as two Churches, East and West. 

I think that was implied in Jonathan's statement about irony. If you to be a stickler about something, you could talk about how it isn't technically irony (not even dramatic irony since he was talking about real life).  :angel:

Yes, that's right, I was referring to the "two lungs" version of ecumenism.

I don't get how it's not ironic. The Popes believe that the RC and EO churches are "two lungs" of one Church, and yet the Pope has only one lung. To me this is symbolic of the falsity of the "two lungs" theory.
Well, since the Pope has two lungs and not one, I guess that proves that the two lung theory was right all along.

Argumentum e pulmonibus
Argumentum a duobus pulmonibus sit.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Peter J on May 28, 2013, 07:12:26 AM
At best, it's a way of saying Catholics don't hate the Orthodox,

For breakfast?
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: The young fogey on May 28, 2013, 07:51:42 AM
At best, it's a way of saying Catholics don't hate the Orthodox,

For breakfast?

Ha ha ha. I was expecting that and almost changed the post to say 'Catholicism doesn't hate Orthodoxy' to reflect that. Of course it believes Orthodoxy is in error about the nature and scope of the papacy (a fight about a matter that's overblown from the papacy's opponents; historically in the church and in Catholics' lives today, including traditionalists, the Pope isn't that important) but other than that it doesn't want you to change a thing. (The Greek Catholics have disobeyed Rome by self-latinizing.)

There are plenty of hard feelings to go around. Poles hate Russians, etc. Once read an account of some border village in Poland where the pastime was to torch the Byelorussians' Orthodox church (they don't like Rusyn and Ukrainian Catholics any better; it doesn't matter that they're Catholic; they're not Polish). Nothing to do with the teachings of the churches. (Even if you hold the valid Orthodox opinion that Catholicism's graceless, stealing or destroying someone's property's a sin.)
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: mike on May 28, 2013, 07:58:56 AM
There are plenty of hard feelings to go around. Poles hate Russians, etc. Once read an account of some border village in Poland where the pastime was to torch the nearby Byelorussian Orthodox church (they don't like Rusyn and Ukrainian Catholics any better; it doesn't matter that they're Catholic; they're not Polish).

It was the state policy. About 130 Orthodox churches were destroyed in 2 months.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Peter J on June 20, 2013, 09:02:01 AM
P.S. I should have added that it's only on the internet (as far as I know) that I've encountered the sort of convert I mentioned -- I mean the I-haven't-left-anything converts who see intercommunion as "refusing to participate in schism" and what-not. (On a side note, it strikes me that they might be the "other side of the coin" of the entitled-OicwR. :thoughtful:)

Exactly.

Side question: what about the other "other side of the coin" of OicwR? That is to say, has anyone ever coined a term for the Orthodox equivalent of OicwR? ("CicwC" doesn't really work, except in an extremely loose sense, since Constantinople isn't the Orthodox equivalent of Rome.)
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: The young fogey on June 20, 2013, 09:40:20 AM
P.S. I should have added that it's only on the internet (as far as I know) that I've encountered the sort of convert I mentioned -- I mean the I-haven't-left-anything converts who see intercommunion as "refusing to participate in schism" and what-not. (On a side note, it strikes me that they might be the "other side of the coin" of the entitled-OicwR. :thoughtful:)

Exactly.

Side question: what about the other "other side of the coin" of OicwR? That is to say, has anyone ever coined a term for the Orthodox equivalent of OicwR? ("CicwC" doesn't really work, except in an extremely loose sense, since Constantinople isn't the Orthodox equivalent of Rome.)

No equivalent name. Rare like OicwRs but they're out there. My former pastor and I were a strange conservative version of that; speaking for myself, exile because of Vatican II, not really Orthodox. There are the easygoing ethnics such as the Syrians, who go back and forth between Melkite and Orthodox, no big deal. ACROD for many years was famously very Catholic; they obviously didn't want to leave and were pushed out for no good reason: Greek Catholics in communion with Constantinople, literally. I guess there are marriage converts who don't take the whole thing seriously. (Anecdotal: a Catholic ethnic who apostatized to Judaism to please his in-laws but still celebrates Christmas and Easter.) Then, once in a blue moon, both online and in person, I've met boomer libcaths who are 'like, into spirituality' so they convert to a kind of mystical no-popery while believing in a kind of Anglican branch theory.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: JoeS2 on June 20, 2013, 09:42:20 AM
This may have been mentioned already, but I just found out that Pope Francis only has one functioning lung, which makes the whole "two lungs" thing ironic.
The two lungs theory does not refer to the two biological  lungs of the Roman Pope. It is a metaphorical description invented by ecumenists to imagine the Christian Church as a whole entity but living and breathing as two Churches, East and West. 

Please stop with the two lungs already.  There were no Two Lungs prior to the Schism but only one church, east or west...
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: TheTrisagion on June 20, 2013, 09:48:11 AM
This may have been mentioned already, but I just found out that Pope Francis only has one functioning lung, which makes the whole "two lungs" thing ironic.
The two lungs theory does not refer to the two biological  lungs of the Roman Pope. It is a metaphorical description invented by ecumenists to imagine the Christian Church as a whole entity but living and breathing as two Churches, East and West. 

Please stop with the two lungs already.  There were no Two Lungs prior to the Schism but only one church, east or west...
Lets add more lungs.  I think we need a baptist lung, a mormon lung, a muslim lung.  The more lungs the better, I always say. If the church can breathe better with 2 lungs, imagine how great 50 lungs would be.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: The young fogey on June 20, 2013, 09:52:38 AM
This may have been mentioned already, but I just found out that Pope Francis only has one functioning lung, which makes the whole "two lungs" thing ironic.
The two lungs theory does not refer to the two biological  lungs of the Roman Pope. It is a metaphorical description invented by ecumenists to imagine the Christian Church as a whole entity but living and breathing as two Churches, East and West.  

Please stop with the two lungs already.  There were no Two Lungs prior to the Schism but only one church, east or west...

Catholicism manages to have it both ways: it acknowledges the truth and grace in Eastern churches without compromising its true-church claim. That said, I understand Orthodox being offended. The church is saying it understands your faith better than you do. Like when an Anglican means to be nice by including Catholicism and Orthodoxy as branches of the church.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Peter J on June 20, 2013, 09:53:24 AM
Lets add more lungs.  I think we need a baptist lung, a mormon lung, a muslim lung.

There may be some valid criticisms of the "2 lungs" idea; but I think this ^^ does nothing but make you look closed-minded.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: podkarpatska on June 20, 2013, 09:53:45 AM
P.S. I should have added that it's only on the internet (as far as I know) that I've encountered the sort of convert I mentioned -- I mean the I-haven't-left-anything converts who see intercommunion as "refusing to participate in schism" and what-not. (On a side note, it strikes me that they might be the "other side of the coin" of the entitled-OicwR. :thoughtful:)

Exactly.

Side question: what about the other "other side of the coin" of OicwR? That is to say, has anyone ever coined a term for the Orthodox equivalent of OicwR? ("CicwC" doesn't really work, except in an extremely loose sense, since Constantinople isn't the Orthodox equivalent of Rome.)

No equivalent name. Rare like OicwRs but they're out there. My former pastor and I were a strange conservative version of that; speaking for myself, exile because of Vatican II, not really Orthodox. There are the easygoing ethnics such as the Syrians, who go back and forth between Melkite and Orthodox, no big deal. ACROD for many years was famously very Catholic; they obviously didn't want to leave and were pushed out for no good reason: Greek Catholics in communion with Constantinople, literally. I guess there are marriage converts who don't take the whole thing seriously. (Anecdotal: a Catholic ethnic who apostatized to Judaism to please his in-laws but still celebrates Christmas and Easter.) Then, once in a blue moon, both online and in person, I've met boomer libcaths who are 'like, into spirituality' so they convert to a kind of mystical no-popery while believing in a kind of Anglican branch theory.

Get out of the 1950's pal, the Greeks allowed ACROD a reasonable time to fully transition from the Unia to Orthodoxy. And before our time, the so-called "Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic" parishes which comprised the majority of the former Metropolia took their sweet time in shedding the pernicious Latin influences your hard line and ignorant Roman hierarchy imposed on the Ruthenians/Rusyn Greek Catholics.  

As time goes by there is little substantive difference between the modern OCA and the ACROD. We do thank you though for imprinting into our collective consciousness (ACROD and OCA) the need to regularly attend Liturgy as reflected in last year's EA survey.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Peter J on June 20, 2013, 09:56:10 AM
P.S. I should have added that it's only on the internet (as far as I know) that I've encountered the sort of convert I mentioned -- I mean the I-haven't-left-anything converts who see intercommunion as "refusing to participate in schism" and what-not. (On a side note, it strikes me that they might be the "other side of the coin" of the entitled-OicwR. :thoughtful:)

Exactly.

Side question: what about the other "other side of the coin" of OicwR? That is to say, has anyone ever coined a term for the Orthodox equivalent of OicwR? ("CicwC" doesn't really work, except in an extremely loose sense, since Constantinople isn't the Orthodox equivalent of Rome.)

No equivalent name.

No, I suppose not.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: The young fogey on June 20, 2013, 09:57:29 AM
This may have been mentioned already, but I just found out that Pope Francis only has one functioning lung, which makes the whole "two lungs" thing ironic.
The two lungs theory does not refer to the two biological  lungs of the Roman Pope. It is a metaphorical description invented by ecumenists to imagine the Christian Church as a whole entity but living and breathing as two Churches, East and West. 

Please stop with the two lungs already.  There were no Two Lungs prior to the Schism but only one church, east or west...
Lets add more lungs.  I think we need a baptist lung, a mormon lung, a muslim lung.  The more lungs the better, I always say. If the church can breathe better with 2 lungs, imagine how great 50 lungs would be.

Again I understand feeling insulted, and that the above post is rhetorical exaggeration, but Catholicism says Protestants don't have churches (heretical doctrine and no real bishops so no Mass) and Muslims and Mormons are not Christians. So no, they're not lungs.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: The young fogey on June 20, 2013, 10:10:30 AM
Get out of the 1950's pal

No. Make me.

...the Greeks allowed ACROD a reasonable time to fully transition from the Unia to Orthodoxy.

The Greeks were very nice and hands-off; the Carpatho-Russians just wanted to be left alone to do what they'd always done (more a grassroots po-nashomu ['our way'] folk church, which happened to be latinized, than hardline Catholic or Orthodox identity), and that was fine with the Greeks. As far as I know, nobody forced ACROD to change. They eventually did on their own, mirroring what the Greek Catholics were doing.

And before our time, the so-called "Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic" parishes which comprised the majority of the former Metropolia took their sweet time in shedding the pernicious Latin influences your hard line and ignorant Roman hierarchy imposed on the Ruthenians/Rusyn Greek Catholics.

I think the Russians russified the converts but I've come across what you describe and have read similar stories. A priest who grew up in the Metropolia had 'Solemn First Communion' so even though he received as a baby, he had the party when he was 7 like the Catholic kids, just like what the Greek Catholics, OCA, and ACROD do now with First Confession.

Try actually reading me. I never make excuses for the Roman Riters pushing Toth and Chornock out.

And 90% of the time, the Greek Catholics latinized themselves.

As time goes by there is little substantive difference between the modern OCA and the ACROD. We do thank you though for imprinting into our collective consciousness (ACROD and OCA) the need to regularly attend Liturgy as reflected in last year's EA survey.

From outside, that seems true. They're the same ethnicity, only they converted two generations apart. The main difference now is the music (though I've been to an old OCA parish that kept its Carpatho-Russian prostopinije alongside the usual OCA Russian music). I know you're being sarcastic but you're welcome. Same reason some Orthodox got involved in the March for Life. Metropolitan Herman wanted to impress his neighbor Bishop Timlin.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: podkarpatska on June 20, 2013, 10:26:40 AM
Get out of the 1950's pal

No. Make me.

...the Greeks allowed ACROD a reasonable time to fully transition from the Unia to Orthodoxy.

The Greeks were very nice and hands-off; the Carpatho-Russians just wanted to be left alone to do what they'd always done (more a grassroots po-nashomu ['our way'] folk church, which happened to be latinized, than hardline Catholic or Orthodox identity), and that was fine with the Greeks. As far as I know, nobody forced them to change. They eventually did on their own, mirroring what the Greek Catholics were doing.

And before our time, the so-called "Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic" parishes which comprised the majority of the former Metropolia took their sweet time in shedding the pernicious Latin influences your hard line and ignorant Roman hierarchy imposed on the Ruthenians/Rusyn Greek Catholics.

I think the Russians russified the converts but I've come across what you describe and have read similar stories. A priest who grew up in the Metropolia had 'Solemn First Communion' so even though he received as a baby, he had the party when he was 7 like the Catholic kids, just like what the Greek Catholics, OCA, and ACROD do now with First Confession.

Try actually reading me. I never make excuses for the Roman Riters pushing Toth and Chornock out.

And 90% of the time, the Greek Catholics latinized themselves.

As time goes by there is little substantive difference between the modern OCA and the ACROD. We do thank you though for imprinting into our collective consciousness (ACROD and OCA) the need to regularly attend Liturgy as reflected in last year's EA survey.

From outside, that seems true. They're the same ethnicity, only they converted two generations apart. The main difference now is the music (though I've been to an old OCA parish that kept its Carpatho-Russian prostopinije alongside the usual OCA Russian music). I know you're being sarcastic but you're welcome. Same reason some Orthodox got involved in the March for Life. Metropolitan Herman wanted to impress his neighbor Bishop Timlin.

I've read your blog for years and I apologize for being a tad thin skinned. I concede that ACROD'S founders did not so much "convert" or "return" to Orthodoxy as much as they TURNED to it for protection, but I would argue the same held true for St. Alexis and my many relatives who followed him pre 1920.

Those generations did not see the impact of the gradual latinizations, they believed them to be genuine, for after 300 years, that's what they had. They did know that they were not Roman Catholics. Today we know not all were Latin changes (plain chant, pre Nikonian rubrics,  certain penitentiary practices, certain architectural norms) and that some Roman influences are, in fact, positive. (Attendance being one of them.)

Your observations, taken out of context, only reinforce the preconception of more than a few Orthodox traditionalists who are less than kind towards those who they view as being ritually impure - which is typically everyone else.

No offense meant.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: The young fogey on June 20, 2013, 10:29:23 AM
Understood. Thanks.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Peter J on June 20, 2013, 10:40:56 AM
Get out of the 1950's pal

No. Make me.

...the Greeks allowed ACROD a reasonable time to fully transition from the Unia to Orthodoxy.

The Greeks were very nice and hands-off; the Carpatho-Russians just wanted to be left alone to do what they'd always done (more a grassroots po-nashomu ['our way'] folk church, which happened to be latinized, than hardline Catholic or Orthodox identity), and that was fine with the Greeks. As far as I know, nobody forced them to change. They eventually did on their own, mirroring what the Greek Catholics were doing.

And before our time, the so-called "Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic" parishes which comprised the majority of the former Metropolia took their sweet time in shedding the pernicious Latin influences your hard line and ignorant Roman hierarchy imposed on the Ruthenians/Rusyn Greek Catholics.

I think the Russians russified the converts but I've come across what you describe and have read similar stories. A priest who grew up in the Metropolia had 'Solemn First Communion' so even though he received as a baby, he had the party when he was 7 like the Catholic kids, just like what the Greek Catholics, OCA, and ACROD do now with First Confession.

Try actually reading me. I never make excuses for the Roman Riters pushing Toth and Chornock out.

And 90% of the time, the Greek Catholics latinized themselves.

As time goes by there is little substantive difference between the modern OCA and the ACROD. We do thank you though for imprinting into our collective consciousness (ACROD and OCA) the need to regularly attend Liturgy as reflected in last year's EA survey.

From outside, that seems true. They're the same ethnicity, only they converted two generations apart. The main difference now is the music (though I've been to an old OCA parish that kept its Carpatho-Russian prostopinije alongside the usual OCA Russian music). I know you're being sarcastic but you're welcome. Same reason some Orthodox got involved in the March for Life. Metropolitan Herman wanted to impress his neighbor Bishop Timlin.

I've read your blog for years and I apologize for being a tad thin skinned. I concede that ACROD'S founders did not so much "convert" or "return" to Orthodoxy as much as they TURNED to it for protection, but I would argue the same held true for St. Alexis and my many relatives who followed him pre 1920.

Those generations did not see the impact of the gradual latinizations, they believed them to be genuine, for after 300 years, that's what they had. They did know that they were not Roman Catholics. Today we know not all were Latin changes (plain chant, pre Nikonian rubrics,  certain penitentiary practices, certain architectural norms) and that some Roman influences are, in fact, positive. (Attendance being one of them.)

Your observations, taken out of context, only reinforce the preconception of more than a few Orthodox traditionalists who are less than kind towards those who they view as being ritually impure - which is typically everyone else.

No offense meant.

Which preconception?
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: The young fogey on June 20, 2013, 10:48:29 AM
Get out of the 1950's pal

No. Make me.

...the Greeks allowed ACROD a reasonable time to fully transition from the Unia to Orthodoxy.

The Greeks were very nice and hands-off; the Carpatho-Russians just wanted to be left alone to do what they'd always done (more a grassroots po-nashomu ['our way'] folk church, which happened to be latinized, than hardline Catholic or Orthodox identity), and that was fine with the Greeks. As far as I know, nobody forced them to change. They eventually did on their own, mirroring what the Greek Catholics were doing.

And before our time, the so-called "Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic" parishes which comprised the majority of the former Metropolia took their sweet time in shedding the pernicious Latin influences your hard line and ignorant Roman hierarchy imposed on the Ruthenians/Rusyn Greek Catholics.

I think the Russians russified the converts but I've come across what you describe and have read similar stories. A priest who grew up in the Metropolia had 'Solemn First Communion' so even though he received as a baby, he had the party when he was 7 like the Catholic kids, just like what the Greek Catholics, OCA, and ACROD do now with First Confession.

Try actually reading me. I never make excuses for the Roman Riters pushing Toth and Chornock out.

And 90% of the time, the Greek Catholics latinized themselves.

As time goes by there is little substantive difference between the modern OCA and the ACROD. We do thank you though for imprinting into our collective consciousness (ACROD and OCA) the need to regularly attend Liturgy as reflected in last year's EA survey.

From outside, that seems true. They're the same ethnicity, only they converted two generations apart. The main difference now is the music (though I've been to an old OCA parish that kept its Carpatho-Russian prostopinije alongside the usual OCA Russian music). I know you're being sarcastic but you're welcome. Same reason some Orthodox got involved in the March for Life. Metropolitan Herman wanted to impress his neighbor Bishop Timlin.

I've read your blog for years and I apologize for being a tad thin skinned. I concede that ACROD'S founders did not so much "convert" or "return" to Orthodoxy as much as they TURNED to it for protection, but I would argue the same held true for St. Alexis and my many relatives who followed him pre 1920.

Those generations did not see the impact of the gradual latinizations, they believed them to be genuine, for after 300 years, that's what they had. They did know that they were not Roman Catholics. Today we know not all were Latin changes (plain chant, pre Nikonian rubrics,  certain penitentiary practices, certain architectural norms) and that some Roman influences are, in fact, positive. (Attendance being one of them.)

Your observations, taken out of context, only reinforce the preconception of more than a few Orthodox traditionalists who are less than kind towards those who they view as being ritually impure - which is typically everyone else.

No offense meant.

Which preconception?

Anti-Catholic hardline Orthodox making fun of the Carpatho-Russians for their longtime latinizations and saying the Carpatho-Russians weren't really Orthodox because of them.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: The young fogey on June 20, 2013, 10:53:08 AM
I think the two schisms in America, plus, in Eastern Europe, the Communists persecuting the Greek Catholics, have understandably hardened both Rusyn (and Ukrainian) sides. Easygoing po-nashomu doesn't seem the norm anymore. The Greek Catholics who stayed were taught a harder line on identity than before, and they self-latinized more; now they don't identify with the Orthodox at all. Vatican II told them to rebyzantinize but the ethnics aren't enthused.

Same thing in reverse with ACROD. No strong Orthodox identity in the '30s, but one now.

(The first Eastern Christians I knew and the first Byzantine Liturgy ['Holy Mass'] I went to were WWII-exile Ukrainian Catholic. You could call them Ukrainian Catholics, Byzantine Catholics, Greek Catholics, Uniates or Roman Catholics; just don't call them Russian or Orthodox, even though they were obviously related.)
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Peter J on June 20, 2013, 10:58:24 AM
Anti-Catholic hardline Orthodox making fun of the Carpatho-Russians for their longtime latinizations and saying the Carpatho-Russians weren't really Orthodox because of them.

To be honest, I think the conflation of "Orthodoxy" with "Eastern-ness" is one of the things that troubles me most about Orthodoxy. (Not that I would necessarily become Orthodox in any case; I'm just saying.)
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: The young fogey on June 20, 2013, 11:05:39 AM
Anti-Catholic hardline Orthodox making fun of the Carpatho-Russians for their longtime latinizations and saying the Carpatho-Russians weren't really Orthodox because of them.

To be honest, I think the conflation of "Orthodoxy" with "Eastern-ness" is one of the things that troubles me most about Orthodoxy. (Not that I would necessarily become Orthodox in any case; I'm just saying.)

Yep.

Easternness in itself is great, but the anti-Westernism is a big turnoff. Catholicism doesn't tell Easterners to hate their heritage but rather to keep it (this is not always followed). Orthodoxy's obviously so conflicted about Westernness. (Western = you're not part of our empire = you're not the true church.) Its little Western Rite experiment usually gets as byzantinized as the Greek Catholics are self-latinized. The Antiochians' thing is more really Western and more honest about the Catholic connection. Old high Episcopalians and genuinely nice pro-Catholic folks, whom other Orthodox are suspicious of for that reason. Still, even there, the Mass is 'The Divine Liturgy of St Tikhon or St Gregory', etc. The ROCOR one's so byzantinized I don't know why they bother.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Peter J on June 20, 2013, 11:35:59 AM
the anti-Westernism is a big turnoff.

That too.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: podkarpatska on June 20, 2013, 01:31:18 PM
I think the two schisms in America, plus, in Eastern Europe, the Communists persecuting the Greek Catholics, have understandably hardened both Rusyn (and Ukrainian) sides. Easygoing po-nashomu doesn't seem the norm anymore. The Greek Catholics who stayed were taught a harder line on identity than before, and they self-latinized more; now they don't identify with the Orthodox at all. Vatican II told them to rebyzantinize but the ethnics aren't enthused.

Same thing in reverse with ACROD. No strong Orthodox identity in the '30s, but one now.

(The first Eastern Christians I knew and the first Byzantine Liturgy ['Holy Mass'] I went to were WWII-exile Ukrainian Catholic. You could call them Ukrainian Catholics, Byzantine Catholics, Greek Catholics, Uniates or Roman Catholics; just don't call them Russian or Orthodox, even though they were obviously related.)

But that is a generalization. The Greek Catholic Rusyns in Slovakia are old style Greek Catholic, but Bishop Milan' s eparchy in Transcarpathian Ukraine  is quite Orthodox externally, certainly in contrast to the Ukrainian Greek Catholics who are nearby.  The BCC church next door to me is closer "looking" to a ROCOR or Serbian Church than any of the other "eastern" churches in the area, Catholic or Orthodox,excepting the GOC traditionalists in Owego, NY who are out there on their own.

My two cents, for what it's worth, and my point of view is certainly clouded by personal history, is that uniatism, whether east to west or vice versa is a "bridge to nowhere." No matter how sincere you may be in your faith, and most folks are that, in the end you are always the odd child, looking in and never chosen for the team. Others may have better experiences and I respect that and their opinion.

I am looking forward to the podcasts of this year's Orientale Lumen concluded today. I understand it was quite interesting.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Pravoslavbob on June 20, 2013, 04:06:49 PM
It's pretty much because of attitudes expressed in this thread (for example) that I decided to remain Catholic. I do love the Orthodox Churches I've attended but even there, I've had to deal with so many people like "James" that I don't think I'd have the energy to do it on a regular basis. I'd always feel the need to defend the Catholic Church from unfair attacks, even if I left it. So I think I'll just stay where I am and keep asking God for mercy.  ;)

Well then, I am very sorry for you if this is truly the case as you describe it here.  It seems that you are letting bad Orthodox like us on this forum define your experience of Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Christianity in general.  If you are convinced that remaining in communion with Rome is the right thing to do, then surely it should come from a much more "positive" place in your heart than one that says "there are such uncharitable Orthodox here and there, therefore I will just stay where I am."  I think each one of us has the duty to ask ourselves "who is Christ?" all the time.  What would the Living God of the Gospel have to say about this or that ecclesial situation and our relation to it?  Christ said "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life."  Are we truly struggling to follow that Way, Truth and Life in Him who is Love every day, or are we following an idol of our own creation, that is not the Living God?  I think every Christian of whatever ecclesial affiliation has to keep this before them at all times.  Forgive me, but I think to do less is to cop out; it is deciding to be spiritually lazy or dishonest.  I am not saying that God does not meet us where we are in His great mercy, or that moving from one Church to another is an easy thing to do or that you don't have other good reasons for doing what you do.  But please don't let your church life be defined by how some crazy sinner like me behaves, that is just wrong.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Peter J on June 20, 2013, 04:38:17 PM
This relates to what TYF and I were discussing in the earlier OicwR conversation.

There's really a spectrum of possibilities: On one end of the spectrum, a Catholic might be able to come up with no real objections to Catholicism, in which case leaving Catholicism makes no sense.

On the other end, a Catholic might have objections to Catholicism that are so strong that not leaving Catholicism makes no sense. (Note that I mean sincerely believing e.g. that the Pope is in heresy, not just making excuses for wanting to leave.)

But I believe there can also be Catholics in-the-middle, for whom neither leaving nor staying is a clear choice. That's where you get the "Catholic with regret" phenomenon -- not to be confused with dissident Catholics who are glad to be the fly-in-the-ointment.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: JoeS2 on June 20, 2013, 04:49:38 PM
This may have been mentioned already, but I just found out that Pope Francis only has one functioning lung, which makes the whole "two lungs" thing ironic.
The two lungs theory does not refer to the two biological  lungs of the Roman Pope. It is a metaphorical description invented by ecumenists to imagine the Christian Church as a whole entity but living and breathing as two Churches, East and West. 

Please stop with the two lungs already.  There were no Two Lungs prior to the Schism but only one church, east or west...
Lets add more lungs.  I think we need a baptist lung, a mormon lung, a muslim lung.  The more lungs the better, I always say. If the church can breathe better with 2 lungs, imagine how great 50 lungs would be.

 ;D
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: theistgal on June 20, 2013, 05:02:16 PM
It's pretty much because of attitudes expressed in this thread (for example) that I decided to remain Catholic. I do love the Orthodox Churches I've attended but even there, I've had to deal with so many people like "James" that I don't think I'd have the energy to do it on a regular basis. I'd always feel the need to defend the Catholic Church from unfair attacks, even if I left it. So I think I'll just stay where I am and keep asking God for mercy.  ;)

Well then, I am very sorry for you if this is truly the case as you describe it here.  It seems that you are letting bad Orthodox like us on this forum define your experience of Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Christianity in general.  If you are convinced that remaining in communion with Rome is the right thing to do, then surely it should come from a much more "positive" place in your heart than one that says "there are such uncharitable Orthodox here and there, therefore I will just stay where I am."  I think each one of us has the duty to ask ourselves "who is Christ?" all the time.  What would the Living God of the Gospel have to say about this or that ecclesial situation and our relation to it?  Christ said "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life."  Are we truly struggling to follow that Way, Truth and Life in Him who is Love every day, or are we following an idol of our own creation, that is not the Living God?  I think every Christian of whatever ecclesial affiliation has to keep this before them at all times.  Forgive me, but I think to do less is to cop out; it is deciding to be spiritually lazy or dishonest.  I am not saying that God does not meet us where we are in His great mercy, or that moving from one Church to another is an easy thing to do or that you don't have other good reasons for doing what you do.  But please don't let your church life be defined by how some crazy sinner like me behaves, that is just wrong.

You're right. I think I'll become a Spiritualist instead.   8)
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: WPM on June 20, 2013, 05:12:00 PM
I thought the Orthodox Church was already Catholic
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: WPM on June 20, 2013, 05:20:09 PM
I think the two schisms in America, plus, in Eastern Europe, the Communists persecuting the Greek Catholics, have understandably hardened both Rusyn (and Ukrainian) sides. Easygoing po-nashomu doesn't seem the norm anymore. The Greek Catholics who stayed were taught a harder line on identity than before, and they self-latinized more; now they don't identify with the Orthodox at all. Vatican II told them to rebyzantinize but the ethnics aren't enthused.

Same thing in reverse with ACROD. No strong Orthodox identity in the '30s, but one now.

(The first Eastern Christians I knew and the first Byzantine Liturgy ['Holy Mass'] I went to were WWII-exile Ukrainian Catholic. You could call them Ukrainian Catholics, Byzantine Catholics, Greek Catholics, Uniates or Roman Catholics; just don't call them Russian or Orthodox, even though they were obviously related.)

But that is a generalization. The Greek Catholic Rusyns in Slovakia are old style Greek Catholic, but Bishop Milan' s eparchy in Transcarpathian Ukraine  is quite Orthodox externally, certainly in contrast to the Ukrainian Greek Catholics who are nearby.  The BCC church next door to me is closer "looking" to a ROCOR or Serbian Church than any of the other "eastern" churches in the area, Catholic or Orthodox,excepting the GOC traditionalists in Owego, NY who are out there on their own.

My two cents, for what it's worth, and my point of view is certainly clouded by personal history, is that uniatism, whether east to west or vice versa is a "bridge to nowhere." No matter how sincere you may be in your faith, and most folks are that, in the end you are always the odd child, looking in and never chosen for the team. Others may have better experiences and I respect that and their opinion.

I am looking forward to the podcasts of this year's Orientale Lumen concluded today. I understand it was quite interesting.

The Catholicity of a Mother Church
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: xariskai on June 20, 2013, 10:14:20 PM
Anti-Catholic hardline Orthodox making fun of the Carpatho-Russians for their longtime latinizations and saying the Carpatho-Russians weren't really Orthodox because of them.

To be honest, I think the conflation of "Orthodoxy" with "Eastern-ness" is one of the things that troubles me most about Orthodoxy. (Not that I would necessarily become Orthodox in any case; I'm just saying.)
Frankly the kind of sentiment expressed above strikes me as excessive an overreaction as that which it seeks to counter. Why?

One hardly needs to "conflate" early Christianity Eastward insofar as contextualization of early Christianity primarily to Eastern language, culture, and thought is basic to its history. It is one thing to oppose an over-reactive "anti-Western bias" as such. It is quite another to deny, minimize, or be "troubled by" the Eastern roots and context of early Christianity which on close inspection starts to look rather more like denying one's own parents.

Judaism and Christianity began in and unfolded from the ancient Near East. Their sacred scriptures were originally penned in Eastern languages (Hebrew and Koine Greek). They are not rightly understood if wrest from the context of ancient Eastern literary genres, speech figures, thought patterns and so on. The East was the site for the first seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787AD); the overwhelming majority of bishops at these councils were Eastern. The predominant "Eastern-ness" of early Christianity is not a matter of "conflation" so much as basic historiography. There is nothing surprising about the defining of church doctrine in the East. Not only had Constantine shifted the seat of the Roman empire there; that is where most of the Christian churches, Christian learning, patriarchs and bishops and theologians and so on were.

Modem admirers of the Latin Mass claim that they are defending a universal language, the tongue of the Roman empire, but it was never that. The lingua franca of Roman rule was Greek -Rome had inherited the eastern territories conquered and settled by Alexander’s Greek troops. Koine "pidgin Greek" was what merchants and bureaucrats used to communicate with the motley elements of the empire. Pilate and Jesus had to speak to each other in Koine, since one had no Aramaic and the other had no Latin. Koine Greek was the original language of the church, of the Gospels, of the liturgy, of Jews and Christians who traveled to Rome. Latin was not to became Rome’s official language until the middle of the third century. Peter would not have spoken Latin, even in Rome, and Latin did not become the language of the Mass there until the third century. After the fall of the city of old Rome the papacy, left behind in the abandoned ruins of the former capital of the empire had to adjust to the needs of the people there -of Latins who were neither cosmopolitan intellectuals speaking classical Greek nor immigrants from areas speaking Koine, but native speakers of the native tongue.

Virgil, looking at the prospects of the Roman empire in a Greek-speaking world, had expressed a fear that Latin would be swallowed up in Greek. That fear might have seemed justified as the empire moved out from Rome to the East or to Greek-speaking cities in Italy like Milan and Aquileia and Ravenna. In the fourth century, Ambrose of Milan was a far more influential Christian leader than Pope Damasus in Rome. and not only because Ambrose possessed the more forceful character. He also had the advantage of living in the imperial city. and of speaking Greek to its rulers.

Why am I bothering to say this? Not because I am in any way "anti-West" (such an attitude as a basic mold or posture seems silly to me personally), but because what appears at times to be an equal and opposite counter-reaction, without the proper qualifications, can appear even more on the order of obscurantism and/or simply living in denial than the excesses it is seeking to reply to.

One simply cannot properly understand Judaism or early Christianity de-contextualized from ancient Near Eastern language, culture and thought forms within which it largely emerged without tacitly or explicitly falling into anachronism and obscurantism.

Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: The young fogey on June 21, 2013, 12:17:19 AM
I thought the Orthodox Church was already Catholic

There are three answers. First, to my hosts: there is the textbook Orthodox position, like Catholicism's true-church claim. Simply that Orthodoxy is the true Catholic Church and Catholicism's not. Second, there's the ecumenical Orthodox opinion, something like Catholicism's recognition of Orthodox orders so one can speak of a great Catholic family of churches. Third, there's Catholicism: born Orthodox are neither Protestants nor personally guilty of schism, so Orthodoxy's an estranged Catholicism; the church accepts but doesn't solicit individual conversions of born Orthodox anymore.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: stanley123 on June 21, 2013, 01:40:46 AM
It's pretty much because of attitudes expressed in this thread (for example) that I decided to remain Catholic. I do love the Orthodox Churches I've attended but even there, I've had to deal with so many people like "James" that I don't think I'd have the energy to do it on a regular basis. I'd always feel the need to defend the Catholic Church from unfair attacks, even if I left it. So I think I'll just stay where I am and keep asking God for mercy.  ;)

Well then, I am very sorry for you if this is truly the case as you describe it here.  It seems that you are letting bad Orthodox like us on this forum define your experience of Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Christianity in general.  If you are convinced that remaining in communion with Rome is the right thing to do, then surely it should come from a much more "positive" place in your heart than one that says "there are such uncharitable Orthodox here and there, therefore I will just stay where I am."  I think each one of us has the duty to ask ourselves "who is Christ?" all the time.  What would the Living God of the Gospel have to say about this or that ecclesial situation and our relation to it?  Christ said "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life."  Are we truly struggling to follow that Way, Truth and Life in Him who is Love every day, or are we following an idol of our own creation, that is not the Living God?  I think every Christian of whatever ecclesial affiliation has to keep this before them at all times.  Forgive me, but I think to do less is to cop out; it is deciding to be spiritually lazy or dishonest.  I am not saying that God does not meet us where we are in His great mercy, or that moving from one Church to another is an easy thing to do or that you don't have other good reasons for doing what you do.  But please don't let your church life be defined by how some crazy sinner like me behaves, that is just wrong.
What you say may be the ideal situation, but many people respond favorably to charity. What Catholic would want to join a Church where the priest screams that you and all Catholics are heretics? Such happened to me when I asked if I could join his adult catechism class, which he said was not open to heretics.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Peter J on June 21, 2013, 06:42:34 AM
I thought the Orthodox Church was already Catholic

To quote myself:

I have no reason to leave the Catholic Church, although I have every reason to be in the Orthodox Church.

This is only true if you equate the Vatican confession with "the Catholic Church."

Your fellow Orthodox have told us not to use "Roman Catholic", or at any rate not to include Eastern Catholics in that designation.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: The young fogey on June 21, 2013, 07:46:44 AM
I thought the Orthodox Church was already Catholic

To quote myself:

I have no reason to leave the Catholic Church, although I have every reason to be in the Orthodox Church.

This is only true if you equate the Vatican confession with "the Catholic Church."

Your fellow Orthodox have told us not to use "Roman Catholic", or at any rate not to include Eastern Catholics in that designation.

As I've written, theologically,the East is a kind of Catholicism; the Georgian and Armenian patriarchs are the Catholicos. But in Moscow and Athens, if you asked a cabbie to take you to the nearest Catholic church, he would not take you to the nearest Orthodox church. In Russian, Russians are православные; католики are foreigners.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: podkarpatska on June 21, 2013, 08:51:55 AM
It's pretty much because of attitudes expressed in this thread (for example) that I decided to remain Catholic. I do love the Orthodox Churches I've attended but even there, I've had to deal with so many people like "James" that I don't think I'd have the energy to do it on a regular basis. I'd always feel the need to defend the Catholic Church from unfair attacks, even if I left it. So I think I'll just stay where I am and keep asking God for mercy.  ;)

Well then, I am very sorry for you if this is truly the case as you describe it here.  It seems that you are letting bad Orthodox like us on this forum define your experience of Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Christianity in general.  If you are convinced that remaining in communion with Rome is the right thing to do, then surely it should come from a much more "positive" place in your heart than one that says "there are such uncharitable Orthodox here and there, therefore I will just stay where I am."  I think each one of us has the duty to ask ourselves "who is Christ?" all the time.  What would the Living God of the Gospel have to say about this or that ecclesial situation and our relation to it?  Christ said "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life."  Are we truly struggling to follow that Way, Truth and Life in Him who is Love every day, or are we following an idol of our own creation, that is not the Living God?  I think every Christian of whatever ecclesial affiliation has to keep this before them at all times.  Forgive me, but I think to do less is to cop out; it is deciding to be spiritually lazy or dishonest.  I am not saying that God does not meet us where we are in His great mercy, or that moving from one Church to another is an easy thing to do or that you don't have other good reasons for doing what you do.  But please don't let your church life be defined by how some crazy sinner like me behaves, that is just wrong.
What you say may be the ideal situation, but many people respond favorably to charity. What Catholic would want to join a Church where the priest screams that you and all Catholics are heretics? Such happened to me when I asked if I could join his adult catechism class, which he said was not open to heretics.

As the son,brother, Godson, friend of many and father of a future Orthodox priest, I take offense at your ridiculous stereotyping of our clergy.

I am sure that countless here can share anecdotes of idiotic behavior by Roman Catholics priests, but I would never castigate them or the Roman Church as a group on account of the same.

I don't know what jurisdiction you dealt with but I know what I would do. I would smile, tell him he is in my prayers and I would let his Bishop know in no uncertain terms that his priest is (mild profanity edited out) a pompous jerk lacking in pastoral ability. I've done that and the man in question is no longer under that bishop's omophor. (Just like you Catholics, we, too, play musical dioceses with problematic clergy. With us it's also jurisdiction hopping. "Let him be someone else's problem" is a typical human reaction.)

Of course, if he were from a jurisdiction which regards other Orthodox in a similar "light", such a letter to the Bishop would likely earn him a gold cross.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: The young fogey on June 21, 2013, 09:20:13 AM
Isn't the catechumenate meant to turn heretics, however you define that, into true believers? So the priest in Stanley's story was stupid from the Orthodox point of view. I thought they wanted individual Catholics to convert.

Stereotypes are such because they're usually true.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Peter J on June 21, 2013, 09:31:38 AM
Isn't the catechumenate meant to turn heretics, however you define that, into true believers? So the priest in Stanley's story was stupid from the Orthodox point of view. I thought they wanted individual Catholics to convert.

Well, definitely stupid if the aforementioned "adult catechism class" was a catechumens' class. I'll leave it for Stanley to elaborate on what he meant.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: podkarpatska on June 21, 2013, 09:32:26 AM
I thought the Orthodox Church was already Catholic

There are three answers. First, to my hosts: there is the textbook Orthodox position, like Catholicism's true-church claim. Simply that Orthodoxy is the true Catholic Church and Catholicism's not. Second, there's the ecumenical Orthodox opinion, something like Catholicism's recognition of Orthodox orders so one can speak of a great Catholic family of churches. Third, there's Catholicism: born Orthodox are neither Protestants nor personally guilty of schism, so Orthodoxy's an estranged Catholicism; the church accepts but doesn't solicit individual conversions of born Orthodox anymore.

I believe that post Conciliar Roman Catholic theologians have gone beyond the relatively simplistic emphasis on catholicity as described above in their consultations with the Orthodox.  Rather, they have health with the Apostolic nature of both the local Roman communion and the Churches of the Orthodox:

"12. In the Eastern churches there has frequently been an emphasis on the fullness of each church's apostolicity and, indeed, "petrinity," and there has been criticism of the Roman Church, for tending to localize these qualities in a single see. The Roman Church, on the other hand, has strongly emphasized the need to express the unity of the Church's apostolic faith through concrete structures and practice and has criticized the Eastern churches for losing sight of this need. Such differences of approach should not, however, be presented as evidence of an irreducible opposition between "local church" and "universal church." This dilemma is an artificial one which arises at least in part when we are unwilling to see the same qualities present in both the local and the universal, albeit realized in different ways. The image of Peter within the apostolic college is reflected in the life of each local church; it is also reflected in the visible communion of all the local churches. There is no intrinsic opposition between these two approaches."

http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/apostolicity.html
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Peter J on June 21, 2013, 09:37:13 AM
I thought the Orthodox Church was already Catholic

To quote myself:

I have no reason to leave the Catholic Church, although I have every reason to be in the Orthodox Church.

This is only true if you equate the Vatican confession with "the Catholic Church."

Your fellow Orthodox have told us not to use "Roman Catholic", or at any rate not to include Eastern Catholics in that designation.

As I've written, theologically,the East is a kind of Catholicism; the Georgian and Armenian patriarchs are the Catholicos. But in Moscow and Athens, if you asked a cabbie to take you to the nearest Catholic church, he would not take you to the nearest Orthodox church. In Russian, Russians are православные; католики are foreigners.

To be honest, I assumed that WPM meant the same as FatherHLL's post that I quoted, but I really don't know for sure.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: JoeS2 on June 21, 2013, 10:29:58 AM
I thought the Orthodox Church was already Catholic

But of Course...!
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: stanley123 on June 21, 2013, 04:04:21 PM
It's pretty much because of attitudes expressed in this thread (for example) that I decided to remain Catholic. I do love the Orthodox Churches I've attended but even there, I've had to deal with so many people like "James" that I don't think I'd have the energy to do it on a regular basis. I'd always feel the need to defend the Catholic Church from unfair attacks, even if I left it. So I think I'll just stay where I am and keep asking God for mercy.  ;)

Well then, I am very sorry for you if this is truly the case as you describe it here.  It seems that you are letting bad Orthodox like us on this forum define your experience of Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Christianity in general.  If you are convinced that remaining in communion with Rome is the right thing to do, then surely it should come from a much more "positive" place in your heart than one that says "there are such uncharitable Orthodox here and there, therefore I will just stay where I am."  I think each one of us has the duty to ask ourselves "who is Christ?" all the time.  What would the Living God of the Gospel have to say about this or that ecclesial situation and our relation to it?  Christ said "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life."  Are we truly struggling to follow that Way, Truth and Life in Him who is Love every day, or are we following an idol of our own creation, that is not the Living God?  I think every Christian of whatever ecclesial affiliation has to keep this before them at all times.  Forgive me, but I think to do less is to cop out; it is deciding to be spiritually lazy or dishonest.  I am not saying that God does not meet us where we are in His great mercy, or that moving from one Church to another is an easy thing to do or that you don't have other good reasons for doing what you do.  But please don't let your church life be defined by how some crazy sinner like me behaves, that is just wrong.
What you say may be the ideal situation, but many people respond favorably to charity. What Catholic would want to join a Church where the priest screams that you and all Catholics are heretics? Such happened to me when I asked if I could join his adult catechism class, which he said was not open to heretics.

As the son,brother, Godson, friend of many and father of a future Orthodox priest, I take offense at your ridiculous stereotyping of our clergy.

I am sure that countless here can share anecdotes of idiotic behavior by Roman Catholics priests, but I would never castigate them or the Roman Church as a group on account of the same.

I don't know what jurisdiction you dealt with but I know what I would do. I would smile, tell him he is in my prayers and I would let his Bishop know in no uncertain terms that his priest is (mild profanity edited out) a pompous jerk lacking in pastoral ability. I've done that and the man in question is no longer under that bishop's omophor. (Just like you Catholics, we, too, play musical dioceses with problematic clergy. With us it's also jurisdiction hopping. "Let him be someone else's problem" is a typical human reaction.)

Of course, if he were from a jurisdiction which regards other Orthodox in a similar "light", such a letter to the Bishop would likely earn him a gold cross.
This was not a stereotype, but one particular case, which shocked me.  Of course, there are many Orthodox, lay and clergy who show charity toward non-Orthodox Christians.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Deep Roots on June 21, 2013, 05:55:34 PM
"Bridges" = Ecumenical heresy.

I don't even walk or drive over bridges in general, because they're symbols of evil ecumenists.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Alpo on June 21, 2013, 06:02:29 PM
"Bridges" = Ecumenical heresy.

I've been wondering what this so-called Pan-Heresy of Ecumenism really means since it doesn't seem to have any coherent contet. Thanks for clearing this up. It means bridges.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Alpo on June 21, 2013, 06:05:22 PM
Such happened to me when I asked if I could join his adult catechism class, which he said was not open to heretics.

ROFL! Awesome!
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Peter J on June 21, 2013, 09:32:22 PM
It's pretty much because of attitudes expressed in this thread (for example) that I decided to remain Catholic. I do love the Orthodox Churches I've attended but even there, I've had to deal with so many people like "James" that I don't think I'd have the energy to do it on a regular basis. I'd always feel the need to defend the Catholic Church from unfair attacks, even if I left it. So I think I'll just stay where I am and keep asking God for mercy.  ;)

Well then, I am very sorry for you if this is truly the case as you describe it here.  It seems that you are letting bad Orthodox like us on this forum define your experience of Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Christianity in general.  If you are convinced that remaining in communion with Rome is the right thing to do, then surely it should come from a much more "positive" place in your heart than one that says "there are such uncharitable Orthodox here and there, therefore I will just stay where I am."  I think each one of us has the duty to ask ourselves "who is Christ?" all the time.  What would the Living God of the Gospel have to say about this or that ecclesial situation and our relation to it?  Christ said "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life."  Are we truly struggling to follow that Way, Truth and Life in Him who is Love every day, or are we following an idol of our own creation, that is not the Living God?  I think every Christian of whatever ecclesial affiliation has to keep this before them at all times.  Forgive me, but I think to do less is to cop out; it is deciding to be spiritually lazy or dishonest.  I am not saying that God does not meet us where we are in His great mercy, or that moving from one Church to another is an easy thing to do or that you don't have other good reasons for doing what you do.  But please don't let your church life be defined by how some crazy sinner like me behaves, that is just wrong.
What you say may be the ideal situation, but many people respond favorably to charity. What Catholic would want to join a Church where the priest screams that you and all Catholics are heretics? Such happened to me when I asked if I could join his adult catechism class, which he said was not open to heretics.

As the son,brother, Godson, friend of many and father of a future Orthodox priest, I take offense at your ridiculous stereotyping of our clergy.

I am sure that countless here can share anecdotes of idiotic behavior by Roman Catholics priests, but I would never castigate them or the Roman Church as a group on account of the same.

I don't know what jurisdiction you dealt with but I know what I would do. I would smile, tell him he is in my prayers and I would let his Bishop know in no uncertain terms that his priest is (mild profanity edited out) a pompous jerk lacking in pastoral ability. I've done that and the man in question is no longer under that bishop's omophor. (Just like you Catholics, we, too, play musical dioceses with problematic clergy. With us it's also jurisdiction hopping. "Let him be someone else's problem" is a typical human reaction.)

Of course, if he were from a jurisdiction which regards other Orthodox in a similar "light", such a letter to the Bishop would likely earn him a gold cross.
This was not a stereotype, but one particular case, which shocked me.

I thought all complainers generalize?
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: stanley123 on June 21, 2013, 10:22:30 PM
Such happened to me when I asked if I could join his adult catechism class, which he said was not open to heretics.

ROFL! Awesome!
He said he would make an exception if the person had the serious intention of converting, which did not fit my case. I was only interested in learning and in discussions, which perhaps may have been thought to be a bit disruptive to the class. I don't blame him, since my discussions with him were somewhat sharp. 
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: stanley123 on June 21, 2013, 10:36:11 PM
"Bridges" = Ecumenical heresy.

I don't even walk or drive over bridges in general, because they're symbols of evil ecumenists.
Is there a difference among Orthodox about building bridges to non-Orthodox groups? For example, are the Antiochan Orthodox somewhat less inclined to ecumenical encounters than say the Greek or Romanian?
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Deep Roots on June 21, 2013, 10:59:57 PM
"Bridges" = Ecumenical heresy.

I don't even walk or drive over bridges in general, because they're symbols of evil ecumenists.
Is there a difference among Orthodox about building bridges to non-Orthodox groups? For example, are the Antiochan Orthodox somewhat less inclined to ecumenical encounters than say the Greek or Romanian?
i'd say it breaks down nicely between Orthodox on message boards who think they're theologians and Orthodox in the real world just doing their best to serve God.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: podkarpatska on June 21, 2013, 11:38:24 PM
"Bridges" = Ecumenical heresy.

I've been wondering what this so-called Pan-Heresy of Ecumenism really means since it doesn't seem to have any coherent contet. Thanks for clearing this up. It means bridges.

No bridges? People of Pittsburgh: you are so screwed.   ;)
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Peter J on June 24, 2013, 05:43:59 AM
Such happened to me when I asked if I could join his adult catechism class, which he said was not open to heretics.

ROFL! Awesome!
He said he would make an exception if the person had the serious intention of converting, which did not fit my case. I was only interested in learning and in discussions, which perhaps may have been thought to be a bit disruptive to the class. I don't blame him, since my discussions with him were somewhat sharp. 

Ah ... I guess the implication is that he sees you as a committed heretic. (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/hmmm.gif)
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Peter J on June 24, 2013, 05:45:03 AM
Anti-Catholic hardline Orthodox making fun of the Carpatho-Russians for their longtime latinizations and saying the Carpatho-Russians weren't really Orthodox because of them.

To be honest, I think the conflation of "Orthodoxy" with "Eastern-ness" is one of the things that troubles me most about Orthodoxy. (Not that I would necessarily become Orthodox in any case; I'm just saying.)

Yep.

Easternness in itself is great, but the anti-Westernism is a big turnoff. Catholicism doesn't tell Easterners to hate their heritage but rather to keep it (this is not always followed). Orthodoxy's obviously so conflicted about Westernness. (Western = you're not part of our empire = you're not the true church.) Its little Western Rite experiment usually gets as byzantinized as the Greek Catholics are self-latinized. The Antiochians' thing is more really Western and more honest about the Catholic connection. Old high Episcopalians and genuinely nice pro-Catholic folks, whom other Orthodox are suspicious of for that reason. Still, even there, the Mass is 'The Divine Liturgy of St Tikhon or St Gregory', etc. The ROCOR one's so byzantinized I don't know why they bother.

There's no doubt that latinizations of Eastern Catholics has been a tremendous handle for Orthodox to criticize Catholicism -- you know the "See? That shows us what they think of the East!" kind of rhetoric.

It's tough to know what to say about the byzantinization of WRO ...
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Peter J on June 24, 2013, 06:22:10 AM
It's pretty much because of attitudes expressed in this thread (for example) that I decided to remain Catholic. I do love the Orthodox Churches I've attended but even there, I've had to deal with so many people like "James" that I don't think I'd have the energy to do it on a regular basis. I'd always feel the need to defend the Catholic Church from unfair attacks, even if I left it. So I think I'll just stay where I am and keep asking God for mercy.  ;)

Well then, I am very sorry for you if this is truly the case as you describe it here.  It seems that you are letting bad Orthodox like us on this forum define your experience of Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Christianity in general.  If you are convinced that remaining in communion with Rome is the right thing to do, then surely it should come from a much more "positive" place in your heart than one that says "there are such uncharitable Orthodox here and there, therefore I will just stay where I am." 

Well, it's not an exact, black-and-white syllogism; but it does basically make sense ("there are such uncharitable Orthodox here and there, therefore I will just stay where I am" is an over-simplification) and it's in keeping with what we've been told: "By their fruits you will know them."
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: ErmyCath on June 24, 2013, 09:38:07 AM
Such happened to me when I asked if I could join his adult catechism class, which he said was not open to heretics.

ROFL! Awesome!
He said he would make an exception if the person had the serious intention of converting, which did not fit my case. I was only interested in learning and in discussions, which perhaps may have been thought to be a bit disruptive to the class. I don't blame him, since my discussions with him were somewhat sharp. 

Having taught (Roman) Catholic adult catechism classes (a.k.a. RCIA), I can understand his position. Having people there with no real desire to convert really hurts the process for those who are seeking to convert. Heck, I found having run-of-the-mill cradle Catholics present for the discussions hurt the process because they were often the worst at arguing with those of us who were simply trying to impart the "untainted" Faith!
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Peter J on June 24, 2013, 09:50:28 AM
Such happened to me when I asked if I could join his adult catechism class, which he said was not open to heretics.

ROFL! Awesome!
He said he would make an exception if the person had the serious intention of converting, which did not fit my case. I was only interested in learning and in discussions, which perhaps may have been thought to be a bit disruptive to the class. I don't blame him, since my discussions with him were somewhat sharp. 

Having taught (Roman) Catholic adult catechism classes (a.k.a. RCIA), I can understand his position. Having people there with no real desire to convert really hurts the process for those who are seeking to convert. Heck, I found having run-of-the-mill cradle Catholics present for the discussions hurt the process because they were often the worst at arguing with those of us who were simply trying to impart the "untainted" Faith!

I guess I basically agree. I just felt I needed to comment on his (the Orthodox priest's) way of putting it.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Peter J on June 24, 2013, 09:55:53 AM
Rather remarkable sometimes how traditional/conservative Catholics and Orthodox can relate to each other (and I guess this is one of the reasons I keep participating on this forum  :-\) while more liberal thinkers are all How-dare-you-say-that-such-and-such-belief-is-normative-in-our-communion.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: TheTrisagion on June 24, 2013, 10:02:41 AM
Such happened to me when I asked if I could join his adult catechism class, which he said was not open to heretics.

ROFL! Awesome!
He said he would make an exception if the person had the serious intention of converting, which did not fit my case. I was only interested in learning and in discussions, which perhaps may have been thought to be a bit disruptive to the class. I don't blame him, since my discussions with him were somewhat sharp. 
Well, I can understand why a priest would not necessarily want someone whose only reason for going to the catechumen's class was to argue with him.  I cannot speak to larger Orthodoxy, but the only people in my parish who I have ever heard making a disparaging comment towards RC are the converts from the RC tradition will sometimes call themselved recovering Catholics.  I have never heard our priest makes any disparaging comments and he sent his children to catholic school, so he must not hate them too much...
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Peter J on June 24, 2013, 10:14:54 AM
Such happened to me when I asked if I could join his adult catechism class, which he said was not open to heretics.

ROFL! Awesome!
He said he would make an exception if the person had the serious intention of converting, which did not fit my case. I was only interested in learning and in discussions, which perhaps may have been thought to be a bit disruptive to the class. I don't blame him, since my discussions with him were somewhat sharp. 
Well, I can understand why a priest would not necessarily want someone whose only reason for going to the catechumen's class was to argue with him.  I cannot speak to larger Orthodoxy, but the only people in my parish who I have ever heard making a disparaging comment towards RC are the converts from the RC tradition will sometimes call themselves recovering Catholics. 

Interesting. I've heard that phrase before (or more precisely, I saw a picture of a guy with a "Recovering Catholic" tee-shirt) but I would have associated it more with liberal ex-Catholics (probably with some mention of abuse-scandals).
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: The young fogey on June 24, 2013, 10:18:59 AM
Rather remarkable sometimes how traditional/conservative Catholics and Orthodox can relate to each other (and I guess this is one of the reasons I keep participating on this forum  :-\) while more liberal thinkers are all How-dare-you-say-that-such-and-such-belief-is-normative-in-our-communion.

Yeppers. Greeks and Russians are great. It's the anti-Western Westerners, pretending to be Eastern to look cool, who hate my guts.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: podkarpatska on June 24, 2013, 10:19:27 AM
Rather remarkable sometimes how traditional/conservative Catholics and Orthodox can relate to each other (and I guess this is one of the reasons I keep participating on this forum  :-\) while more liberal thinkers are all How-dare-you-say-that-such-and-such-belief-is-normative-in-our-communion.

But labels are usually inadequate to describe many of us. We don't all fit into a neat pigeon hole. And that priest may be unfairly maligned if he had "history" with the OP.  
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: TheTrisagion on June 24, 2013, 10:22:19 AM
Such happened to me when I asked if I could join his adult catechism class, which he said was not open to heretics.

ROFL! Awesome!
He said he would make an exception if the person had the serious intention of converting, which did not fit my case. I was only interested in learning and in discussions, which perhaps may have been thought to be a bit disruptive to the class. I don't blame him, since my discussions with him were somewhat sharp. 
Well, I can understand why a priest would not necessarily want someone whose only reason for going to the catechumen's class was to argue with him.  I cannot speak to larger Orthodoxy, but the only people in my parish who I have ever heard making a disparaging comment towards RC are the converts from the RC tradition will sometimes call themselves recovering Catholics. 

Interesting. I've heard that phrase before (or more precisely, I saw a picture of a guy with a "Recovering Catholic" tee-shirt) but I would have associated it more with liberal ex-Catholics (probably with some mention of abuse-scandals).

I never knew it was "a thing", but apparently it is.  Or at least, wikipedia says it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recovering_Catholic
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: The young fogey on June 24, 2013, 10:23:00 AM
Such happened to me when I asked if I could join his adult catechism class, which he said was not open to heretics.

ROFL! Awesome!
He said he would make an exception if the person had the serious intention of converting, which did not fit my case. I was only interested in learning and in discussions, which perhaps may have been thought to be a bit disruptive to the class. I don't blame him, since my discussions with him were somewhat sharp. 

Well, I can understand why a priest would not necessarily want someone whose only reason for going to the catechumen's class was to argue with him.  I cannot speak to larger Orthodoxy, but the only people in my parish who I have ever heard making a disparaging comment towards RC are the converts from the RC tradition will sometimes call themselves recovering Catholics. 

Interesting. I've heard that phrase before (or more precisely, I saw a picture of a guy with a "Recovering Catholic" tee-shirt) but I would have associated it more with liberal ex-Catholics (probably with some mention of abuse-scandals).

Thank you. You beat me to that punch. That crap from our anti-Catholic, Protestant turned politically correct culture is unworthy of Orthodoxy. Real Orthodox don't talk like that.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: podkarpatska on June 24, 2013, 10:29:50 AM
Such happened to me when I asked if I could join his adult catechism class, which he said was not open to heretics.

ROFL! Awesome!
He said he would make an exception if the person had the serious intention of converting, which did not fit my case. I was only interested in learning and in discussions, which perhaps may have been thought to be a bit disruptive to the class. I don't blame him, since my discussions with him were somewhat sharp. 

Well, I can understand why a priest would not necessarily want someone whose only reason for going to the catechumen's class was to argue with him.  I cannot speak to larger Orthodoxy, but the only people in my parish who I have ever heard making a disparaging comment towards RC are the converts from the RC tradition will sometimes call themselves recovering Catholics. 

Interesting. I've heard that phrase before (or more precisely, I saw a picture of a guy with a "Recovering Catholic" tee-shirt) but I would have associated it more with liberal ex-Catholics (probably with some mention of abuse-scandals).

Thank you. You beat me to that punch. That crap from our anti-Catholic, Protestant turned politically correct culture is unworthy of Orthodoxy. Real Orthodox don't talk like that.

On that, we agree.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: TheTrisagion on June 24, 2013, 10:36:41 AM
Well, I don't know what the guy who made the comment went through while in the RC church, so it isn't my place to call him out on it.  If he underwent physical or emotional abuse while he was RC, I can understand why he would make such a comment (not that I would endorse it, but I would understand).
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: The young fogey on June 24, 2013, 10:42:07 AM
Well, I don't know what the guy who made the comment went through while in the RC church, so it isn't my place to call him out on it.  If he underwent physical or emotional abuse while he was RC, I can understand why he would make such a comment (not that I would endorse it, but I would understand).

Yeah, but Orthodox picking up crap like that from secular culture to take swings at Catholicism is just pathetic. Again, thank God that Greeks and Russians don't do that. They've got lives, and are just happy being Greek or Russian.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Peter J on June 24, 2013, 10:46:14 AM
Interesting. I've heard that phrase before (or more precisely, I saw a picture of a guy with a "Recovering Catholic" tee-shirt) but I would have associated it more with liberal ex-Catholics (probably with some mention of abuse-scandals).

Well, I don't know what the guy who made the comment went through while in the RC church, so it isn't my place to call him out on it.  If he underwent physical or emotional abuse while he was RC, I can understand why he would make such a comment (not that I would endorse it, but I would understand).

Possibly. It was a picture in an article 10ish (?) years ago, about RC abuse scandals. So there was certainly a connection being drawn, but I don't think it specified whether that was a picture of a grown-up abuse victim.

I'm a little surprised to see (from Wiki) that the term "Recovering Catholic" has been around since the 80s. (Well, not too surprised.)
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Peter J on June 24, 2013, 10:50:46 AM
Well, I don't know what the guy who made the comment went through while in the RC church, so it isn't my place to call him out on it.  If he underwent physical or emotional abuse while he was RC, I can understand why he would make such a comment (not that I would endorse it, but I would understand).

Yeah, but Orthodox picking up crap like that from secular culture to take swings at Catholicism is just pathetic. Again, thank God that Greeks and Russians don't do that. They've got lives, and are just happy being Greek or Russian.

Right. Jumping on the scandal-bandwagon is just a little too popular, if you ask me.

Although I guess it should be pointed out that the Orthodox people in question may not have known it was crap from secular culture.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: The young fogey on June 24, 2013, 10:59:19 AM
Well, I don't know what the guy who made the comment went through while in the RC church, so it isn't my place to call him out on it.  If he underwent physical or emotional abuse while he was RC, I can understand why he would make such a comment (not that I would endorse it, but I would understand).

Yeah, but Orthodox picking up crap like that from secular culture to take swings at Catholicism is just pathetic. Again, thank God that Greeks and Russians don't do that. They've got lives, and are just happy being Greek or Russian.

Right. Jumping on the scandal-bandwagon is just a little too popular, if you ask me.

Although I guess it should be pointed out that the Orthodox people in question may not have known it was crap from secular culture.

Right, too popular, for the wrong reason.

The people in the story using it aren't born Orthodox; they're ex-Catholics who sound just like ex-Catholics who become Episcopalians to be gay or, more common, divorced and remarried (fitting for Henry VIII's church), or just become secular.

Which ties into an unflattering theory of mine about convertodoxy, that it's a manifestation of modern secular liberal America's (rich Northern whites) fetish for 'diversity', exoticism, anything but the old white America, which they call stupid and boring. ('Catholic is so ordinary, and pre-Vatican II of course was even stupider and more evil, the Pope being a Nazi and all that.') The same reason hippies flirted with Hinduism and Buddhism. It doesn't matter that Orthodoxy's relatively conservative; Muslims get a free pass too.

Not a knock on ethnic born Orthodox, but on the anti-Western Westerners who try to ape them.

Second-, third-, and fourth-generation American Orthodox are Americans. They'd know where it comes from.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: TheTrisagion on June 24, 2013, 11:07:12 AM
Well, I don't know what the guy who made the comment went through while in the RC church, so it isn't my place to call him out on it.  If he underwent physical or emotional abuse while he was RC, I can understand why he would make such a comment (not that I would endorse it, but I would understand).

Yeah, but Orthodox picking up crap like that from secular culture to take swings at Catholicism is just pathetic. Again, thank God that Greeks and Russians don't do that. They've got lives, and are just happy being Greek or Russian.

Right. Jumping on the scandal-bandwagon is just a little too popular, if you ask me.

Although I guess it should be pointed out that the Orthodox people in question may not have known it was crap from secular culture.

Right, too popular, for the wrong reason.

The people in the story using it aren't born Orthodox; they're ex-Catholics who sound just like ex-Catholics who become Episcopalians to be gay or, more common, divorced and remarried (fitting for Henry VIII's church), or just become secular.

Which ties into an unflattering theory of mine about convertodoxy, that it's a manifestation of modern secular liberal America's (rich Northern whites) fetish for 'diversity', exoticism, anything but the old white America, which they call stupid and boring. ('Catholic is so ordinary, and pre-Vatican II of course was even stupider and more evil, the Pope being a Nazi and all that.') The same reason hippies flirted with Hinduism and Buddhism. It doesn't matter that Orthodoxy's relatively conservative; Muslims get a free pass too.

Not a knock on ethnic born Orthodox, but on the anti-Western Westerners who try to ape them.

Second-, third-, and fourth-generation American Orthodox are Americans. They'd know where it comes from.

Not sure if you are refering to the guy in my parish, but that is an AWFUL lot of assuming to make about some guy who you have never met...

But continue on with your theories.  There could be another explanation of course. Maybe God is drawing people to His Church.  I'm sure that is too simplistic of an explanation though, so we can go with yours.   :(
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Peter J on June 24, 2013, 11:12:50 AM
Well, I don't know what the guy who made the comment went through while in the RC church, so it isn't my place to call him out on it.  If he underwent physical or emotional abuse while he was RC, I can understand why he would make such a comment (not that I would endorse it, but I would understand).

Yeah, but Orthodox picking up crap like that from secular culture to take swings at Catholicism is just pathetic. Again, thank God that Greeks and Russians don't do that. They've got lives, and are just happy being Greek or Russian.

Right. Jumping on the scandal-bandwagon is just a little too popular, if you ask me.

Although I guess it should be pointed out that the Orthodox people in question may not have known it was crap from secular culture.

Right, too popular, for the wrong reason.

The people in the story using it aren't born Orthodox; they're ex-Catholics who sound just like ex-Catholics who become Episcopalians to be gay or, more common, divorced and remarried (fitting for Henry VIII's church), or just become secular.

Meh ... I don't know if I would make too much of that sounds-just-like. Many things appear similar on the surface, but are really pretty different.

(Although I'll admit I was probably wrong with the not-knowing-where-it-came-from.)

Which ties into an unflattering theory of mine about convertodoxy, that it's a manifestation of modern secular liberal America's (rich Northern whites) fetish for 'diversity', exoticism, anything but the old white America, which they call stupid and boring. ('Catholic is so ordinary, and pre-Vatican II of course was even stupider and more evil, the Pope being a Nazi and all that.') The same reason hippies flirted with Hinduism and Buddhism. It doesn't matter that Orthodoxy's relatively conservative; Muslims get a free pass too.

I can't really say that fits with my experience of ex-Catholic Orthodox.

Of course, I generally don't expect ex-Catholic Orthodox to have a very positive view of Catholicism ... if they did, then why convert?
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: The young fogey on June 24, 2013, 11:22:04 AM
I can't buy that the true faith would be landlocked in Eastern Europe for 300+ years. Orthodoxy will never be a majority here. Catholicism almost got there.

I was going to say: there aren't that many ex-Catholic Orthodox. The convert boomlet, which seems on the wane (it's not as hip among evangelicals as it was about 10-15 years ago), was ex-evangelicals and conservative high-church ex-Episcopalians.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Schultz on June 24, 2013, 11:25:53 AM
Well, I don't know what the guy who made the comment went through while in the RC church, so it isn't my place to call him out on it.  If he underwent physical or emotional abuse while he was RC, I can understand why he would make such a comment (not that I would endorse it, but I would understand).

Yeah, but Orthodox picking up crap like that from secular culture to take swings at Catholicism is just pathetic. Again, thank God that Greeks and Russians don't do that. They've got lives, and are just happy being Greek or Russian.

Right. Jumping on the scandal-bandwagon is just a little too popular, if you ask me.

Although I guess it should be pointed out that the Orthodox people in question may not have known it was crap from secular culture.

Right, too popular, for the wrong reason.

The people in the story using it aren't born Orthodox; they're ex-Catholics who sound just like ex-Catholics who become Episcopalians to be gay or, more common, divorced and remarried (fitting for Henry VIII's church), or just become secular.

Meh ... I don't know if I would make too much of that sounds-just-like. Many things appear similar on the surface, but are really pretty different.

(Although I'll admit I was probably wrong with the not-knowing-where-it-came-from.)

Which ties into an unflattering theory of mine about convertodoxy, that it's a manifestation of modern secular liberal America's (rich Northern whites) fetish for 'diversity', exoticism, anything but the old white America, which they call stupid and boring. ('Catholic is so ordinary, and pre-Vatican II of course was even stupider and more evil, the Pope being a Nazi and all that.') The same reason hippies flirted with Hinduism and Buddhism. It doesn't matter that Orthodoxy's relatively conservative; Muslims get a free pass too.

I can't really say that fits with my experience of ex-Catholic Orthodox.

Of course, I generally don't expect ex-Catholic Orthodox to have a very positive view of Catholicism ... if they did, then why convert?

I can only speak for myself.  I converted for one reason: the role of the papacy.  There are certain "unessential" things I do as an Orthodox Christian that I feel bring me closer to God, but, in the end, it was basically Vatican I.  Kind of an "Aha!" moment that, once experienced, I could not forget nor ignore.

I'd like to think that I don't have a bone to pick with Catholicism; indeed, I'd like to think my track record here, at least, paints me as somewhat of a defender against the claims of people who have no idea what they're talking about.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: The young fogey on June 24, 2013, 11:30:47 AM
Well, I don't know what the guy who made the comment went through while in the RC church, so it isn't my place to call him out on it.  If he underwent physical or emotional abuse while he was RC, I can understand why he would make such a comment (not that I would endorse it, but I would understand).

Yeah, but Orthodox picking up crap like that from secular culture to take swings at Catholicism is just pathetic. Again, thank God that Greeks and Russians don't do that. They've got lives, and are just happy being Greek or Russian.

Right. Jumping on the scandal-bandwagon is just a little too popular, if you ask me.

Although I guess it should be pointed out that the Orthodox people in question may not have known it was crap from secular culture.

Right, too popular, for the wrong reason.

The people in the story using it aren't born Orthodox; they're ex-Catholics who sound just like ex-Catholics who become Episcopalians to be gay or, more common, divorced and remarried (fitting for Henry VIII's church), or just become secular.

Meh ... I don't know if I would make too much of that sounds-just-like. Many things appear similar on the surface, but are really pretty different.

(Although I'll admit I was probably wrong with the not-knowing-where-it-came-from.)

Which ties into an unflattering theory of mine about convertodoxy, that it's a manifestation of modern secular liberal America's (rich Northern whites) fetish for 'diversity', exoticism, anything but the old white America, which they call stupid and boring. ('Catholic is so ordinary, and pre-Vatican II of course was even stupider and more evil, the Pope being a Nazi and all that.') The same reason hippies flirted with Hinduism and Buddhism. It doesn't matter that Orthodoxy's relatively conservative; Muslims get a free pass too.

I can't really say that fits with my experience of ex-Catholic Orthodox.

Of course, I generally don't expect ex-Catholic Orthodox to have a very positive view of Catholicism ... if they did, then why convert?

I can only speak for myself.  I converted for one reason: the role of the papacy.  There are certain "unessential" things I do as an Orthodox Christian that I feel bring me closer to God, but, in the end, it was basically Vatican I.  Kind of an "Aha!" moment that, once experienced, I could not forget nor ignore.

I'd like to think that I don't have a bone to pick with Catholicism; indeed, I'd like to think my track record here, at least, paints me as somewhat of a defender against the claims of people who have no idea what they're talking about.

I can respectfully disagree with you. Because that's the only real difference between the two sides. The principled old high-church Anglicans such as the Tractarians believed the same about the matter. (I really think they feared that in 150 years we'd have the opposite of what we have: the Episcopal Church would be good patristic conservatives while the Catholic Church with Commander Cuckoo Bananas in charge would have women priests, gay marriage, and unitarianism.) Sorry to see you go, but good luck.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: podkarpatska on June 24, 2013, 11:32:17 AM
Well, I don't know what the guy who made the comment went through while in the RC church, so it isn't my place to call him out on it.  If he underwent physical or emotional abuse while he was RC, I can understand why he would make such a comment (not that I would endorse it, but I would understand).

Yeah, but Orthodox picking up crap like that from secular culture to take swings at Catholicism is just pathetic. Again, thank God that Greeks and Russians don't do that. They've got lives, and are just happy being Greek or Russian.

Right. Jumping on the scandal-bandwagon is just a little too popular, if you ask me.

Although I guess it should be pointed out that the Orthodox people in question may not have known it was crap from secular culture.

Right, too popular, for the wrong reason.

The people in the story using it aren't born Orthodox; they're ex-Catholics who sound just like ex-Catholics who become Episcopalians to be gay or, more common, divorced and remarried (fitting for Henry VIII's church), or just become secular.

Meh ... I don't know if I would make too much of that sounds-just-like. Many things appear similar on the surface, but are really pretty different.

(Although I'll admit I was probably wrong with the not-knowing-where-it-came-from.)

Which ties into an unflattering theory of mine about convertodoxy, that it's a manifestation of modern secular liberal America's (rich Northern whites) fetish for 'diversity', exoticism, anything but the old white America, which they call stupid and boring. ('Catholic is so ordinary, and pre-Vatican II of course was even stupider and more evil, the Pope being a Nazi and all that.') The same reason hippies flirted with Hinduism and Buddhism. It doesn't matter that Orthodoxy's relatively conservative; Muslims get a free pass too.

I can't really say that fits with my experience of ex-Catholic Orthodox.

Of course, I generally don't expect ex-Catholic Orthodox to have a very positive view of Catholicism ... if they did, then why convert?

I can only speak for myself.  I converted for one reason: the role of the papacy.  There are certain "unessential" things I do as an Orthodox Christian that I feel bring me closer to God, but, in the end, it was basically Vatican I.  Kind of an "Aha!" moment that, once experienced, I could not forget nor ignore.

I'd like to think that I don't have a bone to pick with Catholicism; indeed, I'd like to think my track record here, at least, paints me as somewhat of a defender against the claims of people who have no idea what they're talking about.

I agree with Schultz and I view my role here in much the same way. Having a "foot in both worlds" gives one a different pov. Sometimes a myopic one, but I think in most cases a broader view. My family's bone to pick was likewise the result of Vatican One and its misapplication of, and defining in explicit terms, the role of the Papacy.

Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: The young fogey on June 24, 2013, 11:42:55 AM
I agree with Schultz and I view my role here in much the same way. Having a "foot in both worlds" gives one a different pov. Sometimes a myopic one, but I think in most cases a broader view. My family's bone to pick was likewise the result of Vatican One and its misapplication of, and defining in explicit terms, the role of the Papacy.

It sure does. So did your family recently decide Vatican I isn't true and convert (possible), or are you Slavic so your family was part of the ACROD split?  (Which never should have happened, was nothing to do with doctrine, and was our own churchmen's fault. Come home, ACROD – I love you and miss you.)
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Cyrillic on June 24, 2013, 11:53:01 AM
Come home, ACROD – I love you and miss you.

ACROD returned home.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Cyrillic on June 24, 2013, 12:11:19 PM
I can't buy that the true faith would be landlocked in Eastern Europe for 300+ years. Orthodoxy will never be a majority here. Catholicism almost got there.

If one accepts that Roman Catholicism is the true religion one has to accept that the true faith was limited to Western Europe for 500 years.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: The young fogey on June 24, 2013, 12:17:32 PM
Come home, ACROD – I love you and miss you.

ACROD returned home.

Of course the Orthodox say that; only makes sense given your doctrine. (Like we'd say the Ukrainian Catholic Church returned.)

That said, as I've learned from talking to people whose families lived it, because this event is still in living memory, the truth was this. Until about 80 years ago, Ruthenians were Catholic but didn't strongly identify as such, at least among the laity. Church was familial and ethnic; po-nashomu, 'our way'. So although their church had lots of Western Catholic stuff adopted over the years, they didn't see themselves in sectarian or jurisdictional terms.

The people and especially the priests, who were of course schooled in theology by the Catholic Church, so they felt more Catholic, didn't really want to leave. The priests tried several times to appeal to Rome. All the priests and people really wanted was for things to stay the same. A conservative Slavic trait.

The Greeks gave them a good deal, pretty much giving them what they wanted, to be left alone to do what they'd always done. So by their own admission they didn't so much 'return home' or 'convert to Orthodoxy' as 'turn' to Orthodoxy as a refuge to protect their patrimony: po-nashomu, latinizations and all.

Not exactly what Conciliar Press or Ancient Faith Radio wants to hear.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: The young fogey on June 24, 2013, 12:21:27 PM
I can't buy that the true faith would be landlocked in Eastern Europe for 300+ years. Orthodoxy will never be a majority here. Catholicism almost got there.

If one accepts that Roman Catholicism is the true religion one has to accept that the true faith was limited to Western Europe for 500 years.

Catholicism missionized South America and, to a lesser degree, North America, becoming America's biggest single church, and tried to evangelize the African countries (with some success), China, Japan, and India.

Your move.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Cyrillic on June 24, 2013, 12:22:52 PM
Like we'd say the Ukrainian Catholic Church returned.

Ukraine was under the Patriarchate of Constantinople even before the schism.







Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Cyrillic on June 24, 2013, 12:26:49 PM
I can't buy that the true faith would be landlocked in Eastern Europe for 300+ years. Orthodoxy will never be a majority here. Catholicism almost got there.

If one accepts that Roman Catholicism is the true religion one has to accept that the true faith was limited to Western Europe for 500 years.

Catholicism missionized South America and, to a lesser degree, North America, becoming America's biggest single church, and tried to evangelize the African countries (with some success), China, Japan, and India.

Your move.

Oh lol, should I  excuse myself because the Orthodox didn't force their religion at gunpoint on the natives? Why not make another addition to the creed to reflect this new mark of the Church: I believe in one, holy, catholic, apostolic and colonialist Church. Development of doctrine and all that.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: The young fogey on June 24, 2013, 12:29:40 PM
Like we'd say the Ukrainian Catholic Church returned.

Ukraine was under the Patriarchate of Constantinople even before the schism.

Yes, as it remained throughout the Middle Ages until the Union of Brest-Litovsk. It was the Kiev metropolia, arguably the main see of Russian Christianity all that time, before the rise of Moscow. A whole Particular Church, as Catholicism says, that came back to the fullness of the church, given Catholicism's doctrine about the papacy. Orthodox opinion, of course, sees it as the opposite, that they left the true church.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Cyrillic on June 24, 2013, 12:31:46 PM
The Metropolitan of Kiev was a suffragan of Constantinople. Hardly a 'particular Church'.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: The young fogey on June 24, 2013, 12:32:49 PM
I can't buy that the true faith would be landlocked in Eastern Europe for 300+ years. Orthodoxy will never be a majority here. Catholicism almost got there.

If one accepts that Roman Catholicism is the true religion one has to accept that the true faith was limited to Western Europe for 500 years.

Catholicism missionized South America and, to a lesser degree, North America, becoming America's biggest single church, and tried to evangelize the African countries (with some success), China, Japan, and India.

Your move.

Oh lol, should I  excuse myself because the Orthodox didn't force their religion at gunpoint on the natives? Why not make another addition to the creed to reflect this new mark of the Church: I believe in one, holy, catholic, apostolic and colonialist Church. Development of doctrine and all that.

Lines like this reinforce my unflattering theory about anti-Western Western convertodoxy. It's just exoticism like the New Agers learning Buddhist sutras, with this politically correct posturing about dead white males.

So the Russians were meek little lambs all that time, being nice to the natives around them rather than conquering them?
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: ialmisry on June 24, 2013, 12:33:01 PM
Like we'd say the Ukrainian Catholic Church returned.

Ukraine was under the Patriarchate of Constantinople even before the schism.

Yes, as it remained throughout the Middle Ages until the Union of Brest-Litovsk. It was the Kiev metropolia, arguably the main see of Russian Christianity all that time, before the rise of Moscow. A whole Particular Church, as Catholicism says, that came back to the fullness of the church, given Catholicism's doctrine about the papacy. Orthodox opinion, of course, sees it as the opposite, that they left the true church.
the fact that the UGCC has to falsify its history-Kiev was never in "dependence" on Rome, and that was by a conscious choice on Kiev's part-shows who is on the right side of that question.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: The young fogey on June 24, 2013, 12:34:16 PM
The Metropolitan of Kiev was a suffragan of Constantinople. Hardly a 'particular Church'.

In  any event, according to Catholicism he and his whole metropolia, then not only the Ukraine but Byelorussia, returned to the church, and according to Orthodoxy he left the church.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: ialmisry on June 24, 2013, 12:36:19 PM
I can't buy that the true faith would be landlocked in Eastern Europe for 300+ years. Orthodoxy will never be a majority here. Catholicism almost got there.

If one accepts that Roman Catholicism is the true religion one has to accept that the true faith was limited to Western Europe for 500 years.

Catholicism missionized South America and, to a lesser degree, North America, becoming America's biggest single church, and tried to evangelize the African countries (with some success), China, Japan, and India.

Your move.

Oh lol, should I  excuse myself because the Orthodox didn't force their religion at gunpoint on the natives? Why not make another addition to the creed to reflect this new mark of the Church: I believe in one, holy, catholic, apostolic and colonialist Church. Development of doctrine and all that.

Lines like this reinforce my unflattering theory about anti-Western Western convertodoxy. It's just exoticism like the New Agers learning Buddhist sutras, with this politically correct posturing about dead white males.

So the Russians were meek little lambs all that time, being nice to the natives around them rather than conquering them?
Well, more of the natives embraced Orthodoxy once the Americans came, than had under the Czars (the Tlingit in particular).

All the histories I have read on the Bay Area contrasts the Russians with the Spanish treatment of the natives, and not to the latter's favor.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Cyrillic on June 24, 2013, 12:39:00 PM
Lines like this reinforce my unflattering theory about anti-Western Western convertodoxy. It's just exoticism like the New Agers learning Buddhist sutras, with this politically correct posturing about dead white males.

I'm not whining about colonialism nor am I anti-western. I just think that theories like 'we have more people so we are the true Church' are ignorant, especially since the Nestorian Church of the East was at one point the biggest communion and was spread throughout a larger part of the world than the Roman Catholic Church was back then.

The vast majority of the adherents to Roman Catholicism is found in parts of the world in which the ancestors of the locals were converted through very questionable means. Hardly something to be proud of. But hey, thinking that makes me an anti-western new age stoner reciting sutras while playing the banjo at a campfire.

EDIT: LOL, was I called political correct? That's hilarious.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: The young fogey on June 24, 2013, 12:41:08 PM
I can't buy that the true faith would be landlocked in Eastern Europe for 300+ years. Orthodoxy will never be a majority here. Catholicism almost got there.

If one accepts that Roman Catholicism is the true religion one has to accept that the true faith was limited to Western Europe for 500 years.

Catholicism missionized South America and, to a lesser degree, North America, becoming America's biggest single church, and tried to evangelize the African countries (with some success), China, Japan, and India.

Your move.

Oh lol, should I  excuse myself because the Orthodox didn't force their religion at gunpoint on the natives? Why not make another addition to the creed to reflect this new mark of the Church: I believe in one, holy, catholic, apostolic and colonialist Church. Development of doctrine and all that.

Lines like this reinforce my unflattering theory about anti-Western Western convertodoxy. It's just exoticism like the New Agers learning Buddhist sutras, with this politically correct posturing about dead white males.

So the Russians were meek little lambs all that time, being nice to the natives around them rather than conquering them?
Well, more of the natives embraced Orthodoxy once the Americans came, than had under the Czars (the Tlingit in particular).

All the histories I have read on the Bay Area contrasts the Russians with the Spanish treatment of the natives, and not to the latter's favor.

Yeah, I guess that's why by 1950 Orthodox were America's biggest religious minority and biggest single church, and all American Indians had become Orthodox.  ::)
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: ialmisry on June 24, 2013, 12:42:39 PM
The Metropolitan of Kiev was a suffragan of Constantinople. Hardly a 'particular Church'.

In  any event, according to Catholicism he and his whole metropolia, then not only the Ukraine but Byelorussia, returned to the church, and according to Orthodoxy he left the church.
Whole metropolia? Hardly.  Kiev-where he metropolitan had not been for centuries, and wouldn't until Met. St. Peter Movila came to consolidate Orthodoxy-remained staunchly Orthodoxy, and the of L'viv-craddle of the UGCC-remained true to Orthodoxy, supported by the Abbot of the Kievan Caves.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Nephi on June 24, 2013, 12:43:06 PM
the Nestorian Church of the East was at one point the biggest communion and was spread throughout a larger part of the world than the Roman Catholic Church was back then.

I found it fascinating that a decent part of the Mongols (leadership, at least) were, for a time, Nestorian.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: ialmisry on June 24, 2013, 12:43:46 PM
I can't buy that the true faith would be landlocked in Eastern Europe for 300+ years. Orthodoxy will never be a majority here. Catholicism almost got there.

If one accepts that Roman Catholicism is the true religion one has to accept that the true faith was limited to Western Europe for 500 years.

Catholicism missionized South America and, to a lesser degree, North America, becoming America's biggest single church, and tried to evangelize the African countries (with some success), China, Japan, and India.

Your move.

Oh lol, should I  excuse myself because the Orthodox didn't force their religion at gunpoint on the natives? Why not make another addition to the creed to reflect this new mark of the Church: I believe in one, holy, catholic, apostolic and colonialist Church. Development of doctrine and all that.

Lines like this reinforce my unflattering theory about anti-Western Western convertodoxy. It's just exoticism like the New Agers learning Buddhist sutras, with this politically correct posturing about dead white males.

So the Russians were meek little lambs all that time, being nice to the natives around them rather than conquering them?
Well, more of the natives embraced Orthodoxy once the Americans came, than had under the Czars (the Tlingit in particular).

All the histories I have read on the Bay Area contrasts the Russians with the Spanish treatment of the natives, and not to the latter's favor.

Yeah, I guess that's why by 1950 Orthodox were America's biggest religious minority and biggest single church, and all American Indians had become Orthodox.  ::)
Because the Russians didn't engage in genocide, like the Spanish, Mexicans and Americans, yes.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: podkarpatska on June 24, 2013, 12:43:53 PM
I agree with Schultz and I view my role here in much the same way. Having a "foot in both worlds" gives one a different pov. Sometimes a myopic one, but I think in most cases a broader view. My family's bone to pick was likewise the result of Vatican One and its misapplication of, and defining in explicit terms, the role of the Papacy.

It sure does. So did your family recently decide Vatican I isn't true and convert (possible), or are you Slavic so your family was part of the ACROD split?  (Which never should have happened, was nothing to do with doctrine, and was our own churchmen's fault. Come home, ACROD – I love you and miss you.)

My grandfather had a dream in his latter years. Of course he did not have any  theological insight about Vatican 1. Others of that era did however, such as the Vatican, Presov and Yale educated Orthodox priest,  Fr. Joe Mihaly (read his legal briefs and trial testimony in the Bridgeport and Binghamton court cases if you don't believe me), a young John Yurcisin,(who went on to be Father John, chancellor of the ACROD), and Fr. Orestes Koman, of the Greek Catholic Union messenger in the 1930s, who remained Greek Catholic,  both also understood the logical result of the dogmatic determinations of the ill fated western council. Just read their editorials and columns prior to the rug being pulled out from under them.

But in his dream, he would have Pope John XXIII come to my grandfather and say, "Come home, Joe." My grandfather would reply, "You go your way, Janku, I go mine!"

We are home, no need to go anywhere.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: The young fogey on June 24, 2013, 12:59:24 PM
I agree with Schultz and I view my role here in much the same way. Having a "foot in both worlds" gives one a different pov. Sometimes a myopic one, but I think in most cases a broader view. My family's bone to pick was likewise the result of Vatican One and its misapplication of, and defining in explicit terms, the role of the Papacy.

It sure does. So did your family recently decide Vatican I isn't true and convert (possible), or are you Slavic so your family was part of the ACROD split?  (Which never should have happened, was nothing to do with doctrine, and was our own churchmen's fault. Come home, ACROD – I love you and miss you.)

My grandfather had a dream in his latter years. Of course he did not have any  theological insight about Vatican 1. Others of that era did however, such as the Vatican, Presov and Yale educated Orthodox priest,  Fr. Joe Mihaly (read his legal briefs and trial testimony in the Bridgeport and Binghamton court cases if you don't believe me), a young John Yurcisin,(who went on to be Father John, chancellor of the ACROD), and Fr. Orestes Koman, of the Greek Catholic Union messenger in the 1930s, who remained Greek Catholic,  both also understood the logical result of the dogmatic determinations of the ill fated western council. Just read their editorials and columns prior to the rug being pulled out from under them.

Understandable reaction given how they were treated but still ex post facto rationalizations in my book.

From what little I know about them, the property fights in court sometimes used unbelievably un-Catholic, un-Orthodox arguments to deny the churches were really Catholic parishes, making them sound like congregational Protestants or social clubs that happened to have prayer services. (I have no problem with trustee-ism, parish ownership of property, and sympathize with the Greek Catholics doing it; the Roman Riters were hostile to them so they needed to protect themselves.) I understand St Michael's, Binghamton kept its building because the judge was a hardline old-school Presbyterian, which made him anti-Catholic, so he gladly flouted the law in order to hurt the church. The Episcopalians locally often abetted the schism too (as they did here in Phoenixville); one of their longtime projects has been to try to separate Catholic immigrants from Rome (now it's 'Hispanic outreach').

Then you also had the court fights that were jurisdictional wars among Orthodox, such as when priests and parishes jumped dioceses, shopping for a bishop, for a number of reasons, from ethnic to personality clashes to fights over the Old Calendar and the language of the services. Congregationalism.

But in his dream, he would have Pope John XXIII come to my grandfather and say, "Come home, Joe." My grandfather would reply, "You go your way, Janku, I go mine!"

And that, to me, as you doubtless can imagine, is unspeakably sad.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Mor Ephrem on June 24, 2013, 12:59:57 PM
Catholicism...tried to evangelize the African countries (with some success), China, Japan, and India.

Your move.

Not the best example to bring up, unless "tried" and "to evangelize" are euphemisms for ecclesioterrorism.  
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: ialmisry on June 24, 2013, 01:08:06 PM
I thought the Orthodox Church was already Catholic

To quote myself:

I have no reason to leave the Catholic Church, although I have every reason to be in the Orthodox Church.

This is only true if you equate the Vatican confession with "the Catholic Church."

Your fellow Orthodox have told us not to use "Roman Catholic", or at any rate not to include Eastern Catholics in that designation.

As I've written, theologically,the East is a kind of Catholicism; the Georgian and Armenian patriarchs are the Catholicos. But in Moscow and Athens, if you asked a cabbie to take you to the nearest Catholic church, he would not take you to the nearest Orthodox church. In Russian, Russians are православные; католики are foreigners.
In Russian, the Catholics, i.e. us, are Соборни or Вселенски.  The католики are foreigners, to Russia and the Church.

Telling the Vatican had to appropriate a Greek term to try to call itself.  The Greeks aren't fooled: you are φρανκοι.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: The young fogey on June 24, 2013, 01:09:19 PM
Catholicism...tried to evangelize the African countries (with some success), China, Japan, and India.

Your move.

Not the best example to bring up, unless "tried" and "to evangelize" are euphemisms for ecclesioterrorism.  

I'm not saying the conquistadors, colonizers in India, et al. were saints but again I feel like I'm reading some lefty academic's screed against dead white males.

By the way the Aztecs were horrible; the other natives hated them. Thank God Cortez replaced human sacrifice with the Mass. Spanish America is a quarter of my heritage.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Cyrillic on June 24, 2013, 01:13:20 PM
The Greeks aren't fooled: you are φρανκοι.

Φράγκοι actually. But παπισται, καθολικοί and ουνίτες seem to be more popular nowadays. Or at least those are the terms employed in those belligerent pamphlets that are published by the Greek theological brotherhoods.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: The young fogey on June 24, 2013, 01:14:01 PM
I thought the Orthodox Church was already Catholic

To quote myself:

I have no reason to leave the Catholic Church, although I have every reason to be in the Orthodox Church.

This is only true if you equate the Vatican confession with "the Catholic Church."

Your fellow Orthodox have told us not to use "Roman Catholic", or at any rate not to include Eastern Catholics in that designation.

As I've written, theologically,the East is a kind of Catholicism; the Georgian and Armenian patriarchs are the Catholicos. But in Moscow and Athens, if you asked a cabbie to take you to the nearest Catholic church, he would not take you to the nearest Orthodox church. In Russian, Russians are православные; католики are foreigners.
In Russian, the Catholics, i.e. us, are Соборни or Вселенски.  The католики are foreigners, to Russia and the Church.

Telling the Vatican had to appropriate a Greek term to try to call itself.  The Greeks aren't fooled: you are φρανκοι.

Nobody gets into a Russian cab and asks to go to the соборная or вселенская церковь. Nor asks an Athens cabbie to take him to the Frankish Church.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: ialmisry on June 24, 2013, 01:15:16 PM
Catholicism...tried to evangelize the African countries (with some success), China, Japan, and India.

Your move.

Not the best example to bring up, unless "tried" and "to evangelize" are euphemisms for ecclesioterrorism.  

I'm not saying the conquistadors, colonizers in India, et al. were saints but again I feel like I'm reading some lefty academic's screed against dead white males.

By the way the Aztecs were horrible; the other natives hated them.
and yet the Spanish used Nahuatl' (the Aztecs' language) for their seminary system for the natives.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: ialmisry on June 24, 2013, 01:16:22 PM
I thought the Orthodox Church was already Catholic

To quote myself:

I have no reason to leave the Catholic Church, although I have every reason to be in the Orthodox Church.

This is only true if you equate the Vatican confession with "the Catholic Church."

Your fellow Orthodox have told us not to use "Roman Catholic", or at any rate not to include Eastern Catholics in that designation.

As I've written, theologically,the East is a kind of Catholicism; the Georgian and Armenian patriarchs are the Catholicos. But in Moscow and Athens, if you asked a cabbie to take you to the nearest Catholic church, he would not take you to the nearest Orthodox church. In Russian, Russians are православные; католики are foreigners.
In Russian, the Catholics, i.e. us, are Соборни or Вселенски.  The католики are foreigners, to Russia and the Church.

Telling the Vatican had to appropriate a Greek term to try to call itself.  The Greeks aren't fooled: you are φρανκοι.

Nobody gets into a Russian cab and asks to go to the соборная or вселенская церковь. Nor asks an Athens cabbie to take him to the Frankish Church.
You stating that from experience, or conjecture?

Of course, if you are letting a cabby pick your church, you have other problems.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: The young fogey on June 24, 2013, 01:16:45 PM
Catholicism...tried to evangelize the African countries (with some success), China, Japan, and India.

Your move.

Not the best example to bring up, unless "tried" and "to evangelize" are euphemisms for ecclesioterrorism.  

I'm not saying the conquistadors, colonizers in India, et al. were saints but again I feel like I'm reading some lefty academic's screed against dead white males.

By the way the Aztecs were horrible; the other natives hated them.
and yet the Spanish used Nahuatl' (the Aztecs' language) for their seminary system for the natives.

That they had a seminary system for them shows they weren't evil.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: The young fogey on June 24, 2013, 01:17:58 PM
I thought the Orthodox Church was already Catholic

To quote myself:

I have no reason to leave the Catholic Church, although I have every reason to be in the Orthodox Church.

This is only true if you equate the Vatican confession with "the Catholic Church."

Your fellow Orthodox have told us not to use "Roman Catholic", or at any rate not to include Eastern Catholics in that designation.

As I've written, theologically,the East is a kind of Catholicism; the Georgian and Armenian patriarchs are the Catholicos. But in Moscow and Athens, if you asked a cabbie to take you to the nearest Catholic church, he would not take you to the nearest Orthodox church. In Russian, Russians are православные; католики are foreigners.
In Russian, the Catholics, i.e. us, are Соборни or Вселенски.  The католики are foreigners, to Russia and the Church.

Telling the Vatican had to appropriate a Greek term to try to call itself.  The Greeks aren't fooled: you are φρανκοι.

Nobody gets into a Russian cab and asks to go to the соборная or вселенская церковь. Nor asks an Athens cabbie to take him to the Frankish Church.
You stating that from experience, or conjecture.

Of course, if you are letting a cabby pick your church, you have other problems.

Conjecture. What's your experience in Greece or Russia, if any? The Russians I used to know would have rightly thought this semantic game was silly.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: ialmisry on June 24, 2013, 01:19:11 PM
Catholicism...tried to evangelize the African countries (with some success), China, Japan, and India.

Your move.

Not the best example to bring up, unless "tried" and "to evangelize" are euphemisms for ecclesioterrorism.  

I'm not saying the conquistadors, colonizers in India, et al. were saints but again I feel like I'm reading some lefty academic's screed against dead white males.

By the way the Aztecs were horrible; the other natives hated them.
and yet the Spanish used Nahuatl' (the Aztecs' language) for their seminary system for the natives.

That they had a seminary system for them shows they weren't evil.
Mao had quite a (re)education system.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: TheTrisagion on June 24, 2013, 01:21:05 PM
Catholicism...tried to evangelize the African countries (with some success), China, Japan, and India.

Your move.

Not the best example to bring up, unless "tried" and "to evangelize" are euphemisms for ecclesioterrorism.  

I'm not saying the conquistadors, colonizers in India, et al. were saints but again I feel like I'm reading some lefty academic's screed against dead white males.

By the way the Aztecs were horrible; the other natives hated them. Thank God Cortez replaced human sacrifice with the Mass. Spanish America is a quarter of my heritage.

Well, you WERE the one to bring up the topic.  Don't start bragging about your "evangelism" if you don't want someone to raise an eyebrow at it.  ::)
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Cyrillic on June 24, 2013, 01:26:39 PM

That said, as I've learned from talking to people whose families lived it, because this event is still in living memory, the truth was this. Until about 80 years ago, Ruthenians were Catholic but didn't strongly identify as such, at least among the laity. Church was familial and ethnic; po-nashomu, 'our way'. So although their church had lots of Western Catholic stuff adopted over the years, they didn't see themselves in sectarian or jurisdictional terms.

The people and especially the priests, who were of course schooled in theology by the Catholic Church, so they felt more Catholic, didn't really want to leave. The priests tried several times to appeal to Rome. All the priests and people really wanted was for things to stay the same. A conservative Slavic trait.

The Greeks gave them a good deal, pretty much giving them what they wanted, to be left alone to do what they'd always done. So by their own admission they didn't so much 'return home' or 'convert to Orthodoxy' as 'turn' to Orthodoxy as a refuge to protect their patrimony: po-nashomu, latinizations and all.

Not exactly what Conciliar Press or Ancient Faith Radio wants to hear.

I have never read any publication of Conciliar Press and the total amount of time I've listenened to AFR probably doesn't exceed ten minutes but yes, I don't think that those Slavic coal miners in the Rust Belt had much of an opinion on the filioque or palamism. But should that really matter?
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: ialmisry on June 24, 2013, 01:28:39 PM
I thought the Orthodox Church was already Catholic

To quote myself:

I have no reason to leave the Catholic Church, although I have every reason to be in the Orthodox Church.

This is only true if you equate the Vatican confession with "the Catholic Church."

Your fellow Orthodox have told us not to use "Roman Catholic", or at any rate not to include Eastern Catholics in that designation.

As I've written, theologically,the East is a kind of Catholicism; the Georgian and Armenian patriarchs are the Catholicos. But in Moscow and Athens, if you asked a cabbie to take you to the nearest Catholic church, he would not take you to the nearest Orthodox church. In Russian, Russians are православные; католики are foreigners.
In Russian, the Catholics, i.e. us, are Соборни or Вселенски.  The католики are foreigners, to Russia and the Church.

Telling the Vatican had to appropriate a Greek term to try to call itself.  The Greeks aren't fooled: you are φρανκοι.

Nobody gets into a Russian cab and asks to go to the соборная or вселенская церковь. Nor asks an Athens cabbie to take him to the Frankish Church.
You stating that from experience, or conjecture.

Of course, if you are letting a cabby pick your church, you have other problems.

Conjecture. What's your experience in Greece or Russia, if any? The Russians I used to know would have rightly thought this semantic game was silly.
Have them recite the Creed, and see how silly that pesky clause is.  Especially since you initiated this semantic game.  As for myself, I can't speak to the inexactitude in the speech of others.

Never been to Russia yet, unfortunately.  Been to Greece, but I don't recall ever using a cab.  Nor would I have any use for a φραγκη church-yes, that is what they call them, when they are not calling them παπιστη-although I have been to two in Greece (which is close to 100%).  We call them كاثوليكية, we call the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church جامعية (and yes, the former is foreign term, the latter native).
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: The young fogey on June 24, 2013, 01:33:02 PM
Catholicism...tried to evangelize the African countries (with some success), China, Japan, and India.

Your move.

Not the best example to bring up, unless "tried" and "to evangelize" are euphemisms for ecclesioterrorism.  

I'm not saying the conquistadors, colonizers in India, et al. were saints but again I feel like I'm reading some lefty academic's screed against dead white males.

By the way the Aztecs were horrible; the other natives hated them.
and yet the Spanish used Nahuatl' (the Aztecs' language) for their seminary system for the natives.

That they had a seminary system for them shows they weren't evil.
Mao had quite a (re)education system.

Gotcha. If we don't teach the natives, we're evil; if we teach the natives, we're evil. Because anything white males do is wrong.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Cyrillic on June 24, 2013, 01:36:07 PM
Stop playing the race card.

Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: TheTrisagion on June 24, 2013, 01:37:17 PM
Catholicism...tried to evangelize the African countries (with some success), China, Japan, and India.

Your move.

Not the best example to bring up, unless "tried" and "to evangelize" are euphemisms for ecclesioterrorism.  

I'm not saying the conquistadors, colonizers in India, et al. were saints but again I feel like I'm reading some lefty academic's screed against dead white males.

By the way the Aztecs were horrible; the other natives hated them.
and yet the Spanish used Nahuatl' (the Aztecs' language) for their seminary system for the natives.

That they had a seminary system for them shows they weren't evil.
Mao had quite a (re)education system.

Gotcha. If we don't teach the natives, we're evil; if we teach the natives, we're evil. Because anything white males do is wrong.

What are you going on about this whole white male's guilt?   That has nothing to do with anything. Perhaps your statment would be more correct if you said:  If we don't teach the natives we are wrong.  If we slaughter the natives and forcibly opress them in the name of our religion, we are also wrong.  You do realize there are other options, right?
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Mor Ephrem on June 24, 2013, 01:38:13 PM
I'm not saying the conquistadors, colonizers in India, et al. were saints but again I feel like I'm reading some lefty academic's screed against dead white males.

If you got all that from my one-liner, I don't think you got it from my one-liner.  :P

I can't speak for China and Japan, nor did I address Latin America.  But it's a fact that the Portuguese missionaries took what was a single Church in India, with an unbroken history of over fifteen hundred years, and divided it through "Uniate" tactics (including, in addition to the usual, the translation/implementation of the Roman Missal into Syriac as a stepping stone for Latin), force of weapons, terrorism (e.g., the "mysterious" disappearance of every bishop we requested from the Middle East as soon as he arrived on our shores, followed some time later by the discovery of his corpse, drowned, washed up on the shore), book burnings, confiscation of properties, fabrication of legends (e.g., that when the Portuguese landed, the Christians asked for the name of the "bishop in Rome who wears white" because they had no knowledge of his name to include it in their Masses, but they always prayed for him because they were "under him", etc.), judicious use of resources to "buy" converts, and so on.  By the time the British arrived in India to gift us with Protestantism, we were already divided and ripe for more.  And it's the gift that keeps on giving...  

If the Aztecs were horrible, they were horrible, I don't know one way or another about that history...Apocalypto was enough to make me glad that I wasn't around those parts.  And I think people abandoning the worship of idols and false gods for the sake of Christ is always a good thing.  But the actual Indians, as opposed to what the European explorers thought were Indians, were not such a violent, godless people.  They already had the gospel, the Scriptures, the sacraments, apostolic succession, the orthodox faith, etc.  But the Europeans were not much better in their treatment of this group than they were with actual heathens.  I'm not one to make leftist screeds against dead white males.  I have love and respect for many white males, dead or alive.  I love the dead white men that helped found the USA, for example.  I just have no love for the dead white men that raped my Church and abandoned her to deal with the results, and blamed her for it.  
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Cyrillic on June 24, 2013, 01:41:20 PM
The pre-Portuguese Church in India wasn't Orthodox - Oriental or Eastern - but Nestorian iirc.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: augustin717 on June 24, 2013, 01:45:36 PM
Catholicism...tried to evangelize the African countries (with some success), China, Japan, and India.

Your move.

Not the best example to bring up, unless "tried" and "to evangelize" are euphemisms for ecclesioterrorism.  

I'm not saying the conquistadors, colonizers in India, et al. were saints but again I feel like I'm reading some lefty academic's screed against dead white males.

By the way the Aztecs were horrible; the other natives hated them.
and yet the Spanish used Nahuatl' (the Aztecs' language) for their seminary system for the natives.

That they had a seminary system for them shows they weren't evil.
Mao had quite a (re)education system.

Gotcha. If we don't teach the natives, we're evil; if we teach the natives, we're evil. Because anything white males do is wrong.
especially white alpha males. we can put up with the betas though.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Peter J on June 24, 2013, 01:54:00 PM
Like we'd say the Ukrainian Catholic Church returned.

Ukraine was under the Patriarchate of Constantinople even before the schism.

Yes, as it remained throughout the Middle Ages until the Union of Brest-Litovsk. It was the Kiev metropolia, arguably the main see of Russian Christianity all that time, before the rise of Moscow. A whole Particular Church, as Catholicism says, that came back to the fullness of the church, given Catholicism's doctrine about the papacy. Orthodox opinion, of course, sees it as the opposite, that they left the true church.

No, the views on the UoBL aren't opposite. Both sides know that it wasn't a matter of "a whole Particular Church" switching sides ... though not for lacking of trying by the promoters of the union  :-[.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Peter J on June 24, 2013, 01:54:46 PM
Come home, ACROD – I love you and miss you.

ACROD returned home.

Of course the Orthodox say that; only makes sense given your doctrine. (Like we'd say the Ukrainian Catholic Church returned.)

Not really the same. ACROD wasn't a new uniatism; it was more like getting out of the uniatist-agreement that their ancestors had accepted.

But in his dream, he would have Pope John XXIII come to my grandfather and say, "Come home, Joe." My grandfather would reply, "You go your way, Janku, I go mine!"

And that, to me, as you doubtless can imagine, is unspeakably sad.

I'd say it's mixed: definitely the leaving/pushing-out is sad (and btw I quite agree with you that our fellow churchmen were the ones to blame); but we can be joyful of the fact that nowadays (unlike 4 centuries ago) we (Catholics) don't feel the need to grab them, tear them away from Orthodoxy, and make them become Catholic.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Mor Ephrem on June 24, 2013, 02:22:05 PM
The pre-Portuguese Church in India wasn't Orthodox - Oriental or Eastern - but Nestorian iirc.

Not exactly.  The West Syriac liturgical rite entered India in the 16th century, prior to that it was the East Syriac liturgical rite that was in use.  But just as in other parts of the Christian world "Orthodox" and "heretics" used the same or similar liturgical rites, it was the same in Persia.  There was an Orthodox "Church of the East" as well as the "Nestorian" one, both using the East Syriac rite.  There are extant sources in India (the ones the Portuguese didn't manage to destroy) which give the impression that, perhaps, the Church in India may have had representatives of both sides.  But to what extent this actually was the case, or what the actual allegiance of the Church there was before the Portuguese arrived, I don't know if anyone can really know for sure. 

The Church in India was basically "independent".  When there were no more Indian bishops (St Thomas ordained some, but that line eventually died out), Persian bishops provided pastoral care for the Christians there, though local administration was done internally.  When the Portuguese came to India and we needed Orthodox bishops to help us, it's interesting to note that they (the indigenous Christians) appealed for help not only from the Orthodox Persians, but also to the Orthodox Syrians and the Alexandrians (Copts).  Help eventually came from Antioch, and along with that the West Syrian rite.  If they were really "Nestorian", I don't know that they would've gone to Alexandria for help.  There's enough to make me think that they were Orthodox using the Persian rite, and not "Nestorians".  To what extent the Church in India, being so far away from the rest of "traditional Christianity", even knew or cared as much about the theological divides as did Mediterranean peoples, is another question.       
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Cyrillic on June 24, 2013, 02:31:33 PM
The pre-Portuguese Church in India wasn't Orthodox - Oriental or Eastern - but Nestorian iirc.

Not exactly.  The West Syriac liturgical rite entered India in the 16th century, prior to that it was the East Syriac liturgical rite that was in use.  But just as in other parts of the Christian world "Orthodox" and "heretics" used the same or similar liturgical rites, it was the same in Persia.  There was an Orthodox "Church of the East" as well as the "Nestorian" one, both using the East Syriac rite.  There are extant sources in India (the ones the Portuguese didn't manage to destroy) which give the impression that, perhaps, the Church in India may have had representatives of both sides.  But to what extent this actually was the case, or what the actual allegiance of the Church there was before the Portuguese arrived, I don't know if anyone can really know for sure. 

The Church in India was basically "independent".  When there were no more Indian bishops (St Thomas ordained some, but that line eventually died out), Persian bishops provided pastoral care for the Christians there, though local administration was done internally.  When the Portuguese came to India and we needed Orthodox bishops to help us, it's interesting to note that they (the indigenous Christians) appealed for help not only from the Orthodox Persians, but also to the Orthodox Syrians and the Alexandrians (Copts).  Help eventually came from Antioch, and along with that the West Syrian rite.  If they were really "Nestorian", I don't know that they would've gone to Alexandria for help.  There's enough to make me think that they were Orthodox using the Persian rite, and not "Nestorians".  To what extent the Church in India, being so far away from the rest of "traditional Christianity", even knew or cared as much about the theological divides as did Mediterranean peoples, is another question.       

Thanks! Interesting stuff.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: ialmisry on June 24, 2013, 03:54:27 PM
Isn't the catechumenate meant to turn heretics, however you define that, into true believers? So the priest in Stanley's story was stupid from the Orthodox point of view. I thought they wanted individual Catholics to convert.

Stereotypes are such because they're usually true.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Pope_Alexander_Vi.jpg)(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/John_Ireland_%28archbishop_of_Saint_Paul%29.jpg)(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/57/Michel_d%27Herbigny_%281880-1957%29.jpg)
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: podkarpatska on June 24, 2013, 04:15:27 PM

That said, as I've learned from talking to people whose families lived it, because this event is still in living memory, the truth was this. Until about 80 years ago, Ruthenians were Catholic but didn't strongly identify as such, at least among the laity. Church was familial and ethnic; po-nashomu, 'our way'. So although their church had lots of Western Catholic stuff adopted over the years, they didn't see themselves in sectarian or jurisdictional terms.

The people and especially the priests, who were of course schooled in theology by the Catholic Church, so they felt more Catholic, didn't really want to leave. The priests tried several times to appeal to Rome. All the priests and people really wanted was for things to stay the same. A conservative Slavic trait.

The Greeks gave them a good deal, pretty much giving them what they wanted, to be left alone to do what they'd always done. So by their own admission they didn't so much 'return home' or 'convert to Orthodoxy' as 'turn' to Orthodoxy as a refuge to protect their patrimony: po-nashomu, latinizations and all.

Not exactly what Conciliar Press or Ancient Faith Radio wants to hear.

I have never read any publication of Conciliar Press and the total amount of time I've listenened to AFR probably doesn't exceed ten minutes but yes, I don't think that those Slavic coal miners in the Rust Belt had much of an opinion on the filioque or palamism. But should that really matter?

Good observation. That did not matter a whit.

They knew what they were.

They knew that in the old country they were NOT  Roman Catholics.

Many villages had both varieties and little if any interaction between them. They knew (if my experience is typical and I believe it is) that despite the "benefits" and "promises" of the Unia, neither their priests nor their bishops occupied the same level of societal status as did the Roman Catholic counterparts under either the Austro-Hungarians or the Poles.

They regarded their faith as being unbroken lineally with that of their  ancestors back to their first conversion some nine hundred years previous to their era. A time prior to the Great Schism.

They were shocked to observe in the new world that despite what they learned in American citizenship class, they had experienced LESS interference with their faith - "nas(h) virnyj" (our Faith) under the hated Magyar or Polish overlords than from the Irish American Catholic hierarchy.

But, they also learned in civics class that in America they could (theoretically) worship in peace. So they turned (not returned) to the Orthodox, first to the Russians, later to the Greeks, for protection to be and remain what they always were. This is theology of the heart, there was time enough for systemic theology down the road.

For 300 years Rome more or less kept her promises. But like much which afflicts the venerable Church of Rome, her position "evolved." So, in order to satisfy the Orthodox of her ecumenical sincerity, Rome, to quote Desi Arnez, has some " 'splainin to do." That why we view Rome's treatment of her sincere and loyal Eastern Catholics regarding celibacy as a "church dividing issue."
 
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: podkarpatska on June 24, 2013, 04:17:49 PM
Come home, ACROD – I love you and miss you.

ACROD returned home.

Of course the Orthodox say that; only makes sense given your doctrine. (Like we'd say the Ukrainian Catholic Church returned.)

Not really the same. ACROD wasn't a new uniatism; it was more like getting out of the uniatist-agreement that their ancestors had accepted.

But in his dream, he would have Pope John XXIII come to my grandfather and say, "Come home, Joe." My grandfather would reply, "You go your way, Janku, I go mine!"

And that, to me, as you doubtless can imagine, is unspeakably sad.

I'd say it's mixed: definitely the leaving/pushing-out is sad (and btw I quite agree with you that our fellow churchmen were the ones to blame); but we can be joyful of the fact that nowadays (unlike 4 centuries ago) we (Catholics) don't feel the need to grab them, tear them away from Orthodoxy, and make them become Catholic.

Thank you Peter. You get it.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: ialmisry on June 24, 2013, 04:19:03 PM
Come home, ACROD – I love you and miss you.

ACROD returned home.

Of course the Orthodox say that; only makes sense given your doctrine. (Like we'd say the Ukrainian Catholic Church returned.)

Not really the same. ACROD wasn't a new uniatism; it was more like getting out of the uniatist-agreement that their ancestors had accepted.

But in his dream, he would have Pope John XXIII come to my grandfather and say, "Come home, Joe." My grandfather would reply, "You go your way, Janku, I go mine!"

And that, to me, as you doubtless can imagine, is unspeakably sad.

I'd say it's mixed: definitely the leaving/pushing-out is sad (and btw I quite agree with you that our fellow churchmen were the ones to blame); but we can be joyful of the fact that nowadays (unlike 4 centuries ago) we (Catholics) don't feel the need to grab them, tear them away from Orthodoxy, and make them become Catholic.
Never heard of Interwar Poland and its "Revindication Campaigns" I see.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volhynia_Experiment#Cancellation_of_the_Volhynia_Experiment

More examples from then to "nowadays" could be provided, but the point that we don't have to reach back a century, let alone 4, to make that point suffices.

Tear them away from Orthodoxy, and you make them non-Catholic.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: William on June 24, 2013, 05:10:40 PM
Well, I don't know what the guy who made the comment went through while in the RC church, so it isn't my place to call him out on it.  If he underwent physical or emotional abuse while he was RC, I can understand why he would make such a comment (not that I would endorse it, but I would understand).

Yeah, but Orthodox picking up crap like that from secular culture to take swings at Catholicism is just pathetic. Again, thank God that Greeks and Russians don't do that. They've got lives, and are just happy being Greek or Russian.

Right. Jumping on the scandal-bandwagon is just a little too popular, if you ask me.

Although I guess it should be pointed out that the Orthodox people in question may not have known it was crap from secular culture.

Right, too popular, for the wrong reason.

The people in the story using it aren't born Orthodox; they're ex-Catholics who sound just like ex-Catholics who become Episcopalians to be gay or, more common, divorced and remarried (fitting for Henry VIII's church), or just become secular.

Which ties into an unflattering theory of mine about convertodoxy, that it's a manifestation of modern secular liberal America's (rich Northern whites) fetish for 'diversity', exoticism, anything but the old white America, which they call stupid and boring. ('Catholic is so ordinary, and pre-Vatican II of course was even stupider and more evil, the Pope being a Nazi and all that.') The same reason hippies flirted with Hinduism and Buddhism. It doesn't matter that Orthodoxy's relatively conservative; Muslims get a free pass too.

Not a knock on ethnic born Orthodox, but on the anti-Western Westerners who try to ape them.

Second-, third-, and fourth-generation American Orthodox are Americans. They'd know where it comes from.

Not sure if you are refering to the guy in my parish, but that is an AWFUL lot of assuming to make about some guy who you have never met...

But continue on with your theories.  There could be another explanation of course. Maybe God is drawing people to His Church.  I'm sure that is too simplistic of an explanation though, so we can go with yours.   :(

Haven't you heard? White middle-class males can only be devoutly religious if they want to be in a bourgeois, "high church" traditionalist Catholic fantasy. Otherwise they are "exotic" and "hipsters" for joining Orthodoxy with all its elements that traditional Catholicism doesn't have, like incense and foreign languages.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Peter J on June 24, 2013, 05:24:57 PM
Come home, ACROD – I love you and miss you.

ACROD returned home.

Of course the Orthodox say that; only makes sense given your doctrine. (Like we'd say the Ukrainian Catholic Church returned.)

Not really the same. ACROD wasn't a new uniatism; it was more like getting out of the uniatist-agreement that their ancestors had accepted.

But in his dream, he would have Pope John XXIII come to my grandfather and say, "Come home, Joe." My grandfather would reply, "You go your way, Janku, I go mine!"

And that, to me, as you doubtless can imagine, is unspeakably sad.

I'd say it's mixed: definitely the leaving/pushing-out is sad (and btw I quite agree with you that our fellow churchmen were the ones to blame); but we can be joyful of the fact that nowadays (unlike 4 centuries ago) we (Catholics) don't feel the need to grab them, tear them away from Orthodoxy, and make them become Catholic.
Never heard of Interwar Poland and its "Revindication Campaigns" I see.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volhynia_Experiment#Cancellation_of_the_Volhynia_Experiment

More examples from then to "nowadays" could be provided, but the point that we don't have to reach back a century, let alone 4, to make that point suffices.

Alright. I was just talking about our lack of proselytizing post-Vatican II.

Tear them away from Orthodoxy, and you make them non-Catholic.

Yes, yes, I'm familiar with all those semantics. (Of course I could have said "become Eastern Catholic" but I don't think you would like that any better.)
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: ialmisry on June 24, 2013, 06:21:28 PM
Come home, ACROD – I love you and miss you.

ACROD returned home.

Of course the Orthodox say that; only makes sense given your doctrine. (Like we'd say the Ukrainian Catholic Church returned.)

Not really the same. ACROD wasn't a new uniatism; it was more like getting out of the uniatist-agreement that their ancestors had accepted.

But in his dream, he would have Pope John XXIII come to my grandfather and say, "Come home, Joe." My grandfather would reply, "You go your way, Janku, I go mine!"

And that, to me, as you doubtless can imagine, is unspeakably sad.

I'd say it's mixed: definitely the leaving/pushing-out is sad (and btw I quite agree with you that our fellow churchmen were the ones to blame); but we can be joyful of the fact that nowadays (unlike 4 centuries ago) we (Catholics) don't feel the need to grab them, tear them away from Orthodoxy, and make them become Catholic.
Never heard of Interwar Poland and its "Revindication Campaigns" I see.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volhynia_Experiment#Cancellation_of_the_Volhynia_Experiment

More examples from then to "nowadays" could be provided, but the point that we don't have to reach back a century, let alone 4, to make that point suffices.

Alright. I was just talking about our lack of proselytizing post-Vatican II.
And I was just talking about your lack of a lack of proselytizing post-Vatican II, though the specific example I gave predates it a little.

Tear them away from Orthodoxy, and you make them non-Catholic.

Yes, yes, I'm familiar with all those semantics. (Of course I could have said "become Eastern Catholic" but I don't think you would like that any better.)
Catholic is Catholic, East or West(ern Rite Orthodox).
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Peter J on June 24, 2013, 08:57:07 PM
Come home, ACROD – I love you and miss you.

ACROD returned home.

Of course the Orthodox say that; only makes sense given your doctrine. (Like we'd say the Ukrainian Catholic Church returned.)

Not really the same. ACROD wasn't a new uniatism; it was more like getting out of the uniatist-agreement that their ancestors had accepted.

But in his dream, he would have Pope John XXIII come to my grandfather and say, "Come home, Joe." My grandfather would reply, "You go your way, Janku, I go mine!"

And that, to me, as you doubtless can imagine, is unspeakably sad.

I'd say it's mixed: definitely the leaving/pushing-out is sad (and btw I quite agree with you that our fellow churchmen were the ones to blame); but we can be joyful of the fact that nowadays (unlike 4 centuries ago) we (Catholics) don't feel the need to grab them, tear them away from Orthodoxy, and make them become Catholic.
Never heard of Interwar Poland and its "Revindication Campaigns" I see.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volhynia_Experiment#Cancellation_of_the_Volhynia_Experiment

More examples from then to "nowadays" could be provided, but the point that we don't have to reach back a century, let alone 4, to make that point suffices.

Alright. I was just talking about our lack of proselytizing post-Vatican II.
And I was just talking about your lack of a lack of proselytizing post-Vatican II, though the specific example I gave predates it a little.

I've been meaning to ask you about that, actually. I know you can point to the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, but is there a link you can provide regarding their activities nowadays (post-Vatican II, at least) vis-a-vis proselytizing of Orthodox Christians?
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Peter J on June 25, 2013, 08:25:26 AM
Tear them away from Orthodoxy, and you make them non-Catholic.

Yes, yes, I'm familiar with all those semantics. (Of course I could have said "become Eastern Catholic" but I don't think you would like that any better.)
Catholic is Catholic, East or West(ern Rite Orthodox).

I'll give you an A for effort, but just try asking Eastern Orthodox "Are you an Eastern Catholic?" (without telling them why you're asking) and see how many yeses you get.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: The young fogey on June 25, 2013, 08:52:52 AM
Tear them away from Orthodoxy, and you make them non-Catholic.

Yes, yes, I'm familiar with all those semantics. (Of course I could have said "become Eastern Catholic" but I don't think you would like that any better.)
Catholic is Catholic, East or West(ern Rite Orthodox).

I'll give you an A for effort, but just try asking Eastern Orthodox "Are you an Eastern Catholic?" (without telling them why you're asking) and see how many yeses you get.

Exactly.

Thanks for the reminder that the local reactions to the Union of Brest-Litovsk were far from unanimous. The point remains that to Catholics the union was a return, as the Orthodox see the founding of ACROD.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Peter J on June 25, 2013, 09:55:17 AM
Thanks for the reminder that the local reactions to the Union of Brest-Litovsk were far from unanimous. The point remains that to those Catholics who use shamelessly polemical semantics the union was a return,

Fixed that for you. (http://www.planetsmilies.com/smilies/happy/happy0199.gif)
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: The young fogey on June 25, 2013, 10:12:05 AM
Cute. Everybody who reads me knows I'm a 100% believer in giving never-Catholic Orthodox the benefit of the doubt and acknowledging such people's apostolic authority as an estranged part of the Catholic Church, a step beyond recognition of orders, and that I've never made excuses for John Ireland and other Catholic churchmen who actually started the schisms in America. I'm not some caricature Catholic preaching the Feeneyite line (if you're not officially Catholic you're going to hell; allowable opinion, not doctrine) and trolling for individual converts from the Orthodox or even new unias. That said, because of Catholicism's true-church claim, it accepts such conversions, individual and group, and yes, sees them as a return.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: ialmisry on June 25, 2013, 11:21:39 AM
Cute. Everybody who reads me knows I'm a 100% believer in giving never-Catholic Orthodox the benefit of the doubt and acknowledging such people's apostolic authority as an estranged part of the Catholic Church, a step beyond recognition of orders, and that I've never made excuses for John Ireland and other Catholic churchmen who actually started the schisms in America. I'm not some caricature Catholic preaching the Feeneyite line (if you're not officially Catholic you're going to hell; allowable opinion, not doctrine) and trolling for individual converts from the Orthodox or even new unias. That said, because of Catholicism's true-church claim, it accepts such conversions, individual and group, and yes, sees them as a return.
I take it that by "Catholicism," you meant the Vatican.

And we should concern ourselves about how heretics see anything why again?
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: ialmisry on June 25, 2013, 11:24:09 AM
Tear them away from Orthodoxy, and you make them non-Catholic.

Yes, yes, I'm familiar with all those semantics. (Of course I could have said "become Eastern Catholic" but I don't think you would like that any better.)
Catholic is Catholic, East or West(ern Rite Orthodox).

I'll give you an A for effort, but just try asking Eastern Orthodox "Are you an Eastern Catholic?" (without telling them why you're asking) and see how many yeses you get.
I only take polls from among the informed. So I would get 100% yeses.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: The young fogey on June 25, 2013, 11:25:18 AM
Cute. Everybody who reads me knows I'm a 100% believer in giving never-Catholic Orthodox the benefit of the doubt and acknowledging such people's apostolic authority as an estranged part of the Catholic Church, a step beyond recognition of orders, and that I've never made excuses for John Ireland and other Catholic churchmen who actually started the schisms in America. I'm not some caricature Catholic preaching the Feeneyite line (if you're not officially Catholic you're going to hell; allowable opinion, not doctrine) and trolling for individual converts from the Orthodox or even new unias. That said, because of Catholicism's true-church claim, it accepts such conversions, individual and group, and yes, sees them as a return.
I take it that by "Catholicism," you meant the Vatican.

And we should concern ourselves about how heretics see anything why again?

Fine, then don't read my posts and be happy.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: TheTrisagion on June 25, 2013, 11:26:55 AM
This is what happens every time isalmisry enters a thread.

(http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/guns/dynamite.gif)
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Peter J on June 25, 2013, 11:40:52 AM
Cute. Everybody who reads me knows I'm a 100% believer in giving never-Catholic Orthodox the benefit of the doubt and acknowledging such people's apostolic authority as an estranged part of the Catholic Church, a step beyond recognition of orders, and that I've never made excuses for John Ireland and other Catholic churchmen who actually started the schisms in America. I'm not some caricature Catholic preaching the Feeneyite line (if you're not officially Catholic you're going to hell; allowable opinion, not doctrine) and trolling for individual converts from the Orthodox or even new unias. That said, because of Catholicism's true-church claim, it accepts such conversions, individual and group, and yes, sees them as a return.
I take it that by "Catholicism," you meant the Vatican.

 ??? I don't think I've ever known TYF to say "Catholicism" if he meant the Vatican.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Peter J on June 25, 2013, 11:42:21 AM
Tear them away from Orthodoxy, and you make them non-Catholic.

Yes, yes, I'm familiar with all those semantics. (Of course I could have said "become Eastern Catholic" but I don't think you would like that any better.)
Catholic is Catholic, East or West(ern Rite Orthodox).

I'll give you an A for effort, but just try asking Eastern Orthodox "Are you an Eastern Catholic?" (without telling them why you're asking) and see how many yeses you get.
I only take polls from among the informed. So I would get 100% yeses.

Conclusion: either you're living in a fantasy, or you missed where I said without telling them why you're asking.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: mike on June 25, 2013, 11:43:27 AM
Isa, stop this semantics trolling.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: The young fogey on June 25, 2013, 12:34:38 PM
Cute. Everybody who reads me knows I'm a 100% believer in giving never-Catholic Orthodox the benefit of the doubt and acknowledging such people's apostolic authority as an estranged part of the Catholic Church, a step beyond recognition of orders, and that I've never made excuses for John Ireland and other Catholic churchmen who actually started the schisms in America. I'm not some caricature Catholic preaching the Feeneyite line (if you're not officially Catholic you're going to hell; allowable opinion, not doctrine) and trolling for individual converts from the Orthodox or even new unias. That said, because of Catholicism's true-church claim, it accepts such conversions, individual and group, and yes, sees them as a return.
I take it that by "Catholicism," you meant the Vatican.

 ??? I don't think I've ever known TYF to say "Catholicism" if he meant the Vatican.

Isa's right that I mean Catholicism as commonly understood, under the Pope of Rome. 'The Vatican' is a common synecdoche for the Catholic Church but it's historically inaccurate (in the Middle Ages it wasn't the Pope's Rome HQ; St Peter's isn't a cathedral) and I don't use it because I'm not ultramontanist; Catholics don't have to be (the last Pope wasn't).
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Peter J on June 25, 2013, 01:48:34 PM
Yes, although I was unfamiliar with the word "synecdoche" until you mentioned it. The commentary I had in mind is that saying "Catholicism" when you really meant "the Vatican" would be like saying "the family" when you really meant "the godfather".
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: The young fogey on June 25, 2013, 01:57:21 PM
Yes, although I was unfamiliar with the word "synecdoche" until you mentioned it. The commentary I had in mind is that saying "Catholicism" when you really meant "the Vatican" would be like saying "the family" when you really meant "the godfather".

Yes, and there's the tactic that Catholic liberals take when they promote the popular opinions of American Catholics that agree with secular culture, not the church, vs. the teachings of the church, which they label 'the Vatican', trying to say real Catholicism and the Vatican are different.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: ialmisry on June 25, 2013, 02:37:45 PM
Yes, although I was unfamiliar with the word "synecdoche" until you mentioned it. The commentary I had in mind is that saying "Catholicism" when you really meant "the Vatican" would be like saying "the family" when you really meant "the godfather".

Yes, and there's the tactic that Catholic liberals take when they promote the popular opinions of American Catholics that agree with secular culture, not the church, vs. the teachings of the church, which they label 'the Vatican', trying to say real Catholicism and the Vatican are different.
well, that's one of the two times that broken clock of the "Liberal Catholics" is right.  Now if they could just stop identifying their own beliefs as real Catholicism.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: ialmisry on June 25, 2013, 03:07:44 PM
Cute. Everybody who reads me knows I'm a 100% believer in giving never-Catholic Orthodox the benefit of the doubt and acknowledging such people's apostolic authority as an estranged part of the Catholic Church, a step beyond recognition of orders, and that I've never made excuses for John Ireland and other Catholic churchmen who actually started the schisms in America. I'm not some caricature Catholic preaching the Feeneyite line (if you're not officially Catholic you're going to hell; allowable opinion, not doctrine) and trolling for individual converts from the Orthodox or even new unias. That said, because of Catholicism's true-church claim, it accepts such conversions, individual and group, and yes, sees them as a return.
I take it that by "Catholicism," you meant the Vatican.

 ??? I don't think I've ever known TYF to say "Catholicism" if he meant the Vatican.

Isa's right
Of course.
that I mean Catholicism as commonly understood, under the Pope of Rome.

"Commonly understood" by whom?
'The Vatican' is a common synecdoche for the Catholic Church but it's historically inaccurate (in the Middle Ages it wasn't the Pope's Rome HQ; St Peter's isn't a cathedral)

and they were in Avignon-or do you prefer Pisa?
(http://wps.ablongman.com/wps/media/objects/262/268312/art/figures/KISH219.jpg)
and I don't use it because I'm not ultramontanist; Catholics don't have to be (the last Pope wasn't).
his attempted abolition of the Patriarchate of the West says otherwise.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: ialmisry on June 25, 2013, 03:21:22 PM
Tear them away from Orthodoxy, and you make them non-Catholic.

Yes, yes, I'm familiar with all those semantics. (Of course I could have said "become Eastern Catholic" but I don't think you would like that any better.)
Catholic is Catholic, East or West(ern Rite Orthodox).

I'll give you an A for effort, but just try asking Eastern Orthodox "Are you an Eastern Catholic?" (without telling them why you're asking) and see how many yeses you get.
I only take polls from among the informed. So I would get 100% yeses.

Conclusion: either you're living in a fantasy, or you missed where I said without telling them why you're asking.
I shouldn't have to tell them what I'm asking.

If I ask any Antiochian if he is كاثوليكي شرقي, he will say no.

Here is a recent article on the first Orthodox Catechism in English, done by an American but published at London:
http://orthodoxhistory.org/2013/06/25/an-unexpected-discovery-concerning-philip-ludwell-iii/

Here's its title page.
(http://orthodoxhistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Ludwell-Confession-title-page-768x1024.jpg)
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: ialmisry on June 25, 2013, 03:23:05 PM
Cute. Everybody who reads me knows I'm a 100% believer in giving never-Catholic Orthodox the benefit of the doubt and acknowledging such people's apostolic authority as an estranged part of the Catholic Church, a step beyond recognition of orders, and that I've never made excuses for John Ireland and other Catholic churchmen who actually started the schisms in America. I'm not some caricature Catholic preaching the Feeneyite line (if you're not officially Catholic you're going to hell; allowable opinion, not doctrine) and trolling for individual converts from the Orthodox or even new unias. That said, because of Catholicism's true-church claim, it accepts such conversions, individual and group, and yes, sees them as a return.
I take it that by "Catholicism," you meant the Vatican.

And we should concern ourselves about how heretics see anything why again?

Fine, then don't read my posts and be happy.
This is what happens every time isalmisry enters a thread.

(http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/guns/dynamite.gif)
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: augustin717 on June 25, 2013, 04:38:26 PM
In my home region the peasants would call the Catholics simply Hungarians. Their church Hungarian church their Easter Hungarian Easter their priest Hungarian "popA". Catholic was a foggy term to the older generations.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: xariskai on June 25, 2013, 04:49:16 PM
Yes, although I was unfamiliar with the word "synecdoche" until you mentioned it. The commentary I had in mind is that saying "Catholicism" when you really meant "the Vatican" would be like saying "the family" when you really meant "the godfather".

Yes, and there's the tactic that Catholic liberals take when they promote the popular opinions of American Catholics that agree with secular culture, not the church, vs. the teachings of the church, which they label 'the Vatican', trying to say real Catholicism and the Vatican are different.
Most Orthodox Christians have for centuries regarded "real Catholicism" (which we affirm of ourselves e.g. when we recite the Nicene Creed) and Vatican teaching as different, but we don't think of this as a "tactic," just a basic conviction.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Peter J on June 25, 2013, 05:01:29 PM
Yes, although I was unfamiliar with the word "synecdoche" until you mentioned it. The commentary I had in mind is that saying "Catholicism" when you really meant "the Vatican" would be like saying "the family" when you really meant "the godfather".

Yes, and there's the tactic that Catholic liberals take when they promote the popular opinions of American Catholics that agree with secular culture, not the church, vs. the teachings of the church, which they label 'the Vatican', trying to say real Catholicism and the Vatican are different.
Most Orthodox Christians have for centuries regarded "real Catholicism" (which we affirm of ourselves e.g. when we recite the Nicene Creed) and Vatican teaching as different, but we don't think of this as a "tactic," just a basic conviction.

That's certainly understandable. However, even those of us in communion with the Vatican don't regard the Vatican as the entire Catholic Church. (I'm part of the Catholic Church, but not part of the Vatican.)
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Peter J on June 25, 2013, 05:06:37 PM
Tear them away from Orthodoxy, and you make them non-Catholic.

Yes, yes, I'm familiar with all those semantics. (Of course I could have said "become Eastern Catholic" but I don't think you would like that any better.)
Catholic is Catholic, East or West(ern Rite Orthodox).

I'll give you an A for effort, but just try asking Eastern Orthodox "Are you an Eastern Catholic?" (without telling them why you're asking) and see how many yeses you get.
I only take polls from among the informed. So I would get 100% yeses.

Conclusion: either you're living in a fantasy, or you missed where I said without telling them why you're asking.
I shouldn't have to tell them what I'm asking.

I wonder if you noticed the use of the phrase "Eastern Catholic" in the description of this forum ... hopefully you weren't taking a sip of coffee at the time.

Unrelated question: when did your posts pass 30,000? I thought the earth would shake or something if someone did that.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: xariskai on June 25, 2013, 05:20:15 PM
Yes, although I was unfamiliar with the word "synecdoche" until you mentioned it. The commentary I had in mind is that saying "Catholicism" when you really meant "the Vatican" would be like saying "the family" when you really meant "the godfather".

Yes, and there's the tactic that Catholic liberals take when they promote the popular opinions of American Catholics that agree with secular culture, not the church, vs. the teachings of the church, which they label 'the Vatican', trying to say real Catholicism and the Vatican are different.
Most Orthodox Christians have for centuries regarded "real Catholicism" (which we affirm of ourselves e.g. when we recite the Nicene Creed) and Vatican teaching as different, but we don't think of this as a "tactic," just a basic conviction.

That's certainly understandable. However, even those of us in communion with the Vatican don't regard the Vatican as the entire Catholic Church. (I'm part of the Catholic Church, but not part of the Vatican.)
Sure, but that's not an Orthodox perspective.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: ialmisry on June 25, 2013, 06:04:20 PM
In my home region the peasants would call the Catholics simply Hungarians. Their church Hungarian church their Easter Hungarian Easter their priest Hungarian "popA". Catholic was a foggy term to the older generations.
It is interesting-telling-that the "Romanian Church United with Rome, Greek-Catholic" now confesses its faith "Într-una, sfântă, catolică și apostolică Biserică," while the Romanian Orthodox Church continues to confess the Faith "întru una, sfântă, sobornicească și apostolească Biserică."

On that note, on the issue of post Vatican II attempts to prey on the Orthodox, I would count the appearance of the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" in Romanian a year after its first appearance, years before its appearance in English:although very few of the Vatican's flock in Romania speak Romanian. I saw stacks of them in its main cathedral in Bucharest, where everything was in Hungarian.  And  it wasn't teaching the "Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Eastern Church."
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Alveus Lacuna on June 25, 2013, 11:31:09 PM
I noticed someone on the Young Fogey's blog called becoming Orthodox in America "demographic suicide". Funny and pretty true.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: The young fogey on June 26, 2013, 01:45:59 AM
Yes, although I was unfamiliar with the word "synecdoche" until you mentioned it. The commentary I had in mind is that saying "Catholicism" when you really meant "the Vatican" would be like saying "the family" when you really meant "the godfather".

Yes, and there's the tactic that Catholic liberals take when they promote the popular opinions of American Catholics that agree with secular culture, not the church, vs. the teachings of the church, which they label 'the Vatican', trying to say real Catholicism and the Vatican are different.
Most Orthodox Christians have for centuries regarded "real Catholicism" (which we affirm of ourselves e.g. when we recite the Nicene Creed) and Vatican teaching as different, but we don't think of this as a "tactic," just a basic conviction.

That's certainly understandable. However, even those of us in communion with the Vatican don't regard the Vatican as the entire Catholic Church. (I'm part of the Catholic Church, but not part of the Vatican.)

Right.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: stanley123 on June 26, 2013, 03:01:18 AM
In my home region the peasants would call the Catholics simply Hungarians. Their church Hungarian church their Easter Hungarian Easter their priest Hungarian "popA". Catholic was a foggy term to the older generations.
It is interesting-telling-that the "Romanian Church United with Rome, Greek-Catholic" now confesses its faith "Într-una, sfântă, catolică și apostolică Biserică," while the Romanian Orthodox Church continues to confess the Faith "întru una, sfântă, sobornicească și apostolească Biserică."

On that note, on the issue of post Vatican II attempts to prey on the Orthodox, I would count the appearance of the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" in Romanian a year after its first appearance, years before its appearance in English:although very few of the Vatican's flock in Romania speak Romanian. I saw stacks of them in its main cathedral in Bucharest, where everything was in Hungarian.  And  it wasn't teaching the "Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Eastern Church."
They have Masses in both Romanian and Hungarian and sometimes even in Latin. the words "Într-una, sfântă, catolică și apostolică Biserică," are in the Romanian language so there are Roman Catholics and Greek Catholics who speak Romanian. 
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: ialmisry on June 26, 2013, 03:29:38 AM
In my home region the peasants would call the Catholics simply Hungarians. Their church Hungarian church their Easter Hungarian Easter their priest Hungarian "popA". Catholic was a foggy term to the older generations.
It is interesting-telling-that the "Romanian Church United with Rome, Greek-Catholic" now confesses its faith "Într-una, sfântă, catolică și apostolică Biserică," while the Romanian Orthodox Church continues to confess the Faith "întru una, sfântă, sobornicească și apostolească Biserică."

On that note, on the issue of post Vatican II attempts to prey on the Orthodox, I would count the appearance of the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" in Romanian a year after its first appearance, years before its appearance in English:although very few of the Vatican's flock in Romania speak Romanian. I saw stacks of them in its main cathedral in Bucharest, where everything was in Hungarian.  And  it wasn't teaching the "Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Eastern Church."
They have Masses in both Romanian and Hungarian and sometimes even in Latin. the words "Într-una, sfântă, catolică și apostolică Biserică," are in the Romanian language so there are Roman Catholics and Greek Catholics who speak Romanian. 
The "Roman Catholics" outnumber the "Greek Catholics" in Romania, no matter who is counting, and both together are dwarfed by the nearly 90% Orthodox majority.

Of those under the Vatican in Romania, most are Hungarian-hence why all the books I saw (except the CCC) in the Cathedral were in Hungarian (some announcements on the board were German and Romanian).

In contrast, the US alone has enough followers of the Vatican who speak English twice the total population of all Romania.  Those in Great Britain are many times those in Romania, as are those in Ireland, and in Australia, and those in New Zealand are almost equal.  Their Anglo coreligionists in Canada dwarf those in Romania, almost by the power of 10.

IOW, there was a larger need, and a higher priority, to translate and distribute it in English, than in Romanian, if pastoral concerns lay behind it.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: The young fogey on June 26, 2013, 03:31:20 AM
Among the few Romanians I've met is a man whose family switched from Greek Catholic to Roman Catholic rather than obey the Communist order to become Orthodox.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: William on June 26, 2013, 03:46:49 AM
I noticed someone on the Young Fogey's blog called becoming Orthodox in America "demographic suicide". Funny and pretty true.

I've finally found out what became of that Ochlophobist character (he posted some pseudosociological critique of Orthodoxy in the comments), so there's that.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: ialmisry on June 26, 2013, 03:59:04 AM
Yes, although I was unfamiliar with the word "synecdoche" until you mentioned it. The commentary I had in mind is that saying "Catholicism" when you really meant "the Vatican" would be like saying "the family" when you really meant "the godfather".

Yes, and there's the tactic that Catholic liberals take when they promote the popular opinions of American Catholics that agree with secular culture, not the church, vs. the teachings of the church, which they label 'the Vatican', trying to say real Catholicism and the Vatican are different.
Most Orthodox Christians have for centuries regarded "real Catholicism" (which we affirm of ourselves e.g. when we recite the Nicene Creed) and Vatican teaching as different, but we don't think of this as a "tactic," just a basic conviction.

That's certainly understandable. However, even those of us in communion with the Vatican don't regard the Vatican as the entire Catholic Church. (I'm part of the Catholic Church, but not part of the Vatican.)

Right.
Quote
TITLE III THE SUPREME AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH
c. 42
Just as, by the Lord's decision, Saint Peter and the other Apostles constitute one college, so in a similar way the Roman Pontiff, successor of Peter, and the bishops, successors of the Apostles, are joined together.
c. 43
The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore, in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.
c. 45
The Roman Pontiff, by virtue of his office (munus), not only has power over the entire Church but also possesses a primacy of ordinary power over all the eparchies and groupings of them by which the proper, ordinary and immediate power which bishops possess in the eparchy entrusted to their care is both strengthened and safeguarded.
The Roman Pontiff, in fulfilling the office (munus) of the supreme pastor of the Church is always united in communion with the other bishops and with the entire Church; however, he has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, either personal or collegial, of exercising this function.
There is neither appeal nor recourse against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.
c. 46.1
In exercising his office (munus) the Roman Pontiff is assisted by the bishops who aid him in various ways and among these is the synod of bishops; moreover the cardinals, the Roman curia, pontifical legates and other persons and various institutes assist him according to the needs of the times; all these persons and institutes carry out the task committed to them in his name and by his authority for the good of all the Churches, according to the norm of law established by the Roman Pontiff himself.
c. 48
In this Code the term "Apostolic See" or "Holy See" applies not only to the Roman Pontiff but also, unless it is otherwise prescribed by the law or the nature of the matter indicates otherwise, dicasteries and other institutes of the Roman curia.

TITLE IV THE PATRIARCHAL CHURCHES
c. 56
A patriarch is a bishop who enjoys power over all bishops including metropolitans and other Christian faithful of the Church over which he presides according to the norm of law approved by the supreme authority of the Church.
c. 57
The erection, restoration, modification and suppression of patriarchal Churches is reserved to the supreme authority of the Church.
Only the supreme authority of the Church can modify the legitimately recognized or conceded title of each patriarchal Church.
If it is possible, a patriarchal Church must have a permanent see for the residence of the patriarch in a principal city inside its own territory from which the patriarch takes his title; this see cannot be transferred except for a most grave reason and with the consent of the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church and the assent of the Roman Pontiff.
c. 85
For a serious reason, with the consent of the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church and having consulted the Apostolic See, the patriarch can establish provinces and eparchies, modify their boundaries, unite, divide, suppress, and modify their hierarchical status and transfer the eparchial see.

TITLE VII EPARCHIES AND BISHOPS
c. 177
1. An eparchy is a portion of the people of God which is entrusted for pastoral care to a bishop with the cooperation of the presbyterate so that, adhering to its pastor and gathered by him in the Holy Spirit through the Gospel and the Eucharist, it constitutes a particular Church in which the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Christ is truly present and operative.
In the erection, modification, and suppression of eparchies within the territorial boundaries of a patriarchal Church, can. 85, 1 is to be observed; in other cases the erection, modification and suppression of eparchies is solely within the competence of the Apostolic See.
Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: ialmisry on June 26, 2013, 04:12:35 AM
Among the few Romanians I've met is a man whose family switched from Greek Catholic to Roman Catholic rather than obey the Communist order to become Orthodox.
Was that a confession of the complicity of the "Roman Catholics" with the Communists?
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: ialmisry on June 26, 2013, 04:13:24 AM
I noticed someone on the Young Fogey's blog called becoming Orthodox in America "demographic suicide". Funny and pretty true.

I've finally found out what became of that Ochlophobist character (he posted some pseudosociological critique of Orthodoxy in the comments), so there's that.
Oh?  What did he have to say?
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: William on June 26, 2013, 04:19:11 AM
I noticed someone on the Young Fogey's blog called becoming Orthodox in America "demographic suicide". Funny and pretty true.

I've finally found out what became of that Ochlophobist character (he posted some pseudosociological critique of Orthodoxy in the comments), so there's that.
Oh?  What did he have to say?

http://sergesblog.blogspot.com/2013/05/next-big-things-that-werent-and-arent.html?showComment=1368807960585#c9039053299719987417
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Peter J on June 26, 2013, 07:06:55 AM
Among the few Romanians I've met is a man whose family switched from Greek Catholic to Roman Catholic rather than obey the Communist order to become Orthodox.
Was that a confession of the complicity of the "Roman Catholics" with the Communists?

Very funny. (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/computers/compcoff.gif)
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: ialmisry on June 26, 2013, 11:06:49 AM
I noticed someone on the Young Fogey's blog called becoming Orthodox in America "demographic suicide". Funny and pretty true.

I've finally found out what became of that Ochlophobist character (he posted some pseudosociological critique of Orthodoxy in the comments), so there's that.
Oh?  What did he have to say?

http://sergesblog.blogspot.com/2013/05/next-big-things-that-werent-and-arent.html?showComment=1368807960585#c9039053299719987417
Ah, yes.  That prattle.  I wonder if he (or the many others I have seen prattling it in Vatican triumphalism) have ever bothered to try their pseudosociological skills on the collapse of their team in South America, the bulk of the Vatican's following-to which the election of their supreme pontiff Francis gave the tip of the hat.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: The young fogey on June 26, 2013, 11:29:51 AM
I noticed someone on the Young Fogey's blog called becoming Orthodox in America "demographic suicide". Funny and pretty true.

I've finally found out what became of that Ochlophobist character (he posted some pseudosociological critique of Orthodoxy in the comments), so there's that.
Oh?  What did he have to say?

http://sergesblog.blogspot.com/2013/05/next-big-things-that-werent-and-arent.html?showComment=1368807960585#c9039053299719987417
Ah, yes.  That prattle.  I wonder if he (or the many others I have seen prattling it in Vatican triumphalism) have ever bothered to try their pseudosociological skills on the collapse of their team in South America, the bulk of the Vatican's following-to which the election of their supreme pontiff Francis gave the tip of the hat.

Whatever Mr. White's historical differences with me, I can tell you he is anything but a dumb Catholic rah-rah.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: TheTrisagion on June 26, 2013, 11:46:34 AM
Quote
•American Eastern Orthodox converts. Owen White called this. The boomlet’s over. In the end you’ll see a couple more Western whites there but mostly continued stolid decline (as Bill Tighe says of their cousins the little PNCC) with most of the few converts remaining people like Tom Hanks, basically nothingarians (ex-Catholics and ex-Protestants) who marry into it (yep, the plot of My Big Fat Greek Wedding), which is great for them. A folk Catholicism that should reteach the official church a few things; now that’s good ecumenism.
I am interested to hear what basis this opinion is founded on.  I have quite a few Orthodox and Catholic friends and far more Orthodox are converts than Catholics. The Orthodox seem to be much more hyper about their beliefs than Catholics are. (whether that is a good or bad thing is up for debate, I suppose). I only know of one person who "married into" Orthodoxy and I know several who married into Catholicism.

I'm not saying they are all joining for good reasons.  I know some join because it is a "Popeless" Catholicism, but that doesn't take away the fact that there seems to be little evidence of a "stolid decline".
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: The young fogey on June 26, 2013, 11:49:18 AM
Quote
•American Eastern Orthodox converts. Owen White called this. The boomlet’s over. In the end you’ll see a couple more Western whites there but mostly continued stolid decline (as Bill Tighe says of their cousins the little PNCC) with most of the few converts remaining people like Tom Hanks, basically nothingarians (ex-Catholics and ex-Protestants) who marry into it (yep, the plot of My Big Fat Greek Wedding), which is great for them. A folk Catholicism that should reteach the official church a few things; now that’s good ecumenism.
I am interested to hear what basis this opinion is founded on.  I have quite a few Orthodox and Catholic friends and far more Orthodox are converts than Catholics. The Orthodox seem to be much more hyper about their beliefs than Catholics are. (whether that is a good or bad thing is up for debate, I suppose). I only know of one person who "married into" Orthodoxy and I know several who married into Catholicism.

I'm not saying they are all joining for good reasons.  I know some join because it is a "Popeless" Catholicism, but that doesn't take away the fact that there seems to be little evidence of a "stolid decline".


They're more noticeable because they're big fish in a shrinking pond.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Romaios on June 26, 2013, 11:57:22 AM
In my home region the peasants would call the Catholics simply Hungarians. Their church Hungarian church their Easter Hungarian Easter their priest Hungarian "popA". Catholic was a foggy term to the older generations.
It is interesting-telling-that the "Romanian Church United with Rome, Greek-Catholic" now confesses its faith "Într-una, sfântă, catolică și apostolică Biserică," while the Romanian Orthodox Church continues to confess the Faith "întru una, sfântă, sobornicească și apostolească Biserică."

On that note, on the issue of post Vatican II attempts to prey on the Orthodox, I would count the appearance of the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" in Romanian a year after its first appearance, years before its appearance in English:although very few of the Vatican's flock in Romania speak Romanian. I saw stacks of them in its main cathedral in Bucharest, where everything was in Hungarian.  And  it wasn't teaching the "Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Eastern Church."
They have Masses in both Romanian and Hungarian and sometimes even in Latin. the words "Într-una, sfântă, catolică și apostolică Biserică," are in the Romanian language so there are Roman Catholics and Greek Catholics who speak Romanian. 
The "Roman Catholics" outnumber the "Greek Catholics" in Romania, no matter who is counting, and both together are dwarfed by the nearly 90% Orthodox majority.

Of those under the Vatican in Romania, most are Hungarian-hence why all the books I saw (except the CCC) in the Cathedral were in Hungarian (some announcements on the board were German and Romanian).

IOW, there was a larger need, and a higher priority, to translate and distribute it in English, than in Romanian, if pastoral concerns lay behind it.

Actually, the part about the translation of the CCC is not accurate. I happen to know who did it: it's the work of two eminent classicist ladies (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqwEoS7Q8p4) from Bucharest, Francisca Băltăceanu and Monica Broșteanu (the latter is also an Arabist). Ms. Băltăceanu's mother converted to Roman-Catholicism before the Communist era, while listening to the RC Archbishop of Bucharest's lectures on Aquinas (Mgr. Anton Durcovici, who died in prison as a martyr for his faith).

They were involved in translating the RC liturgical books into Romanian prior to the Revolution of 1989 and did a very good job of that, although they couldn't be officially printed and only some type-written copies were smuggled to the RC parishes with Romanian speaking faithful. The Communists strictly forbade the use of Romanian in RC services, even though the RC's of Moldavia (the Diocese of Iasi, but also Bucharest) were primarily Romanian speaking. Because of this, the liturgical developments of Vatican II arrived somewhat later in Romania. They also translated the acts of the V2 Council and printed them in Hungary, quite early on.       

The current RC liturgical translations departed from their version and style, being done by amateur linguists and heavily latinized (or rather italienized).     
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: TheTrisagion on June 26, 2013, 11:58:51 AM
Quote
•American Eastern Orthodox converts. Owen White called this. The boomlet’s over. In the end you’ll see a couple more Western whites there but mostly continued stolid decline (as Bill Tighe says of their cousins the little PNCC) with most of the few converts remaining people like Tom Hanks, basically nothingarians (ex-Catholics and ex-Protestants) who marry into it (yep, the plot of My Big Fat Greek Wedding), which is great for them. A folk Catholicism that should reteach the official church a few things; now that’s good ecumenism.
I am interested to hear what basis this opinion is founded on.  I have quite a few Orthodox and Catholic friends and far more Orthodox are converts than Catholics. The Orthodox seem to be much more hyper about their beliefs than Catholics are. (whether that is a good or bad thing is up for debate, I suppose). I only know of one person who "married into" Orthodoxy and I know several who married into Catholicism.

I'm not saying they are all joining for good reasons.  I know some join because it is a "Popeless" Catholicism, but that doesn't take away the fact that there seems to be little evidence of a "stolid decline".


They're more noticeable because they're big fish in a shrinking pond.

Are you saying there are fewer Orthodox now than there were in the 90's?  I haven't seen any indication that that is true...  Where are you getting that info from?
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: The young fogey on June 26, 2013, 12:19:05 PM
Quote
•American Eastern Orthodox converts. Owen White called this. The boomlet’s over. In the end you’ll see a couple more Western whites there but mostly continued stolid decline (as Bill Tighe says of their cousins the little PNCC) with most of the few converts remaining people like Tom Hanks, basically nothingarians (ex-Catholics and ex-Protestants) who marry into it (yep, the plot of My Big Fat Greek Wedding), which is great for them. A folk Catholicism that should reteach the official church a few things; now that’s good ecumenism.
I am interested to hear what basis this opinion is founded on.  I have quite a few Orthodox and Catholic friends and far more Orthodox are converts than Catholics. The Orthodox seem to be much more hyper about their beliefs than Catholics are. (whether that is a good or bad thing is up for debate, I suppose). I only know of one person who "married into" Orthodoxy and I know several who married into Catholicism.

I'm not saying they are all joining for good reasons.  I know some join because it is a "Popeless" Catholicism, but that doesn't take away the fact that there seems to be little evidence of a "stolid decline".


They're more noticeable because they're big fish in a shrinking pond.

Are you saying there are fewer Orthodox now than there were in the 90's?  I haven't seen any indication that that is true...  Where are you getting that info from?

No numbers (yet?) but the phenomenon is well known, as is the official Orthodox exaggeration of their numbers.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: ialmisry on June 26, 2013, 12:41:27 PM
In my home region the peasants would call the Catholics simply Hungarians. Their church Hungarian church their Easter Hungarian Easter their priest Hungarian "popA". Catholic was a foggy term to the older generations.
It is interesting-telling-that the "Romanian Church United with Rome, Greek-Catholic" now confesses its faith "Într-una, sfântă, catolică și apostolică Biserică," while the Romanian Orthodox Church continues to confess the Faith "întru una, sfântă, sobornicească și apostolească Biserică."

On that note, on the issue of post Vatican II attempts to prey on the Orthodox, I would count the appearance of the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" in Romanian a year after its first appearance, years before its appearance in English:although very few of the Vatican's flock in Romania speak Romanian. I saw stacks of them in its main cathedral in Bucharest, where everything was in Hungarian.  And  it wasn't teaching the "Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Eastern Church."
They have Masses in both Romanian and Hungarian and sometimes even in Latin. the words "Într-una, sfântă, catolică și apostolică Biserică," are in the Romanian language so there are Roman Catholics and Greek Catholics who speak Romanian. 
The "Roman Catholics" outnumber the "Greek Catholics" in Romania, no matter who is counting, and both together are dwarfed by the nearly 90% Orthodox majority.

Of those under the Vatican in Romania, most are Hungarian-hence why all the books I saw (except the CCC) in the Cathedral were in Hungarian (some announcements on the board were German and Romanian).

IOW, there was a larger need, and a higher priority, to translate and distribute it in English, than in Romanian, if pastoral concerns lay behind it.

Actually, the part about the translation of the CCC is not accurate.
what is inaccurate about it?
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: ialmisry on June 26, 2013, 12:47:06 PM
I noticed someone on the Young Fogey's blog called becoming Orthodox in America "demographic suicide". Funny and pretty true.

I've finally found out what became of that Ochlophobist character (he posted some pseudosociological critique of Orthodoxy in the comments), so there's that.
Oh?  What did he have to say?

http://sergesblog.blogspot.com/2013/05/next-big-things-that-werent-and-arent.html?showComment=1368807960585#c9039053299719987417
Ah, yes.  That prattle.  I wonder if he (or the many others I have seen prattling it in Vatican triumphalism) have ever bothered to try their pseudosociological skills on the collapse of their team in South America, the bulk of the Vatican's following-to which the election of their supreme pontiff Francis gave the tip of the hat.

Whatever Mr. White's historical differences with me, I can tell you he is anything but a dumb Catholic rah-rah.
yes, he is a smart Vatican rah-rah.  With a Marxist tint, IIRC.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Romaios on June 26, 2013, 12:48:20 PM
In my home region the peasants would call the Catholics simply Hungarians. Their church Hungarian church their Easter Hungarian Easter their priest Hungarian "popA". Catholic was a foggy term to the older generations.
It is interesting-telling-that the "Romanian Church United with Rome, Greek-Catholic" now confesses its faith "Într-una, sfântă, catolică și apostolică Biserică," while the Romanian Orthodox Church continues to confess the Faith "întru una, sfântă, sobornicească și apostolească Biserică."

On that note, on the issue of post Vatican II attempts to prey on the Orthodox, I would count the appearance of the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" in Romanian a year after its first appearance, years before its appearance in English:although very few of the Vatican's flock in Romania speak Romanian. I saw stacks of them in its main cathedral in Bucharest, where everything was in Hungarian.  And  it wasn't teaching the "Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Eastern Church."
They have Masses in both Romanian and Hungarian and sometimes even in Latin. the words "Într-una, sfântă, catolică și apostolică Biserică," are in the Romanian language so there are Roman Catholics and Greek Catholics who speak Romanian. 
The "Roman Catholics" outnumber the "Greek Catholics" in Romania, no matter who is counting, and both together are dwarfed by the nearly 90% Orthodox majority.

Of those under the Vatican in Romania, most are Hungarian-hence why all the books I saw (except the CCC) in the Cathedral were in Hungarian (some announcements on the board were German and Romanian).

IOW, there was a larger need, and a higher priority, to translate and distribute it in English, than in Romanian, if pastoral concerns lay behind it.

Actually, the part about the translation of the CCC is not accurate.
what is inaccurate about it?

The translation was a grass-roots (lay) initiative. It had nothing to do with "proselytizing" intentions of RC hierarchy.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: The young fogey on June 26, 2013, 12:48:52 PM
Mr. White's an anarchist who uses Marxist arguments because he doesn't like libertarians, and he's not ultramontane.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: ialmisry on June 26, 2013, 12:49:27 PM
Quote
•American Eastern Orthodox converts. Owen White called this. The boomlet’s over. In the end you’ll see a couple more Western whites there but mostly continued stolid decline (as Bill Tighe says of their cousins the little PNCC) with most of the few converts remaining people like Tom Hanks, basically nothingarians (ex-Catholics and ex-Protestants) who marry into it (yep, the plot of My Big Fat Greek Wedding), which is great for them. A folk Catholicism that should reteach the official church a few things; now that’s good ecumenism.
I am interested to hear what basis this opinion is founded on.  I have quite a few Orthodox and Catholic friends and far more Orthodox are converts than Catholics. The Orthodox seem to be much more hyper about their beliefs than Catholics are. (whether that is a good or bad thing is up for debate, I suppose). I only know of one person who "married into" Orthodoxy and I know several who married into Catholicism.

I'm not saying they are all joining for good reasons.  I know some join because it is a "Popeless" Catholicism, but that doesn't take away the fact that there seems to be little evidence of a "stolid decline".


They're more noticeable because they're big fish in a shrinking pond.

Are you saying there are fewer Orthodox now than there were in the 90's?  I haven't seen any indication that that is true...  Where are you getting that info from?

No numbers (yet?) but the phenomenon is well known, as is the official Orthodox exaggeration of their numbers.
Thanks.  That mote has been bothering me.  While you are at it, can you chop down that forest over at the Annuario Pontificio?
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: The young fogey on June 26, 2013, 12:50:49 PM
Quote
•American Eastern Orthodox converts. Owen White called this. The boomlet’s over. In the end you’ll see a couple more Western whites there but mostly continued stolid decline (as Bill Tighe says of their cousins the little PNCC) with most of the few converts remaining people like Tom Hanks, basically nothingarians (ex-Catholics and ex-Protestants) who marry into it (yep, the plot of My Big Fat Greek Wedding), which is great for them. A folk Catholicism that should reteach the official church a few things; now that’s good ecumenism.
I am interested to hear what basis this opinion is founded on.  I have quite a few Orthodox and Catholic friends and far more Orthodox are converts than Catholics. The Orthodox seem to be much more hyper about their beliefs than Catholics are. (whether that is a good or bad thing is up for debate, I suppose). I only know of one person who "married into" Orthodoxy and I know several who married into Catholicism.

I'm not saying they are all joining for good reasons.  I know some join because it is a "Popeless" Catholicism, but that doesn't take away the fact that there seems to be little evidence of a "stolid decline".


They're more noticeable because they're big fish in a shrinking pond.

Are you saying there are fewer Orthodox now than there were in the 90's?  I haven't seen any indication that that is true...  Where are you getting that info from?

No numbers (yet?) but the phenomenon is well known, as is the official Orthodox exaggeration of their numbers.
Thanks.  That mote has been bothering me.  While you are at it, can you chop down that forest over at the Annuario Pontificio?

Oh, my God! Catholic churchmen have faults and commit sins! Must throw rosary away. East good, West baaaaaad. Please.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: ialmisry on June 26, 2013, 01:03:35 PM
In my home region the peasants would call the Catholics simply Hungarians. Their church Hungarian church their Easter Hungarian Easter their priest Hungarian "popA". Catholic was a foggy term to the older generations.
It is interesting-telling-that the "Romanian Church United with Rome, Greek-Catholic" now confesses its faith "Într-una, sfântă, catolică și apostolică Biserică," while the Romanian Orthodox Church continues to confess the Faith "întru una, sfântă, sobornicească și apostolească Biserică."

On that note, on the issue of post Vatican II attempts to prey on the Orthodox, I would count the appearance of the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" in Romanian a year after its first appearance, years before its appearance in English:although very few of the Vatican's flock in Romania speak Romanian. I saw stacks of them in its main cathedral in Bucharest, where everything was in Hungarian.  And  it wasn't teaching the "Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Eastern Church."
They have Masses in both Romanian and Hungarian and sometimes even in Latin. the words "Într-una, sfântă, catolică și apostolică Biserică," are in the Romanian language so there are Roman Catholics and Greek Catholics who speak Romanian. 
The "Roman Catholics" outnumber the "Greek Catholics" in Romania, no matter who is counting, and both together are dwarfed by the nearly 90% Orthodox majority.

Of those under the Vatican in Romania, most are Hungarian-hence why all the books I saw (except the CCC) in the Cathedral were in Hungarian (some announcements on the board were German and Romanian).

IOW, there was a larger need, and a higher priority, to translate and distribute it in English, than in Romanian, if pastoral concerns lay behind it.

Actually, the part about the translation of the CCC is not accurate.
what is inaccurate about it?

The translation was a grass-roots (lay) initiative. It had nothing to do with "proselytizing" intentions of RC hierarchy.
Sorry, that's not going to cut it.  The English speaking world suffered from no lack of grass-roots translation, but the Vatican didn't slap its imprematur on that-its US Bishops Conference kept that until its control for two years.  In contrast, the Romanian got its imprematur and nihil obstat within the year of the French promulgation (the original-the official Latin version wasn't promulgated for almost 5 years, and included changes, e.g. on the death penalty). The promulgating authority of the CCC, their supreme pontiff John Paul II-his native Polish had to wait as long as English, although his church was firmly in control then, again, of Poland, and had something like 20x the number of followers of the Vatican than Romania.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: TheTrisagion on June 26, 2013, 01:17:28 PM
Quote
•American Eastern Orthodox converts. Owen White called this. The boomlet’s over. In the end you’ll see a couple more Western whites there but mostly continued stolid decline (as Bill Tighe says of their cousins the little PNCC) with most of the few converts remaining people like Tom Hanks, basically nothingarians (ex-Catholics and ex-Protestants) who marry into it (yep, the plot of My Big Fat Greek Wedding), which is great for them. A folk Catholicism that should reteach the official church a few things; now that’s good ecumenism.
I am interested to hear what basis this opinion is founded on.  I have quite a few Orthodox and Catholic friends and far more Orthodox are converts than Catholics. The Orthodox seem to be much more hyper about their beliefs than Catholics are. (whether that is a good or bad thing is up for debate, I suppose). I only know of one person who "married into" Orthodoxy and I know several who married into Catholicism.

I'm not saying they are all joining for good reasons.  I know some join because it is a "Popeless" Catholicism, but that doesn't take away the fact that there seems to be little evidence of a "stolid decline".


They're more noticeable because they're big fish in a shrinking pond.

Are you saying there are fewer Orthodox now than there were in the 90's?  I haven't seen any indication that that is true...  Where are you getting that info from?

No numbers (yet?) but the phenomenon is well known, as is the official Orthodox exaggeration of their numbers.
It is so well known that I've never heard of it, but I should take your word for it?  ???  Forgive me for asking, I thought there was some actual useful information that you might have gleaned from somewhere.  My bad.  ::)
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: ialmisry on June 26, 2013, 01:29:19 PM
Quote
•American Eastern Orthodox converts. Owen White called this. The boomlet’s over. In the end you’ll see a couple more Western whites there but mostly continued stolid decline (as Bill Tighe says of their cousins the little PNCC) with most of the few converts remaining people like Tom Hanks, basically nothingarians (ex-Catholics and ex-Protestants) who marry into it (yep, the plot of My Big Fat Greek Wedding), which is great for them. A folk Catholicism that should reteach the official church a few things; now that’s good ecumenism.
I am interested to hear what basis this opinion is founded on.  I have quite a few Orthodox and Catholic friends and far more Orthodox are converts than Catholics. The Orthodox seem to be much more hyper about their beliefs than Catholics are. (whether that is a good or bad thing is up for debate, I suppose). I only know of one person who "married into" Orthodoxy and I know several who married into Catholicism.

I'm not saying they are all joining for good reasons.  I know some join because it is a "Popeless" Catholicism, but that doesn't take away the fact that there seems to be little evidence of a "stolid decline".


They're more noticeable because they're big fish in a shrinking pond.

Are you saying there are fewer Orthodox now than there were in the 90's?  I haven't seen any indication that that is true...  Where are you getting that info from?

No numbers (yet?) but the phenomenon is well known, as is the official Orthodox exaggeration of their numbers.
Thanks.  That mote has been bothering me.  While you are at it, can you chop down that forest over at the Annuario Pontificio?

Oh, my God! Catholic churchmen have faults and commit sins! Must throw rosary away. East good, West baaaaaad. Please.
You brought it up
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_HoDij8Z2tHY/Sv3vDWZjvsI/AAAAAAAADa8/JTTJ4YxTO98/s400/Glass+Houses+and+Stones.gif)
"For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again." (Douay-Rheims)

Western Rite Orthodox, very goooooooooood.

Please yourself
(http://www.independentaustralia.net/Wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Strawman.png)
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: The young fogey on June 26, 2013, 01:35:47 PM
Google search. (https://www.google.com/search?q=eastern+orthodox+inflated+numbers)

We each want to build a bridge for the other to walk to us from. Let's just be honest about that, shake hands, and leave each other alone.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: xariskai on June 26, 2013, 01:46:09 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/mMb6P21.jpg)

Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: TheTrisagion on June 26, 2013, 01:48:51 PM
Google search. (https://www.google.com/search?q=eastern+orthodox+inflated+numbers)

We each want to build a bridge for the other to walk to us from. Let's just be honest about that, shake hands, and leave each other alone.

I like your search because it doesn't have a single page that gives any number or really says anything about American Orthodox being inflated OR the number of converts slowing.

I know or care little about building bridges, but if you are going to post stuff about how Orthodoxy in America is shrinking, they inflate their numbers, they don't have many converts or blah, blah, blah, perhaps having a modicum of evidence to support any of those allegations would be helpful. Otherwise, this might be a better search.

https://www.google.com/search?q=the+young+fogey+makes+crap+up+to+suit+his+own+narrative
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: podkarpatska on June 26, 2013, 01:50:07 PM
I want going to post this thought , I really promised myself last weekend,but I just can't help it.

Does anyone else notice that, politics excepted 100% of course,  that Serge, the "Young Fogey", and Varvara of "Voices from Russia"  agree on much regarding relations between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches, including an unusual antipathy towards converts?  
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: The young fogey on June 26, 2013, 01:56:21 PM
I want going to post this thought , I really promised myself last weekend,but I just can't help it.

Does anyone else notice that, politics excepted 100% of course,  that Serge, the "Young Fogey", and Varvara of "Voices from Russia"  agree on much regarding relations between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches, including an unusual antipathy towards converts?  

But Stanley/Varvara hates Catholicism ('graceless heretics'), right?
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: stanley123 on June 26, 2013, 03:13:25 PM
...why all the books I saw (except the CCC) in the Cathedral were in Hungarian (some announcements on the board were German and Romanian).
Because all of the missals in the  Romanian language were sold out at the time you were there. Most of the Roman Catholic Masses there are in the Romanian language, no?
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: ialmisry on June 26, 2013, 03:22:55 PM
...why all the books I saw (except the CCC) in the Cathedral were in Hungarian (some announcements on the board were German and Romanian).
Because all of the missals in the  Romanian language were sold out at the time you were there. Most of the Roman Catholic Masses there are in the Romanian language, no?
No. Hungarian.

The Missals were not for sale.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: podkarpatska on June 26, 2013, 03:52:03 PM
I want going to post this thought , I really promised myself last weekend,but I just can't help it.

Does anyone else notice that, politics excepted 100% of course,  that Serge, the "Young Fogey", and Varvara of "Voices from Russia"  agree on much regarding relations between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches, including an unusual antipathy towards converts?  

But Stanley/Varvara hates Catholicism ('graceless heretics'), right?

Eastern Catholics, not so much Roman ones....
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: TheTrisagion on June 26, 2013, 03:54:32 PM
Where does Stanley/Vavara attend? One would think a priest would discourage his/her actions.  I admittedly know little about him/her other than just seeing references.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Romaios on June 26, 2013, 03:55:34 PM
...why all the books I saw (except the CCC) in the Cathedral were in Hungarian (some announcements on the board were German and Romanian).
Because all of the missals in the  Romanian language were sold out at the time you were there. Most of the Roman Catholic Masses there are in the Romanian language, no?
No. Hungarian.

The Missals were not for sale.

The situation is very different for the RC's in different parts of the country. In the Western part, most RC's are Hungarians, and a minority are of Romanian, German, Bulgarian, Slovak or Croatian descent. There is an increasing demand for Masses in Romanian, since many come from mixed families or are converts / former Greek Catholics turned RC. However, the bishops insist that their clergy be formed at the Alba Iulia seminary in Hungarian. There are few vocations and the older clergy is most of the time not proficient in Romanian.   

In the Eastern part (the Iasi and Bucharest dioceses), the RC's have been naturalized (some may have Polish or Hungarian/Csango roots) and speak Romanian. Families have many kids, there is a boom in vocations, many religious orders, they export missionary priests to Africa or Western Europe, etc. They have been using Romanian as the language of catechesis and - since it was possible - liturgy.

In the RC cathedral of Timisoara there are three Masses (Hungarian, German, Romanian) every Sunday and solemn pontifical Masses are tri-lingual. In Bucharest and Iasi, everything is done in Romanian and they are growing. The Hungarian/German bishops of the Transylvania are more conservative regarding ethnic identity and their numbers are shrinking.   

RC ordinations to the priesthood in Iasi last year (https://plus.google.com/photos/101385356671132479477/albums/5759434212928878577?banner=pwa)
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Nephi on June 26, 2013, 04:02:56 PM
Where does Stanley/Vavara attend? One would think a priest would discourage his/her actions.  I admittedly know little about him/her other than just seeing references.

Who are Stanley/Vavara even?
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: TheTrisagion on June 26, 2013, 04:12:03 PM
Where does Stanley/Vavara attend? One would think a priest would discourage his/her actions.  I admittedly know little about him/her other than just seeing references.

Who are Stanley/Vavara even?
A particularly venomous anti-convert, Russian, transexual, communist Orthodox blogger. Never thought you would see all those words in one sentence, did you?  :D

http://02varvara.wordpress.com/
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Nephi on June 26, 2013, 04:28:11 PM
Where does Stanley/Vavara attend? One would think a priest would discourage his/her actions.  I admittedly know little about him/her other than just seeing references.

Who are Stanley/Vavara even?
A particularly venomous anti-convert, Russian, transexual, communist Orthodox blogger. Never thought you would see all those words in one sentence, did you?  :D

http://02varvara.wordpress.com/

I'm honestly surprised you didn't link me to a Tumblr page after that sentence. ;)
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Cavaradossi on June 26, 2013, 04:57:28 PM
Quote
•American Eastern Orthodox converts. Owen White called this. The boomlet’s over. In the end you’ll see a couple more Western whites there but mostly continued stolid decline (as Bill Tighe says of their cousins the little PNCC) with most of the few converts remaining people like Tom Hanks, basically nothingarians (ex-Catholics and ex-Protestants) who marry into it (yep, the plot of My Big Fat Greek Wedding), which is great for them. A folk Catholicism that should reteach the official church a few things; now that’s good ecumenism.
I am interested to hear what basis this opinion is founded on.  I have quite a few Orthodox and Catholic friends and far more Orthodox are converts than Catholics. The Orthodox seem to be much more hyper about their beliefs than Catholics are. (whether that is a good or bad thing is up for debate, I suppose). I only know of one person who "married into" Orthodoxy and I know several who married into Catholicism.

I'm not saying they are all joining for good reasons.  I know some join because it is a "Popeless" Catholicism, but that doesn't take away the fact that there seems to be little evidence of a "stolid decline".


They're more noticeable because they're big fish in a shrinking pond.

Are you saying there are fewer Orthodox now than there were in the 90's?  I haven't seen any indication that that is true...  Where are you getting that info from?

No numbers (yet?) but the phenomenon is well known, as is the official Orthodox exaggeration of their numbers.

Sophistry at it's finest. "We don't have any numbers, but any evidence you see to the contrary of my assertion is actually evidence for my assertion, fish in a shrinking pond, etc."

It is little wonder that nobody would want to build bridges with Roman Catholicism, when that would mean having such great philosophasters as a coreligionists.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: William on June 26, 2013, 05:20:21 PM
I wasted a lot of time reading ex-Orthodox blogs last night. The main arguments seemed to be online Orthodox are mean and overzealous, Catholicism is bigger so it wins, and Orthodoxy is shrinking.

Trisagion, if you want some stats that aren't from insecure ex-converts, this website is pretty fair in dispelling exaggerations and inflation: http://www.orthodoxreality.org/
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Asteriktos on June 26, 2013, 05:40:30 PM
I've not come across many groups, religious or otherwise, who don't exaggerate their numbers. Some music fans, perhaps, who base part of their identity on being part of an elite and enlightened group of 14 people who know about some obscure band or other. But that's about it. I have even heard the old calendarists, who are usually quick to say that numbers mean nothing, exaggerate their numbers to a disgusting degree. But I think in the last 3 years or so, with a couple reports giving more accurate numbers for Orthodox, these absurd figures like 6 million or 3 million are seen much less often. Of course we still get numbers just as absurd regarding the worldwide population of Orthodoxy, but then that's a separate issue as this discussion seems to be about Orthodoxy in America.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: stanley123 on June 26, 2013, 06:02:21 PM
...why all the books I saw (except the CCC) in the Cathedral were in Hungarian (some announcements on the board were German and Romanian).
Because all of the missals in the  Romanian language were sold out at the time you were there. Most of the Roman Catholic Masses there are in the Romanian language, no?
No. Hungarian.

The Missals were not for sale.
How often were you there?  Occasionally, I would see in the Bucharest Church copies of: Carte De Rugaciuni. Sfinta Liturghie. This was a small paperback missal of about 334 pages, entirely in the  Romanian language and was available to take home.   
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Alveus Lacuna on June 26, 2013, 09:38:14 PM
So what are the real number nationally and globally? My guessy guess with no real information is maybe 1 million in America and 200 million globally?
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: xariskai on June 26, 2013, 10:06:47 PM
Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life (2011) gave a little over 260 million.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Peter J on June 26, 2013, 10:30:40 PM
Actually, the part about the translation of the CCC is not accurate.
what is inaccurate about it?

The translation was a grass-roots (lay) initiative. It had nothing to do with "proselytizing" intentions of RC hierarchy.

I didn't know the details until you supplied them, but even so I seriously doubted the proselytizing-theory. (You didn't think we Catholics were that bad at proselytizing, did you?  :D)
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Peter J on June 26, 2013, 10:37:25 PM
I've not come across many groups, religious or otherwise, who don't exaggerate their numbers.

Which is pretty silly. Numbers don't matter, which is why I'm never going to release any for my church (which I'll be starting any day now, by the way).
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Surnaturel on June 26, 2013, 11:34:16 PM
Quote
•American Eastern Orthodox converts. Owen White called this. The boomlet’s over. In the end you’ll see a couple more Western whites there but mostly continued stolid decline (as Bill Tighe says of their cousins the little PNCC) with most of the few converts remaining people like Tom Hanks, basically nothingarians (ex-Catholics and ex-Protestants) who marry into it (yep, the plot of My Big Fat Greek Wedding), which is great for them. A folk Catholicism that should reteach the official church a few things; now that’s good ecumenism.
I am interested to hear what basis this opinion is founded on.  I have quite a few Orthodox and Catholic friends and far more Orthodox are converts than Catholics. The Orthodox seem to be much more hyper about their beliefs than Catholics are. (whether that is a good or bad thing is up for debate, I suppose). I only know of one person who "married into" Orthodoxy and I know several who married into Catholicism.

I'm not saying they are all joining for good reasons.  I know some join because it is a "Popeless" Catholicism, but that doesn't take away the fact that there seems to be little evidence of a "stolid decline".


They're more noticeable because they're big fish in a shrinking pond.

Are you saying there are fewer Orthodox now than there were in the 90's?  I haven't seen any indication that that is true...  Where are you getting that info from?

No numbers (yet?) but the phenomenon is well known, as is the official Orthodox exaggeration of their numbers.

Sophistry at it's finest. "We don't have any numbers, but any evidence you see to the contrary of my assertion is actually evidence for my assertion, fish in a shrinking pond, etc."

It is little wonder that nobody would want to build bridges with Roman Catholicism, when that would mean having such great philosophasters as a coreligionists.
Careful not to be tendentious to the whole, many of which are, at times, overly charitable to the Orthodox, because of the few.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Asteriktos on June 26, 2013, 11:36:56 PM
I've not come across many groups, religious or otherwise, who don't exaggerate their numbers.

Which is pretty silly. Numbers don't matter, which is why I'm never going to release any for my church (which I'll be starting any day now, by the way).

Smart. Keep it secretive mysterious. A thought--make up hundreds of websites for phantom parishes across the world. If a potential inquirer asks about one in his city simply tell him that the parish is in hiatus, and that you would be happy to catechize him over the interwebs.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: ialmisry on June 27, 2013, 12:13:51 AM
Where does Stanley/Vavara attend? One would think a priest would discourage his/her actions.  I admittedly know little about him/her other than just seeing references.

Who are Stanley/Vavara even?
A particularly venomous anti-convert, Russian, transexual, communist Orthodox blogger. Never thought you would see all those words in one sentence, did you?  :D

http://02varvara.wordpress.com/
You left out "Upper New Yorker"-the "Voices of Russia" shriek from Albany.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: ialmisry on June 27, 2013, 12:24:12 AM
...why all the books I saw (except the CCC) in the Cathedral were in Hungarian (some announcements on the board were German and Romanian).
Because all of the missals in the  Romanian language were sold out at the time you were there. Most of the Roman Catholic Masses there are in the Romanian language, no?
No. Hungarian.

The Missals were not for sale.
How often were you there?  Occasionally, I would see in the Bucharest Church copies of: Carte De Rugaciuni. Sfinta Liturghie. This was a small paperback missal of about 334 pages, entirely in the  Romanian language and was available to take home.   
Not often, and not since 1993.  But then we were talking about the time when the Catechism came out, not the present day (I don't know when you were there).

Btw, we are talking about Sf. Iosif?  I seem to recall something about the "Romanian Church in Union with Rome, Greek Catholic" taking it over or some such thing, their Supreme Pontif reading a Byzantine Liturgy there when he visited.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: ialmisry on June 27, 2013, 12:25:22 AM
Actually, the part about the translation of the CCC is not accurate.
what is inaccurate about it?

The translation was a grass-roots (lay) initiative. It had nothing to do with "proselytizing" intentions of RC hierarchy.

I didn't know the details until you supplied them, but even so I seriously doubted the proselytizing-theory. (You didn't think we Catholics were that bad at proselytizing, did you?  :D)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/57/Michel_d%27Herbigny_%281880-1957%29.jpg)
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: TheTrisagion on June 27, 2013, 08:32:04 AM
I've not come across many groups, religious or otherwise, who don't exaggerate their numbers.

Which is pretty silly. Numbers don't matter, which is why I'm never going to release any for my church (which I'll be starting any day now, by the way).

Smart. Keep it secretive mysterious. A thought--make up hundreds of websites for phantom parishes across the world. If a potential inquirer asks about one in his city simply tell him that the parish is in hiatus, and that you would be happy to catechize him over the interwebs.
Ooooh, I like this idea!  Can I join your cool religion?  What does it teach?  Can I start a phantom diocese?  I call Archbishop position!  ;D
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Yurysprudentsiya on June 27, 2013, 08:44:41 AM
Among the few Romanians I've met is a man whose family switched from Greek Catholic to Roman Catholic rather than obey the Communist order to become Orthodox.

This happened also among the Lemkos of Poland.  They split three ways -- some became Roman Catholic (and passing as such - as Poles - helped to avoid deportation), some became Orthodox, and some conducted underground Greek Catholic services.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: ialmisry on June 27, 2013, 09:01:19 AM
Among the few Romanians I've met is a man whose family switched from Greek Catholic to Roman Catholic rather than obey the Communist order to become Orthodox.

This happened also among the Lemkos of Poland.  They split three ways -- some became Roman Catholic (and passing as such - as Poles - helped to avoid deportation), some became Orthodox, and some conducted underground Greek Catholic services.
It happened in Ukraine as well. There was a large thread on that on another forum this year.

And in all three cases-Romania, Ukraine and Poland, the move back to Orthodoxy began WAAAAY before the Communists took over.  In fact, it took place long before the Orthodox took over, when the minions of the Vatican still ruled the roost.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: Peter J on June 27, 2013, 09:26:24 AM
I've not come across many groups, religious or otherwise, who don't exaggerate their numbers.

Which is pretty silly. Numbers don't matter, which is why I'm never going to release any for my church (which I'll be starting any day now, by the way).

Smart. Keep it secretive mysterious. A thought--make up hundreds of websites for phantom parishes across the world. If a potential inquirer asks about one in his city simply tell him that the parish is in hiatus, and that you would be happy to catechize him over the interwebs.
Ooooh, I like this idea!  Can I join your cool religion?  What does it teach?  Can I start a phantom diocese?  I call Archbishop position!  ;D

If you're the head of another church, we could consider a merger. Next synod meeting, I'll motion for the appointment of a committee to review your church's credentials.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: TheTrisagion on June 27, 2013, 09:34:27 AM
I've not come across many groups, religious or otherwise, who don't exaggerate their numbers.

Which is pretty silly. Numbers don't matter, which is why I'm never going to release any for my church (which I'll be starting any day now, by the way).

Smart. Keep it secretive mysterious. A thought--make up hundreds of websites for phantom parishes across the world. If a potential inquirer asks about one in his city simply tell him that the parish is in hiatus, and that you would be happy to catechize him over the interwebs.
Ooooh, I like this idea!  Can I join your cool religion?  What does it teach?  Can I start a phantom diocese?  I call Archbishop position!  ;D

If you're the head of another church, we could consider a merger. Next synod meeting, I'll motion for the appointment of a committee to review your church's credentials.
Absolutely not.  Your heretical belief of numeroclasm has placed schism between our traditions. REPENT and we can consider revoking our anathemas against you, the number-haters. We consider any payment in excess of $19.99 as an acceptable example of repentance and will revoke our anathemas at that time.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: mike on June 27, 2013, 09:40:15 AM
And in all three cases-Romania, Ukraine and Poland, the move back to Orthodoxy began WAAAAY before the Communists took over.  In fact, it took place long before the Orthodox took over, when the minions of the Vatican still ruled the roost.

Untrue. At least in Poland and Ukraine.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: podkarpatska on June 27, 2013, 10:05:19 AM
Among the few Romanians I've met is a man whose family switched from Greek Catholic to Roman Catholic rather than obey the Communist order to become Orthodox.

This happened also among the Lemkos of Poland.  They split three ways -- some became Roman Catholic (and passing as such - as Poles - helped to avoid deportation), some became Orthodox, and some conducted underground Greek Catholic services.

It happened in the United States as well, but due to the decades of internecine squabbles within the Greek Catholic/Orthodox communities if Lemmon, Rusyn and Ukrainian immigrants rather than the communists.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: ialmisry on June 27, 2013, 10:39:54 AM
And in all three cases-Romania, Ukraine and Poland, the move back to Orthodoxy began WAAAAY before the Communists took over.  In fact, it took place long before the Orthodox took over, when the minions of the Vatican still ruled the roost.

Untrue. At least in Poland and Ukraine.
The Austrians and Hungarians were already prosecuting in court and dismissing from positions the newly returned Orthodox in the 1880's in Galicia, where the Orthodox officially did not exist.  A milestone was the 1882 treason trial of Ivan Naumovich, a Ruthenian priest ordained by the Vatican and member of the Galician and then Austrian Parliaments.  His crime?  Drafting a petition of a Ruthenian village that wanted to go from submission to the Vatican to come under the omophorion of the Metropolitan of Czernowitz, the local Orthodox primate.  Acquitted, he was sentenced for "public disturbance" and served 8 months in prison, and lost his seat in the Parliament, and then was excommunicated by the Vatican.  St. Alexeis Kabaliuk himself became embroiled in the Second Maramuresh-Sighet Trial of 1913: the First was in 1903, and for the same "crime"-return to Orthodoxy. (he was freed from prison when the regime fell in 1918).  Such led to the Talerhof Concentration Camps, where St. Maxim Sandovich was martyred.

Galicia remained outside the Soviet Union, and came under the Vatican's most loyal daughter, the Second Polish Republic, and so was subject to the same Revindication Campaigns as the rest of its territory.

The Tyvala "schism" (i.e. the return to Catholic unity under bishops in the Orthodox diptychs) started in 1926 and alarmed the Vatican that it created the Lemko Apostolic Administration to put the area of southern Poland directly under itself.

I purposely do not count the Chelm Diocese, as the Czar did have control of that area, although the conversion was done by refugee returners to Orthodoxy from Austria Hungary.

So in the areas where neither the Most Orthodox Czar nor the Soviet Commissar had control before 1945, the return to Orthodoxy had been well under way.  That includes Czechoslovakia too, btw.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: mike on June 27, 2013, 11:21:26 AM
So in the areas where neither the Most Orthodox Czar nor the Soviet Commissar had control before 1945, the return to Orthodoxy had been well under way.  That includes Czechoslovakia too, btw.

In terms of numbers forced convertions greatly outrun those guerrilla ones.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: podkarpatska on June 27, 2013, 01:40:27 PM
And in all three cases-Romania, Ukraine and Poland, the move back to Orthodoxy began WAAAAY before the Communists took over.  In fact, it took place long before the Orthodox took over, when the minions of the Vatican still ruled the roost.

Untrue. At least in Poland and Ukraine.
The Austrians and Hungarians were already prosecuting in court and dismissing from positions the newly returned Orthodox in the 1880's in Galicia, where the Orthodox officially did not exist.  A milestone was the 1882 treason trial of Ivan Naumovich, a Ruthenian priest ordained by the Vatican and member of the Galician and then Austrian Parliaments.  His crime?  Drafting a petition of a Ruthenian village that wanted to go from submission to the Vatican to come under the omophorion of the Metropolitan of Czernowitz, the local Orthodox primate.  Acquitted, he was sentenced for "public disturbance" and served 8 months in prison, and lost his seat in the Parliament, and then was excommunicated by the Vatican.  St. Alexeis Kabaliuk himself became embroiled in the Second Maramuresh-Sighet Trial of 1913: the First was in 1903, and for the same "crime"-return to Orthodoxy. (he was freed from prison when the regime fell in 1918).  Such led to the Talerhof Concentration Camps, where St. Maxim Sandovich was martyred.

Galicia remained outside the Soviet Union, and came under the Vatican's most loyal daughter, the Second Polish Republic, and so was subject to the same Revindication Campaigns as the rest of its territory.

The Tyvala "schism" (i.e. the return to Catholic unity under bishops in the Orthodox diptychs) started in 1926 and alarmed the Vatican that it created the Lemko Apostolic Administration to put the area of southern Poland directly under itself.

I purposely do not count the Chelm Diocese, as the Czar did have control of that area, although the conversion was done by refugee returners to Orthodoxy from Austria Hungary.

So in the areas where neither the Most Orthodox Czar nor the Soviet Commissar had control before 1945, the return to Orthodoxy had been well under way.  That includes Czechoslovakia too, btw.

Yes, some were returning to Orthodoxy pre WW1 as a form of political opposition to the Hungarians  with the support and money of emigres who faced Roman opposition to their presence in America. After the war, the presence of the ROCOR in Ladimirova, Slovakia led to  additional converts in the villages surrounding the monastery (including the family of the late Metropolitan Laurus). People from Minneapolis funded an Orthodox church in Becherov and people from Ambridge, Pa funded one in Svetlice (Vilagy), both in Slovakia between the wars, but these were the exception rather than the rule. If my memory is correct, most of the Czechoslovak Orthodox church pre World War 2 was ethnically Czech and were Protestant and Roman Catholic converts rather than Greek Catholic converts. The ham handedness of the Russians, coupled with the collaboration of some local Greek Catholics in outlawing the Greek Catholic church at the onset of the Cold War set Orthodoxy back to the extent that still reverberates their to this day. Current Slovak census data is consistent with my premise.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: ialmisry on June 27, 2013, 01:44:59 PM
So in the areas where neither the Most Orthodox Czar nor the Soviet Commissar had control before 1945, the return to Orthodoxy had been well under way.  That includes Czechoslovakia too, btw.

In terms of numbers forced convertions greatly outrun those guerrilla ones.
You didn't ask about numbers. Nor, for that matter, do you provide them now.

Don't quite know what a guerilla conversion is. Does it involve guns?
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: JoeS2 on June 27, 2013, 02:57:22 PM
Google search. (https://www.google.com/search?q=eastern+orthodox+inflated+numbers)

We each want to build a bridge for the other to walk to us from. Let's just be honest about that, shake hands, and leave each other alone.

Works for me.....!
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: mike on June 27, 2013, 03:26:34 PM
So in the areas where neither the Most Orthodox Czar nor the Soviet Commissar had control before 1945, the return to Orthodoxy had been well under way.  That includes Czechoslovakia too, btw.

In terms of numbers forced convertions greatly outrun those guerrilla ones.
You didn't ask about numbers. Nor, for that matter, do you provide them now.

Synod of Polotsk - 1.6 M
Chelm diocese - 0.2 M

These are numbers of state-supported conversion.

I couldn't get the numbers of grass-root conversion in Austro-Hungary but I really doubt they are greater.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: ialmisry on June 28, 2013, 09:20:47 AM
So in the areas where neither the Most Orthodox Czar nor the Soviet Commissar had control before 1945, the return to Orthodoxy had been well under way.  That includes Czechoslovakia too, btw.

In terms of numbers forced convertions greatly outrun those guerrilla ones.
You didn't ask about numbers. Nor, for that matter, do you provide them now.

Synod of Polotsk - 1.6 M
Chelm diocese - 0.2 M

These are numbers of state-supported conversion.

I couldn't get the numbers of grass-root conversion in Austro-Hungary but I really doubt they are greater.
Under a million, but in the hundreds of thousands (it is hard to tell the exact number, because, given the length of time, they were able to produce cradles (60+ years in the former Austrian Hungarian territories outside of interwar Romania, 40 years inside: Northern Bukowina's population of just under a half million was almost entirely a convert population and their descendants. In Southern Bucovina, IIRC the Vatican's Uniates, what there were of them, were not affected by the state-supported conversion of the 1940's).  Besides the "state-supported conversion" (the non-conversion was also state supported) of the Czar and King of Romania (who, btw, was a loyal son of the Vatican), the Communists already had a base of around a million converts and their progeny in Ukraine, Poland, Czechoslovakia to work from.  A million persons you implied did not exist.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: augustin717 on June 28, 2013, 12:56:15 PM
when they tried quite hard to impose the union on my home region (western Transylvania/Partium) -the northern half  of present day Arad county- in the eighteenth century the people overwhelmingly rejected it, although for a couple of decades everybody became GK by the fiat of the imperial authorities. Yet there are hundreds of still existing petitions made by  the villages/ priests/ bishops of Arad to the imperial court in Vienna asking to be left "non-united" and, in some cases return to the 'non- united faith". That was, i remember, the case of Siria/Villagos. That was happening in the 18th century. So, the union never took root there with the exception of a few larger and richer villages further down in the plain. from my reading of local history it was mostly a sense of desperation (also class-consciousness) that made the people so unwilling to submit. you had a rich elite of landowners keeping all these villages in serfdom -with very high taxes-that also now, as the people saw it, asks them to change their religion. you oftentimes hear in those petitions: you take our land, our grain, money, labor. But  our faith you won't. So, it was a sort of those serfs showing the middle finger to the ruling class.
Title: Re: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians
Post by: JoeS2 on June 29, 2013, 02:55:25 PM
I will come back and read the article, but very quickly I wanted to mention that for some reason the prayer 'union of all men' kept sticking out to me like a light beacon this past week. 

Who knows the mind of God, but can it be anything but GOOD?

:) 

My family remains RC - and for me, the hope is that we will be one before the judgement seat.  I love them.  Can love ask for anything less for ANY person who calls upon the Name of Christ?

My whole family is RC and when I converted their only worry was: "Is this religion Catholic"? To which, I answered, Of course, very.