OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 25, 2014, 11:00:23 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Share this answer with your Orthodox friends!  (Read 4717 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Brigid of Kildare
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 280



« on: June 01, 2003, 02:23:14 PM »

I was interested by both the question and the response given at the Roman Catholic Diocese of Wheeling-Charleston. So what do our friends, Orthodox and  Roman Catholic think?


My question concerns differences between the two apostolic churches, the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. My Orthodox friends challenge how the Catholic Church often changes things: eg., having to spend less days fasting now than before, having to spend less time at Mass etc. My Orthodox friends say that by doing this, the Catholic Church is violating passages such as Hebrews 13:8 ("Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever") and 2 Thessalonians 2:15 ("So then, our brothers, stand firm and hold on to those truths which we taught you, both in our preaching and in our letter"). How does the Catholic Church defend this?

Greetings in Christ!

Within your question are some clues to an answer to your question. There is a difference between truths and practices (or methods or packaging, if you will). The practice of fasting can vary in length, but the truths which fasting leads to: a desire to spiritual hunger and thirst for God and the salvation he offers us, is more important because it is the goal of fasting.

Regarding the Mass, the basic essence of the mass are the same in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches: the Penitential Rite, the Liturgy of the Word, the Liturgy of the Eucharist, the theology of the real presence of Jesus in the Sacrament. Just because Orthodox churches have longer masses, or Catholic churches in Nigeria have 3 hour masses, and here in the US or in your country of Australia, there are 1 hour masses, do not make the one hour mass less of a spiritual experience. The basic elements are all there. We encounter Jesus in the Word and in the Sacrament. It is the packaging that is different.

In my studies of Early Church history, when early Christians broke bread together, there were differences in method or packaging in the different liturgies that emerged. For example, the liturgies at Ephesus (Greek), Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria and Rome had many differences in method, language, and practices, but they did retain the essence of liturgy which contains the truths of our faith.

We Catholics do not change the truths, because they are absolute. But throughout the ages, songs, prayers, and practices have changed so that people of different ages and cultures can more readily come to encounter and understand the truths of our faith and especially the Truth who is Jesus.

Share this answer with your Orthodox friends!

http://www.dwc.org/questions/liturgy/orthodox.htm
Logged

Bríd Naomhtha, Mhuire na nGaeil, Guí Orainn
The young fogey
Archon
********
Online Online

Posts: 2,758


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #1 on: June 01, 2003, 03:40:57 PM »

Thanks, Brigid. I was impressed with that answer. Rather than a predictable apologia for the Novus Ordo (which was a mistake in prudential judgement), it is a calm and rational explanation why one faith can come in the form of several rites.

The answer is also consistent with the Catholic Church 'in the good old days' - disciplinary rules and practices can and do change; defined dogma doesn't.

This is also true in the Orthodox Church historically - on my Orthodox Tradition page you can buy a book by Canon Hugh Wybrew on the historical evolution of the Byzantine Rite Divine Liturgy.

Change in apostolic churches is organic and usually moves at a glacial pace. Immemorial custom has a lot of weight, East and West (a little like English common law).

Reducing required fasts to tokenism may be a mistake in prudential judgement, but there is a vital difference between changing disciplinary rules and dogmatically teaching against fasting. In other words, the church can't get rid of fasting but can change how and when one fasts. (A lot like economy in Eastern Orthodoxy.) As a Catholic friend once put it to me, the church can raise and lower the bar. This is also true in Eastern Orthodoxy - consider that in the ancient Church one had only one second chance with Confession; if one sinned again one was OUT. Or the severe penances back then - not going to Communion and having to stand outside the church with the unbaptized for periods lasting several years. Raising and lowering the bar - the prerogative of the apostolic ministry. Happens all the time: Bishop Kallistos (Ware) writes in The Orthodox Church (which you can also buy on my Orthodox Tradition page) that much of Orthodox canon law is in fact unenforceable today. Immemorial custom is the determining factor. Again - raising and lowering the bar.

Quote
Regarding the Mass, the basic essence of the mass are the same in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches: the Penitential Rite, the Liturgy of the Word, the Liturgy of the Eucharist, the theology of the real presence of Jesus in the Sacrament. Just because Orthodox churches have longer masses, or Catholic churches in Nigeria have 3 hour masses, and here in the US or in your country of Australia, there are 1 hour masses, do not make the one hour mass less of a spiritual experience. The basic elements are all there. We encounter Jesus in the Word and in the Sacrament. It is the packaging that is different.

Entirely true from the Catholic dogmatic POV and many Orthodox would agree the two sides believe the same thing about the Eucharist. I wondered what he meant by 'Penitential Rite', though. That's really a Novus Ordo-ism. In the, er, real Roman Mass, the Confiteor isn't really part of the Mass but along with Psalm 42 is part of a preparatory office for the priest and clerks (servers) from the Middle Ages that got added onto the Mass - the Mass begins when the priest opens the Missal (service book) and reads the Introit. The Kyrie is obviously really a vestige of a litany like in the Byzantine Rite, not a 'Penitential Rite'. Maybe he sees the Trisagion ('Holy God') in the Byzantine Rite Liturgy as a 'Penitential Rite' but that seems historically 'off' somehow. Oh, well. He probably meant well.

Quote
In my studies of Early Church history, when early Christians broke bread together, there were differences in method or packaging in the different liturgies that emerged. For example, the liturgies at Ephesus (Greek), Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria and Rome had many differences in method, language, and practices, but they did retain the essence of liturgy which contains the truths of our faith.

Well put. Rites are the packaging of the faith. Different rites of the apostolic churches exist because of different cultures and the relative lack of communication and mobility in the ancient world.
Logged

Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,748



« Reply #2 on: June 01, 2003, 04:34:54 PM »

Serge,

In my pre 1962 Missal, Psalm 42 is recited at the beginning of Mass just after the Sign of the Cross with the Priest saying " I will ascend the altar of God ". The Confiteor soon follows.

james
Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
The young fogey
Archon
********
Online Online

Posts: 2,758


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #3 on: June 01, 2003, 04:56:11 PM »

James,

I know. This preparatory office - antiphon, Ps. 42, Glory Be, antiphon, Confiteor, Absolution and some verses and responses - began as a separate service recited by the priest and clerks in the sacristy. By the late Middle Ages it was fused onto the beginning of Mass, where it appears in your Missal, and done in the church, but technically it isn't part of Mass.
Logged

Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,748



« Reply #4 on: June 02, 2003, 12:48:58 AM »

I understand, at Catholic Liturgy .com they have a libary with the 1962 Missal & Vesting Prayers , I have not seen the Vesting Prayers before, but I'm not a priest or deacon, just part of the " old " laity.

james
Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
The young fogey
Archon
********
Online Online

Posts: 2,758


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #5 on: June 02, 2003, 10:32:01 AM »

The vesting prayers (I've seen them) are something different - the prep office happens after they're done.
Logged

Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,748



« Reply #6 on: June 02, 2003, 12:17:29 PM »

It really saddens me that my 3 pre 1962 missals cannot be used during liturgical services as they exist today.

Traditional liturgy has been sacrificed for ecumenical & other reasons.

james
« Last Edit: June 02, 2003, 02:36:55 PM by Jakub » Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
Brigid of Kildare
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 280



« Reply #7 on: June 03, 2003, 03:52:11 PM »

It really saddens me that my 3 pre 1962 missals cannot be used during liturgical services as they exist today.

Traditional liturgy has been sacrificed for ecumenical & other reasons.

james


Yes, James, it's a sadness I share. One thing I have rediscovered since becoming Orthodox is the discipline of fasting. I agree with the author that the goal of fasting is the important thing, but the discipline itself has been downgraded so much that it no longer figures in the spiritual lives of many Catholics. I really do believe in the principle of 'lex orandi, lex credendi'.

I have a collection of missals myself, when do your 3 date from?

Brigid
Logged

Bríd Naomhtha, Mhuire na nGaeil, Guí Orainn
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,748



« Reply #8 on: June 03, 2003, 06:46:25 PM »

Dear Brigid,

The missal dates are 1954,57,58.  Another thing I noticed that older prayers ( 1908/1924) I have found reflect some Eastern tones, maybe Serge knows why.

I think the Vatican will add the Latin Liturgy or modify the existing one to appease all.

Hope it happens soon.

James
Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
Brigid of Kildare
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 280



« Reply #9 on: June 04, 2003, 06:57:57 AM »

James,

I have my late father's copy of "The New Sunday Missal" from 1951, complete with charming picture of St Cecilia playing at the organ accompanied by a choir of angels. Someone must have given that to him as he was a church organist. I also have my sister's copy of "The Small Missal" , 14th edition from 1947, and "The Missal for Sundays" from 1929. The latter one has a real "art nouveau" style picture of Christ standing at the altar with the chalice signed and dated 1921.  I bought a copy of Father Lasance's "New Roman Missal", an American reprint of a 1945 classic missal, for my own use when I attended the Tridentine Mass. Last, but not least, I have a full-size altar Missale Romanum from 1943.

I love the old woodcut illustrations in the Benziger Brothers missals, and as you said there is a different ethos in some of the older prayers. I really cherish these missals, not just in an antiquarian bookish way, but as something spiritually precious.

I also found a 2-volume Breviarium Romanum set for the princely sum of -ú3.50 in a charity shop , don't know what that is in dollars, but less than $10, I suppose.  Those, along with my Dad's old Liber Usualis, are in constant use. I'll bore you with the hymnals collection another time Smiley

It would gladden my heart to see the Latin liturgical heritage of western Catholicism being restored to a position of honour. I hope that the Tridentine Rite recently celebrated in Rome does mark a new beginning in this regard.

Brigid
Logged

Bríd Naomhtha, Mhuire na nGaeil, Guí Orainn
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,748



« Reply #10 on: June 04, 2003, 11:26:00 AM »

Brigid,

The books by the Benziger Bros are the best.

My family is quite diverse, my brother in law is from Wales and has corrected my pronunciation of " Celtic " being " Keltic ". Being from Boston originally I tainted the word .

May the Lord light your path.

James
Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
SamB
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 784

Crates of araq for sale! *hic*


« Reply #11 on: June 04, 2003, 03:32:39 PM »

I hear many pronounce it with a hard 'k' or soft 'c'.  I've always stuck to the former.

In IC XC
Samer
Logged
the slave
intolerant of intolerance
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Catholic
Jurisdiction: UGCC
Posts: 810



« Reply #12 on: June 04, 2003, 03:52:11 PM »

Our version is that

Celtic pronounced with an initial K is the Church, Nation etc

Celtic pronounced with an initial S is the Glasgow Football club !!
Logged

"Never let anyone try to tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern. The West was fully Orthodox for a thousand years; and her venerable liturgy is far older than any of her heresies."
- St. John Maximovitch
Brigid of Kildare
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 280



« Reply #13 on: June 04, 2003, 05:24:22 PM »

Our version is that

Celtic pronounced with an initial K is the Church, Nation etc

Celtic pronounced with an initial S is the Glasgow Football club !!

Guys, don't even go there. The celticorthodoxy list at yahoo had a furious debate on this very question which I still haven't recovered from .....

Brigid
Logged

Bríd Naomhtha, Mhuire na nGaeil, Guí Orainn
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #14 on: March 22, 2012, 08:16:41 PM »

Just because Orthodox churches have longer masses, or Catholic churches in Nigeria have 3 hour masses, and here in the US or in your country of Australia, there are 1 hour masses, do not make the one hour mass less of a spiritual experience.

Not that I agree with everything said, but I do certainly agree with this...
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #15 on: March 22, 2012, 08:32:59 PM »

We Catholics do not change the truths, because they are absolute.
I am not sure that this is true really.
People have brought up what appear to be a few possible counterexamples:
1. What is the truth about torturing people and whether or not it is allowed.
At one point in time the RCC allowed torture to extract confessions, whereas now it is condemned.
2. What is the truth about slavery and enslaving people either for a length of time or for life?
Was it always wrong, including in the early Church period?
3. The RCC has changed the rule on women speaking in Church. Why does it allow this, but not women deacons?
4. What is the truth about capital punishment and burning people alive at the stake?
5. What is the truth about castration? A story has come up in the recent news about Dutch boys who had been molested and then raped by Catholic priests. When they complained about this, they were then forcibly  strapped to a bed in a Catholic hospital, and while screaming wildly and horribly, were castrated. Is castration right or wrong? If it is wrong, why did the Vatican create a demand for castrati by employing them as singers in their Churches?
Logged
ICXCNIKA
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 661



« Reply #16 on: March 22, 2012, 08:48:28 PM »

We Catholics do not change the truths, because they are absolute.
I am not sure that this is true really.
People have brought up what appear to be a few possible counterexamples:
1. What is the truth about torturing people and whether or not it is allowed.
At one point in time the RCC allowed torture to extract confessions, whereas now it is condemned.
2. What is the truth about slavery and enslaving people either for a length of time or for life?
Was it always wrong, including in the early Church period?
3. The RCC has changed the rule on women speaking in Church. Why does it allow this, but not women deacons?
4. What is the truth about capital punishment and burning people alive at the stake?
5. What is the truth about castration? A story has come up in the recent news about Dutch boys who had been molested and then raped by Catholic priests. When they complained about this, they were then forcibly  strapped to a bed in a Catholic hospital, and while screaming wildly and horribly, were castrated. Is castration right or wrong? If it is wrong, why did the Vatican create a demand for castrati by employing them as singers in their Churches?

I don't see how any of your points deal with dogma. You listed terrible practices, crimes even but no dogmas that I can see.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #17 on: March 22, 2012, 09:08:34 PM »

We Catholics do not change the truths, because they are absolute.
I am not sure that this is true really.
People have brought up what appear to be a few possible counterexamples:
1. What is the truth about torturing people and whether or not it is allowed.
At one point in time the RCC allowed torture to extract confessions, whereas now it is condemned.
2. What is the truth about slavery and enslaving people either for a length of time or for life?
Was it always wrong, including in the early Church period?
3. The RCC has changed the rule on women speaking in Church. Why does it allow this, but not women deacons?
4. What is the truth about capital punishment and burning people alive at the stake?
5. What is the truth about castration? A story has come up in the recent news about Dutch boys who had been molested and then raped by Catholic priests. When they complained about this, they were then forcibly  strapped to a bed in a Catholic hospital, and while screaming wildly and horribly, were castrated. Is castration right or wrong? If it is wrong, why did the Vatican create a demand for castrati by employing them as singers in their Churches?

I don't see how any of your points deal with dogma. You listed terrible practices, crimes even but no dogmas that I can see.
Was it the case that at one time these practices were thought to be in line with Christian or Catholic  thinking, whereas now they are not. Is that not a change in moral teaching, although perhaps not in dogma per se?
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #18 on: March 22, 2012, 10:25:03 PM »

Was it the case that at one time these practices were thought to be in line with Christian or Catholic  thinking, whereas now they are not. Is that not a change in moral teaching, although perhaps not in dogma per se?

If you haven't read it yet, you might be interested in The Church That Can and Cannot Change: The Development of Catholic Moral Teaching by John Noonan
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
ICXCNIKA
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 661



« Reply #19 on: March 22, 2012, 11:19:06 PM »

We Catholics do not change the truths, because they are absolute.
I am not sure that this is true really.
People have brought up what appear to be a few possible counterexamples:
1. What is the truth about torturing people and whether or not it is allowed.
At one point in time the RCC allowed torture to extract confessions, whereas now it is condemned.
2. What is the truth about slavery and enslaving people either for a length of time or for life?
Was it always wrong, including in the early Church period?
3. The RCC has changed the rule on women speaking in Church. Why does it allow this, but not women deacons?
4. What is the truth about capital punishment and burning people alive at the stake?
5. What is the truth about castration? A story has come up in the recent news about Dutch boys who had been molested and then raped by Catholic priests. When they complained about this, they were then forcibly  strapped to a bed in a Catholic hospital, and while screaming wildly and horribly, were castrated. Is castration right or wrong? If it is wrong, why did the Vatican create a demand for castrati by employing them as singers in their Churches?

I don't see how any of your points deal with dogma. You listed terrible practices, crimes even but no dogmas that I can see.
Was it the case that at one time these practices were thought to be in line with Christian or Catholic  thinking, whereas now they are not. Is that not a change in moral teaching, although perhaps not in dogma per se?

Seems like an over emphasis on the failings of men whether they were lay people or clerics. What religion or society has ever been free of such terrible acts?
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #20 on: March 23, 2012, 04:46:59 AM »

We Catholics do not change the truths, because they are absolute.
I am not sure that this is true really.
People have brought up what appear to be a few possible counterexamples:
1. What is the truth about torturing people and whether or not it is allowed.
At one point in time the RCC allowed torture to extract confessions, whereas now it is condemned.
2. What is the truth about slavery and enslaving people either for a length of time or for life?
Was it always wrong, including in the early Church period?
3. The RCC has changed the rule on women speaking in Church. Why does it allow this, but not women deacons?
4. What is the truth about capital punishment and burning people alive at the stake?
5. What is the truth about castration? A story has come up in the recent news about Dutch boys who had been molested and then raped by Catholic priests. When they complained about this, they were then forcibly  strapped to a bed in a Catholic hospital, and while screaming wildly and horribly, were castrated. Is castration right or wrong? If it is wrong, why did the Vatican create a demand for castrati by employing them as singers in their Churches?

I don't see how any of your points deal with dogma. You listed terrible practices, crimes even but no dogmas that I can see.
Was it the case that at one time these practices were thought to be in line with Christian or Catholic  thinking, whereas now they are not. Is that not a change in moral teaching, although perhaps not in dogma per se?

Seems like an over emphasis on the failings of men whether they were lay people or clerics. What religion or society has ever been free of such terrible acts?
I see what you mean.
However, if at one time it was taught  that slavery (or torture)  is permissable morally, and at another time it was taught that it is not morally permissable, would that not mean that the Christian Church  had changed its teaching on the morality of this?
The word "truth" has been used here. What would it mean in this context except fidelity to a moral ideal?



Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,150



« Reply #21 on: March 29, 2012, 08:07:19 AM »

Quote
We Catholics do not change the truths, because they are absolute.
I am not sure that this is true really.
...

I know one possible answer is that the truth isn't changed, only belief/thinking/teachings are changed -- although to be honest that answer may be a bit of a "cop out".
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,601


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #22 on: March 29, 2012, 09:56:27 AM »

Quote
We Catholics do not change the truths, because they are absolute.
I am not sure that this is true really.
...

I know one possible answer is that the truth isn't changed, only belief/thinking/teachings are changed -- although to be honest that answer may be a bit of a "cop out".

This is a constant issue to me, of which I usually tire and tune out on - we Orthodox and our Roman brothers will give that 'unchanging' waters of the Church argument 'till the proverbial cows come home. But your point, that while truth doesn't change, but rather our human thinking, presentation and analysis of said truth 'changes' is probably on the mark. Intellectually, I believe that is quite possible. As an attorney were I to argue a case today in Court using the approach of say a common law advocate of the 18th century, I  likely might make valid and continuing legal arguments. But my adversary, using modern language and  different approaches to thinking through a particular problem, may be correct on the law and be more persuasive though his or her approach to presentation and explanation.

Were that not true in the Church, we would have no need for modern theologians or Doctors of the Church in Orthodoxy, or frankly in any post-patristic period. Obviously that is patently absurd.

Of course, I would forcefully argue that my Roman brothers have altered certain critical aspects of the corpus of Truth possessed by the Church in a manner unacceptable to the Orthodox.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2012, 09:58:07 AM by podkarpatska » Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,175


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #23 on: March 29, 2012, 10:16:48 AM »

Quote
We Catholics do not change the truths, because they are absolute.
I am not sure that this is true really.
...

I know one possible answer is that the truth isn't changed, only belief/thinking/teachings are changed -- although to be honest that answer may be a bit of a "cop out".

This is a constant issue to me, of which I usually tire and tune out on - we Orthodox and our Roman brothers will give that 'unchanging' waters of the Church argument 'till the proverbial cows come home. But your point, that while truth doesn't change, but rather our human thinking, presentation and analysis of said truth 'changes' is probably on the mark. Intellectually, I believe that is quite possible. As an attorney were I to argue a case today in Court using the approach of say a common law advocate of the 18th century, I  likely might make valid and continuing legal arguments. But my adversary, using modern language and  different approaches to thinking through a particular problem, may be correct on the law and be more persuasive though his or her approach to presentation and explanation.

Were that not true in the Church, we would have no need for modern theologians or Doctors of the Church in Orthodoxy, or frankly in any post-patristic period. Obviously that is patently absurd.

Of course, I would forcefully argue that my Roman brothers have altered certain critical aspects of the corpus of Truth possessed by the Church in a manner unacceptable to the Orthodox.

Hold on now....you're sounding *awfully* "juridical" here  Grin Grin Grin.  Sure you're not really a secret Roman?   Wink laugh  Wink laugh

(I *am* just kidding you, of course!)
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,601


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #24 on: March 29, 2012, 10:38:50 AM »

Quote
We Catholics do not change the truths, because they are absolute.
I am not sure that this is true really.
...

I know one possible answer is that the truth isn't changed, only belief/thinking/teachings are changed -- although to be honest that answer may be a bit of a "cop out".

This is a constant issue to me, of which I usually tire and tune out on - we Orthodox and our Roman brothers will give that 'unchanging' waters of the Church argument 'till the proverbial cows come home. But your point, that while truth doesn't change, but rather our human thinking, presentation and analysis of said truth 'changes' is probably on the mark. Intellectually, I believe that is quite possible. As an attorney were I to argue a case today in Court using the approach of say a common law advocate of the 18th century, I  likely might make valid and continuing legal arguments. But my adversary, using modern language and  different approaches to thinking through a particular problem, may be correct on the law and be more persuasive though his or her approach to presentation and explanation.

Were that not true in the Church, we would have no need for modern theologians or Doctors of the Church in Orthodoxy, or frankly in any post-patristic period. Obviously that is patently absurd.

Of course, I would forcefully argue that my Roman brothers have altered certain critical aspects of the corpus of Truth possessed by the Church in a manner unacceptable to the Orthodox.

Hold on now....you're sounding *awfully* "juridical" here  Grin Grin Grin.  Sure you're not really a secret Roman?   Wink laugh  Wink laugh

(I *am* just kidding you, of course!)

I keep forgetting that some of my brothers and sisters in Orthodoxy do regard critical analysis as a devilish thing. oh well.... Wink
Logged
LizaSymonenko
Слава Ісусу Христу!!! Glory to Jesus Christ!!!
Global Moderator
Toumarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: God's Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A.
Posts: 13,222



WWW
« Reply #25 on: March 29, 2012, 10:48:27 AM »

We Catholics do not change the truths, because they are absolute.
I am not sure that this is true really.
People have brought up what appear to be a few possible counterexamples:
1. What is the truth about torturing people and whether or not it is allowed.
At one point in time the RCC allowed torture to extract confessions, whereas now it is condemned.
2. What is the truth about slavery and enslaving people either for a length of time or for life?
Was it always wrong, including in the early Church period?
3. The RCC has changed the rule on women speaking in Church. Why does it allow this, but not women deacons?
4. What is the truth about capital punishment and burning people alive at the stake?
5. What is the truth about castration? A story has come up in the recent news about Dutch boys who had been molested and then raped by Catholic priests. When they complained about this, they were then forcibly  strapped to a bed in a Catholic hospital, and while screaming wildly and horribly, were castrated. Is castration right or wrong? If it is wrong, why did the Vatican create a demand for castrati by employing them as singers in their Churches?

You list the failings of men and their commands.

If one lived by God's Commandments, one would not have committed any of the above.

Thou shalt not kill, covet, steal, etc.

Love God with all your heart....and love thy neighbor.

If one does these things, one would never hurt another living being either physically or mentally.  

« Last Edit: March 29, 2012, 10:48:39 AM by LizaSymonenko » Logged

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.
—St. Isaac of Syria
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #26 on: March 29, 2012, 11:04:16 AM »

ya, I would have brought up more substantial issues to him (immaculate conception, papal supremacy, infallibility for starters) and let him explain those, and ask why these weren't believed in the early church.

I don't really have a problem with his explanation regarding what he was asked.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,150



« Reply #27 on: March 29, 2012, 12:10:11 PM »

Sure you're not really a secret Roman?   Wink laugh  Wink laugh

Well, we can hope.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,150



« Reply #28 on: March 29, 2012, 12:14:46 PM »

ya, I would have brought up more substantial issues to him (immaculate conception, papal supremacy, infallibility for starters) and let him explain those, and ask why these weren't believed in the early church.

I don't really have a problem with his explanation regarding what he was asked.

I know what you mean. In fact I myself, when I read the question in the OP, thought it was a strange list of issues that he/she chose to bring up. (I'm not sure how to say that without the preposition being at the end.)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,601


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #29 on: March 29, 2012, 05:00:43 PM »

ya, I would have brought up more substantial issues to him (immaculate conception, papal supremacy, infallibility for starters) and let him explain those, and ask why these weren't believed in the early church.

I don't really have a problem with his explanation regarding what he was asked.

Umm, don't start an argument meant to persuade someone not Orthodox with a challenge as to why certain things they practice or preach were not 'believed in the early church.' That is an invitation for a well-schooled non-Orthodox to start in about vestments, icons, the role of priests etc..etc..etc..
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,601


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #30 on: March 29, 2012, 05:01:39 PM »

Sure you're not really a secret Roman?   Wink laugh  Wink laugh

Well, we can hope.

It must be the three hundred and fifty years of my ancestors being associated with them under the Unia. Wink Wink
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,175


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #31 on: March 29, 2012, 05:05:48 PM »

Sure you're not really a secret Roman?   Wink laugh  Wink laugh

Well, we can hope.

It must be the three hundred and fifty years of my ancestors being associated with them under the Unia. Wink Wink

Where there's life, there's (still) hope  Wink Wink!
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #32 on: March 29, 2012, 06:50:52 PM »

ya, I would have brought up more substantial issues to him (immaculate conception, papal supremacy, infallibility for starters) and let him explain those, and ask why these weren't believed in the early church.

I don't really have a problem with his explanation regarding what he was asked.

Umm, don't start an argument meant to persuade someone not Orthodox with a challenge as to why certain things they practice or preach were not 'believed in the early church.' That is an invitation for a well-schooled non-Orthodox to start in about vestments, icons, the role of priests etc..etc..etc..

My point was I thought that more substantial questions could have been asked in the OP, that is all...we can trace all the essential aspects of those things you mentioned back to scripture and the early church. Teachings like Immaculate conception, papal infallibility, indulgences and papal supremacy on the other hand, we cannot.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2012, 06:52:09 PM by Ortho_cat » Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,150



« Reply #33 on: March 29, 2012, 09:46:52 PM »

ya, I would have brought up more substantial issues to him (immaculate conception, papal supremacy, infallibility for starters) and let him explain those, and ask why these weren't believed in the early church.

I don't really have a problem with his explanation regarding what he was asked.

Umm, don't start an argument meant to persuade someone not Orthodox with a challenge as to why certain things they practice or preach were not 'believed in the early church.' That is an invitation for a well-schooled non-Orthodox to start in about vestments, icons, the role of priests etc..etc..etc..

My point was I thought that more substantial questions could have been asked in the OP, that is all...we can trace all the essential aspects of those things you mentioned back to scripture and the early church. Teachings like Immaculate conception, papal infallibility, indulgences and papal supremacy on the other hand, we cannot.

Well, you've been warned. Wink
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.137 seconds with 62 queries.