OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 30, 2014, 02:24:11 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 2  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: I still rather like the West, actually...  (Read 7456 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,391



« Reply #45 on: July 09, 2008, 09:23:50 AM »

But then how do you explain Anglicans and other Protestants, who (in my experience) do not have such a rigorous intellectual tradition to draw on? I've actually heard this more from Anglicans or Episcopalians than Catholics, maybe because the Catholics at least have the "two lungs" theory going with the Eastern Catholic churches.

Anglicans not having a rigorous intellectual tradition?!?  Maybe you need to meet some more Anglicans. Wink Smiley 

I do not think that any Anglicans who might say that EO is "too eastern" would not think that they were not part of Christendom, so I'm not sure how your thought about the "two lungs" would apply there. 

As to "easterness" for myself, as I have written here before and mean no offense by it I assure you, I cannot worship in a Byzantine Rite Liturgy as I can in an Anglcan one, and I have been to a number of them in different jurisdictions. 

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #46 on: July 09, 2008, 11:21:00 AM »

But then how do you explain Anglicans and other Protestants, who (in my experience) do not have such a rigorous intellectual tradition to draw on? I've actually heard this more from Anglicans or Episcopalians than Catholics, maybe because the Catholics at least have the "two lungs" theory going with the Eastern Catholic churches.

Anglicans not having a rigorous intellectual tradition? Don't tell them that... some of the sharpest Theological minds in the last 100 years have been English if not Anglican! Papist has a point the West has nothing if not 'practical' in it's application of the Gospel message (seek justice, feed the hungry, cure the sick, etc). Western Christendom sought for good or ill to apply the Gospel in a very practical way as opposed to the more interior and mystical methods of the East. Now I'm not trying to say that the West had not Mystics or the East had no Hospitals but that there was and is a very distinct difference in the application of the Gospel message in these two traditions. No to mention the fact that Orthodoxy and Catholicism have been at odds for a thousand years. Up until Vatican II the Western Church held a very chilly relationship with the Eastern Churches. This move to recognition of it's Sacraments as licid as opposed to illicid and seeing them as 'a branch' or 'lung' of the Holy Catholic Church is frankly 'novel' to my understanding of Rome and their views of the East throughout history. You don't have to look to deep for the war of words between these two venerable traditions to encounter the polemical rhetoric that has existed on both sides for a very long time. If Catholics are immigrating to the East and thinking this is not a 'violent break' with the continuity of Western Tradition it is because of ignorance on the part of the West and a radical change in position of the Western Church toward the Eastern Churches. When we talk about the Latinization of the Byzantine Churches we forget that it was done because the Western felt the need to 'correct' the errors of the Eastern Churches or at the least to strengthen their traditions with the greater clarity found within the Western Church. Remember, historically Latinization was not simply a matter of continuity but of correction. This is way so many Traditional Catholic groups broke from Rome after Vatican II. I am not old enough to remember the destruction of Altars throughout all of Roman Catholicism in the late 1960's and 70's but to those who 'lived' through that period, it was a 'Reformation'. Out with the old and in with the new as the saying goes. We are going through a time when 'old is new again' which is part of the charm of Orthodoxy. That and it is very rich philosophically and far less dogmatic and rigorist which has heightened it's appeal in the modern pluralist Western Worldview. The kind of certainty one finds in Western Christianity is simply unpalatable. It's far too legalistic and sure of itself for a post-modern society. Be that for good or ill it is where we find ourselves in our day. The practical certainties of Western Society, borne out of the application of the Gospel, has failed to bring about it's objective of equality for all. This has failed across the board in the application of charity, law, healthcare, economic opportunities, etc. The "top down model" has lost it's luster and the population has turned to 'self-help' in mysticism. New-age, Yoga, Buddhism, Meditation, etc have all blossomed in the West because of it's failure to achieve the 'practice' good. Eastern Christianity has historically maintained similar 'therapeutic' practice (Ascesis) which, in effect, fill the void and given many who have half-heartedly embraced a foreign therapeutic method a way of returning to their Saviour without the loss of a 'therapeutic' practice (Ascesis). To a large extent the Catholicism of the 60's and 70's engaged in a kind of syncretism with these Eastern Mystic Practices and ultimately created a wealth of contradictions within their own tradition which has served to weaken their convictions. This 'watered-down' Catholicism has simply reaped what it has sown for the last 40-60 years and has bleed out any resemblance to the faith and practice of itself a hundred years ago. All this for the sake of relevancy in the face of modernity. That was ultimately the failure of Vatican II... the Western Church feared for it's own relevancy and in that fear deconstructed itself into irrelevancy. The very thing it sought to avoid. This is always the case when one is motivated by fear. One does exactly what one wants to avoid. The modern Catholic desire for union with Orthodoxy is, in my opinion, it's only means of restoring any spiritual relevancy to itself. Either that or a return to the Roman Catholicism of the past. The later choice would be far more honest, if Roman Catholicism actually believed in themselves and their tradition, but such would be damaging as droves of lukewarm Catholics would immigrate to Protestantism and even to Orthodoxy. In the temper of current Catholicism a union with Orthodoxy would be far more palatable for progressive elements as it gives them 'more room' to achieve their agendas without the rigorist ethical and moral legalisms of Classic Roman Catholicism. Regardless, which path is ultimately taken Christianity will be forever struggling with liberal and conservative 'wings' as modernity continues to make inroads into the Church. As a Catholic, myself, I don't know of a secure refuge from these forces. Although Orthodoxy has maintained it's traditions under endless persecutions it has not faced the test of time against modernity which I see as a far more corrosive adversary. In the end, I believe there will be a remnant of the true Church of Christ but I am not sure where that will be.
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #47 on: July 09, 2008, 07:55:11 PM »

But then how do you explain Anglicans and other Protestants, who (in my experience) do not have such a rigorous intellectual tradition to draw on? I've actually heard this more from Anglicans or Episcopalians than Catholics, maybe because the Catholics at least have the "two lungs" theory going with the Eastern Catholic churches.
I would have to say that Angilcans do have a great intellectual tradition, especially the Angilicans that call themselves "Ango-Catholics".
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
wynd
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 501


Transfiguration


« Reply #48 on: July 10, 2008, 10:25:00 PM »

Anglicans not having a rigorous intellectual tradition?!?  Maybe you need to meet some more Anglicans. Wink Smiley 

I am sure I do. The few I've met tend towards Evangelicalism and wishy-washy low-churchiness.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2008, 10:26:33 PM by wynd » Logged
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2  All   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 0.056 seconds with 30 queries.