OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 20, 2014, 06:29:12 PM *
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 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic  (Read 27975 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #315 on: January 15, 2011, 05:11:53 PM »

I know you enjoy rehashing the past, but modern Eastern Catholics are in full communion with us and they are not obliged to recite filioque in their creed, nor do they have to use unleavened bread. Because of this, it would seem that these things are no longer a stumbling block to full communion, so why do the Eastern Orthodox still wish to bring these things up as points of disunity?

In the Orthodox Church  there is one Creed, no many.
Well actually you have three (Nicene, Athanasian, and Apostle's), but assuming you mean one Nicene Creed...so do we. Utilizing or omitting the filioque is not problem to us because it is only a clarification anyway, not an outright alteration.

If it's not a problem then why not remove it for the akse of unity?Huh  Your comment doesn't make sense!

Orthodoc
The filioque is a western tradition. You did not like it when some in the West were imposing latinizations on the Eastern Churches, so why force us to adopt easternizations for the sake of unity? By forcing the Western Rite to remove the filioque, adopt the practice of using leavened bread, and inserting an Eastern style epiclesis into the liturgy in order to be in communion with the other Eastern Orthodox Churches, are you not doing the exact same thing that many Eastern Orthodox have complained about the Latins doing to them in the centuries immediately after the schism?

In all honesty, that is what is really appealing to me about my Church is its universality. We allow a variety of rites and traditions to coexist, whereas it seems to me that the general attitude amongst many Eastern Orthodox seems to be "become eastern or be anathema."
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,345



« Reply #316 on: January 15, 2011, 05:26:37 PM »

I know you enjoy rehashing the past, but modern Eastern Catholics are in full communion with us and they are not obliged to recite filioque in their creed, nor do they have to use unleavened bread. Because of this, it would seem that these things are no longer a stumbling block to full communion, so why do the Eastern Orthodox still wish to bring these things up as points of disunity?

In the Orthodox Church  there is one Creed, no many.
Well actually you have three (Nicene, Athanasian, and Apostle's).
LOL. Your Vatican centrism is showing. No, we do not have three, just one. During Divine Liturgy even the WRO use the One Orthodox Creed, although the Apostles Creed (itself only used in the West and unheard of in the East) is used at Vespers.  The Athanasian Creed is a Western invention, again unknown in the East, barely used by the Vatican and not used by the WRO at all.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #317 on: January 15, 2011, 05:29:12 PM »

In all honesty, that is what is really appealing to me about my Church is its universality. We allow a variety of rites and traditions to coexist,

You know, it's not always a bad thing:


http://www.kath.ch/oberkirch
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #318 on: January 15, 2011, 05:30:53 PM »

I know you enjoy rehashing the past, but modern Eastern Catholics are in full communion with us and they are not obliged to recite filioque in their creed, nor do they have to use unleavened bread. Because of this, it would seem that these things are no longer a stumbling block to full communion, so why do the Eastern Orthodox still wish to bring these things up as points of disunity?

In the Orthodox Church  there is one Creed, no many.
Well actually you have three (Nicene, Athanasian, and Apostle's).
LOL. Your Vatican centrism is showing. No, we do not have three, just one. During Divine Liturgy even the WRO use the One Orthodox Creed, although the Apostles Creed (itself only used in the West and unheard of in the East) is used at Vespers.  The Athanasian Creed is a Western invention, again unknown in the East, barely used by the Vatican and not used by the WRO at all.
LOL. Your Byzantian ethnocentricism is showing. Just because the Athanatian Creed arose in the west, does not make it an "innovation". But of course, your entire Byzantine thinking is built on the innovation of rejecting what is Western. What a sad philosophical foundation.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #319 on: January 15, 2011, 05:34:41 PM »

I know you enjoy rehashing the past, but modern Eastern Catholics are in full communion with us and they are not obliged to recite filioque in their creed, nor do they have to use unleavened bread. Because of this, it would seem that these things are no longer a stumbling block to full communion, so why do the Eastern Orthodox still wish to bring these things up as points of disunity?

In the Orthodox Church  there is one Creed, no many.
Well actually you have three (Nicene, Athanasian, and Apostle's).
LOL. Your Vatican centrism is showing. No, we do not have three, just one. During Divine Liturgy even the WRO use the One Orthodox Creed, although the Apostles Creed (itself only used in the West and unheard of in the East) is used at Vespers.  The Athanasian Creed is a Western invention, again unknown in the East, barely used by the Vatican and not used by the WRO at all.
LOL. Your Byzantian ethnocentricism is showing. Just because the Athanatian Creed arose in the west, does not make it an "innovation". But of course, your entire Byzantine thinking is built on the innovation of rejecting what is Western. What a sad philosophical foundation.
Exactly. It is funny how, unknowingly, ialmisry came along and completely proved the point i made in this post:

The filioque is a western tradition. You did not like it when some in the West were imposing latinizations on the Eastern Churches, so why force us to adopt easternizations for the sake of unity? By forcing the Western Rite to remove the filioque, adopt the practice of using leavened bread, and inserting an Eastern style epiclesis into the liturgy in order to be in communion with the other Eastern Orthodox Churches, are you not doing the exact same thing that many Eastern Orthodox have complained about the Latins doing to them in the centuries immediately after the schism?

In all honesty, that is what is really appealing to me about my Church is its universality. We allow a variety of rites and traditions to coexist, whereas it seems to me that the general attitude amongst many Eastern Orthodox seems to be "become eastern or be anathema."
Logged
Hermogenes
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 493



« Reply #320 on: January 15, 2011, 06:01:15 PM »

I know you enjoy rehashing the past, but modern Eastern Catholics are in full communion with us and they are not obliged to recite filioque in their creed, nor do they have to use unleavened bread. Because of this, it would seem that these things are no longer a stumbling block to full communion, so why do the Eastern Orthodox still wish to bring these things up as points of disunity?

In the Orthodox Church  there is one Creed, no many.
Well actually you have three (Nicene, Athanasian, and Apostle's), but assuming you mean one Nicene Creed...so do we. Utilizing or omitting the filioque is not problem to us because it is only a clarification anyway, not an outright alteration.

The Nicene/Constantinopolitan is the only creed we recite, as far as I'm aware. None of my prayer or service books contain anything else. Anybody know of any use of the Apostle's Creed in the Orthodox church?

I would say the filioque is quite a bit more than a mere clarification, even to me as a non-theologian; but I know Rome hasn't always insisted on it for the ER churches under its dominion.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,345



« Reply #321 on: January 15, 2011, 06:30:49 PM »

I know you enjoy rehashing the past, but modern Eastern Catholics are in full communion with us and they are not obliged to recite filioque in their creed, nor do they have to use unleavened bread. Because of this, it would seem that these things are no longer a stumbling block to full communion, so why do the Eastern Orthodox still wish to bring these things up as points of disunity?

In the Orthodox Church  there is one Creed, no many.
Well actually you have three (Nicene, Athanasian, and Apostle's), but assuming you mean one Nicene Creed...so do we. Utilizing or omitting the filioque is not problem to us because it is only a clarification anyway, not an outright alteration.

If it's not a problem then why not remove it for the akse of unity?Huh  Your comment doesn't make sense!

Orthodoc
The filioque is a western tradition.
No, it is a western heresy.
You did not like it when some in the West were imposing latinizations on the Eastern Churches,
Yes, espeically the heretical ones.
so why force us
As you are not in the Church, we are not forcing you to do anything. You are free to do as you please. You are just not free to demand we approve.
to adopt easternizations for the sake of unity?
Many do, but I don't.
By forcing the Western Rite to remove the filioque, adopt the practice of using leavened bread, and inserting an Eastern style epiclesis into the liturgy in order to be in communion with the other Eastern Orthodox Churches, are you not doing the exact same thing that many Eastern Orthodox have complained about the Latins doing to them in the centuries immediately after the schism?
No.
  • no sword is involved
  • the WRO are not baited and switched: they are told to renounce filioque before they are accepted, not told they can keep it and then-after reception-told to drop it
  • what is contrary to Orthodoxy is removed and what is lacking is supplied: no believing one thing and praying another
In all honesty, that is what is really appealing to me about my Church is its universality.
I wasn't aware you were Anglican.

The Vatican can't make the claim of operating outside its parochialism for even half of its millenium or so exsitence: it suppressed, for instance, the Eastern rite of the preaching of SS. Cyril and Methodius in 885, and wouldn't allow it until 1646, i.e. nearly a millenium later, and then mostly allowed in name only (or what escaped the King's men).

We allow a variety of rites and traditions to coexist,

http://www.melkite.org/latin.htm

It never ceases to amuse me how so many of the Vatican's followers, who otherwise claim that Christ founded their ecclesiastical community, act as if the Vatican started in 1962 when it comes to this issue.

whereas it seems to me that the general attitude amongst many Eastern Orthodox seems to be "become eastern or be anathema."
I'll give you that, although the filioque is still anathema.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #322 on: January 15, 2011, 06:34:40 PM »

The Nicene/Constantinopolitan is the only creed we recite, as far as I'm aware. None of my prayer or service books contain anything else. Anybody know of any use of the Apostle's Creed in the Orthodox church?
Is there a reason why the other Creeds are never utilized within Eastern Orthodoxy other than the fact that they came out of the West as ialmisry points out?

I would say the filioque is quite a bit more than a mere clarification, even to me as a non-theologian; but I know Rome hasn't always insisted on it for the ER churches under its dominion.
To me, the filioque emphasizes the unity of the Three Persons of the Trinity. On the Feast of the Holy Trinity, I remember my Pastor explaining that the Trinity is like a family: there is Father and Son and the Holy Spirit is the love that exists between the Father and the Son, and the existence of the Holy Spirit within the Church makes that divine love accessible to us. Hearing it explained that way does not make the filioque sound heterodox, at least not to me, but of course I too am not a theologian.

The See of Rome does not currently require the Eastern Catholic Churches to use the filioque clause in the Creed. If you go to ByzCath.org and read the Nicene Creed on the site it is written without the filioque and that site represents Eastern Christians in full communion with Rome.
Logged
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,594



« Reply #323 on: January 15, 2011, 06:41:31 PM »

Utilizing or omitting the filioque is not problem to us because it is only a clarification anyway, not an outright alteration.

Actually a case can be made that it is indeed an alteration. I've understanded that the Greek Latin Catholics don't chant Filioque in Greek since that would constitute a heresy even by RC standards. For me that implies that the Latin Creed and it's translations has different meaning to the Greek version. If non-Greek RCs understanded the Creed in a Greek way Filioque would be impossibily throughout the RCC. But since the Creed with Filioque is an alteration from the original Greek version it's considered as a legitimate expression of Latin tradition.

Is there a reason why the other Creeds are never utilized within Eastern Orthodoxy other than the fact that they came out of the West as ialmisry points out?

The other Creeds are wholly legitimate expressions of Eastern Orthodoxy. However, since our churches are mostly Byzantine we don't use them since they are not part of Byzantine tradition. There's nothing wrong with them but they are not just our cup of tea since most of us follow Byzantine tradition.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2011, 06:54:44 PM by Alpo » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,345



« Reply #324 on: January 15, 2011, 06:55:07 PM »

I know you enjoy rehashing the past, but modern Eastern Catholics are in full communion with us and they are not obliged to recite filioque in their creed, nor do they have to use unleavened bread. Because of this, it would seem that these things are no longer a stumbling block to full communion, so why do the Eastern Orthodox still wish to bring these things up as points of disunity?

In the Orthodox Church  there is one Creed, no many.
Well actually you have three (Nicene, Athanasian, and Apostle's).
LOL. Your Vatican centrism is showing. No, we do not have three, just one. During Divine Liturgy even the WRO use the One Orthodox Creed, although the Apostles Creed (itself only used in the West and unheard of in the East) is used at Vespers.  The Athanasian Creed is a Western invention, again unknown in the East, barely used by the Vatican and not used by the WRO at all.
LOL. Your Byzantian ethnocentricism is showing.
Since neither I nor my Church is "Byzantine" (that's another Vatican innovation), that would be rather hard.

Since the Fathers gathered at Constantinople to set their seal on the One, Ecumenical, Catholic and Orthodox Creed, "Constantinopolitan" and "Roman" is another matter.

Just because the Athanatian Creed arose in the west, does not make it an "innovation".
I didn't say innovation. I said invention. St. Cyprian invented/coined the pharses "The episcopate is one, each part of which is held by each one for the whole," and episcopatus unus episcoporum multorum concordi numerositate diffusus "The episcopate is one, diffused through a harmonious multitude of many bishops." He did not, however, innovate in the Orthodox ecclesiology of the Catholic Church, which is why we hold to his words.

But of course, your entire Byzantine thinking is built on the innovation of rejecting what is Western.
au contraire, I defend the WRO quite vigorously.

What a sad philosophical foundation.
What a sad, unfounded allegation.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #325 on: January 15, 2011, 07:05:43 PM »

So it served the practical purpose of not letting the Orthodox be fooled by the Latin filioque hiding  behind Chalcedon.

I don't understand what the use of unleavened bread has to do with the filioque.
For one, it was being forced on the Orthodox as the same time as the filioque, taking the new leaven out of the eucharist and putting the new heresy into the Creed.  Like I said, "practical purpose."
I know you enjoy rehashing the past, but modern Eastern Catholics are in full communion with us and they are not obliged to recite filioque in their creed, nor do they have to use unleavened bread. Because of this, it would seem that these things are no longer a stumbling block to full communion, so why do the Eastern Orthodox still wish to bring these things up as points of disunity?

I can't speak for anyone else. But every time I pray the litany that refers to "the union of all" my heart feels the pain of all the separation that exists among followers of Christ. We Orthodox and you Catholics are so very close to one another, it is tragic we cannot resolve our differences. Even more tragic is that we Orthodox are not even united amongst ourselves.

To me, the one stumbling block I cannot get past is Rome's insistence on the supremacy of Peter, as opposed to the primacy of Peter, inter pares, which we already acknowledged in the earliest ecumenical councils. Most of the other issues, which as far as I can tell are mainly due to developments  in our respective churches during the centuries of separation, could probably be resolved. That one is a deal breaker and doesn't appear to leave room for compromise.
 

Supremacy is no more than FIRST among Equals where FIRST actually means something more than a platitude.

And as I said before, one of the things Orthodoxy really needs to admit to herself is that some bishops are more equal than others, and perhaps rightly so for the good health of the body.  At that point of enlightenment, then it may be possible to see more similarities than differences between our two Churches.  As long as Orthodoxy holds up the ideal of one bishop-one vote as the ONLY measure of real power in the Church, and nurtures congregationalist aspirations, then Orthodoxy will remain blind to her own internal realities...

Mary

M.
Logged

deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #326 on: January 15, 2011, 07:12:13 PM »

So it served the practical purpose of not letting the Orthodox be fooled by the Latin filioque hiding  behind Chalcedon.

I don't understand what the use of unleavened bread has to do with the filioque.
For one, it was being forced on the Orthodox as the same time as the filioque, taking the new leaven out of the eucharist and putting the new heresy into the Creed.  Like I said, "practical purpose."
I know you enjoy rehashing the past, but modern Eastern Catholics are in full communion with us and they are not obliged to recite filioque in their creed, nor do they have to use unleavened bread. Because of this, it would seem that these things are no longer a stumbling block to full communion, so why do the Eastern Orthodox still wish to bring these things up as points of disunity?

Attempting to force us to use it is one thing. But beyond that, even if you don't, many of your practices are not tolerable to us (definitely the filioque more so than the unleavened bread, IMO).
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #327 on: January 15, 2011, 07:16:37 PM »

The filioque is a western tradition. You did not like it when some in the West were imposing latinizations on the Eastern Churches, so why force us to adopt easternizations for the sake of unity? By forcing the Western Rite to remove the filioque, adopt the practice of using leavened bread, and inserting an Eastern style epiclesis into the liturgy in order to be in communion with the other Eastern Orthodox Churches, are you not doing the exact same thing that many Eastern Orthodox have complained about the Latins doing to them in the centuries immediately after the schism?

Some of the Western particularities are not orthodox is the point. Only the ones that are necessarily heterodox should be required to be changed.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,345



« Reply #328 on: January 15, 2011, 09:14:03 PM »

So it served the practical purpose of not letting the Orthodox be fooled by the Latin filioque hiding  behind Chalcedon.

I don't understand what the use of unleavened bread has to do with the filioque.
For one, it was being forced on the Orthodox as the same time as the filioque, taking the new leaven out of the eucharist and putting the new heresy into the Creed.  Like I said, "practical purpose."
I know you enjoy rehashing the past, but modern Eastern Catholics are in full communion with us and they are not obliged to recite filioque in their creed, nor do they have to use unleavened bread. Because of this, it would seem that these things are no longer a stumbling block to full communion, so why do the Eastern Orthodox still wish to bring these things up as points of disunity?

I can't speak for anyone else. But every time I pray the litany that refers to "the union of all" my heart feels the pain of all the separation that exists among followers of Christ. We Orthodox and you Catholics are so very close to one another, it is tragic we cannot resolve our differences. Even more tragic is that we Orthodox are not even united amongst ourselves.

To me, the one stumbling block I cannot get past is Rome's insistence on the supremacy of Peter, as opposed to the primacy of Peter, inter pares, which we already acknowledged in the earliest ecumenical councils. Most of the other issues, which as far as I can tell are mainly due to developments  in our respective churches during the centuries of separation, could probably be resolved. That one is a deal breaker and doesn't appear to leave room for compromise.
 

Supremacy is no more than FIRST among Equals where FIRST actually means something more than a platitude.

LOL. So you use a platitude (and one devoid of truth at that) to accuse us of platitudes.

And as I said before, one of the things Orthodoxy really needs to admit to herself is that some bishops are more equal than others, and perhaps rightly so for the good health of the body.

We don't admit lies.

Let's make this easy: explain to us the differences between the 123 or so supreme pontiffs of the Vatican. Enlighten us.

At that point of enlightenment,

You first.

then it may be possible to see more similarities than differences between our two Churches.

That is not going to make the heresies the Vatican exposes to go away.

As long as Orthodoxy holds up the ideal of one bishop-one vote as the ONLY measure of real power in the Church,

Oh, what's your yardstick?

and nurtures congregationalist aspirations,

Haven't got those. Or other heretical ones either. Refusing to kiss the supreme pontiff's slippers doesn't make you a congregationalist.

then Orthodoxy will remain blind to her own internal realities...
LOL. That log is obscruring your view of the matter.  Ophthomologist, heal thyself.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ChristusDominus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Latin Rite
Posts: 936


Saint Aloysius Gonzaga


« Reply #329 on: January 15, 2011, 09:29:39 PM »

In all honesty, that is what is really appealing to me about my Church is its universality. We allow a variety of rites and traditions to coexist,

You know, it's not always a bad thing:


http://www.kath.ch/oberkirch
Is that your church? The link is in German.
Logged

There is no more evident sign that anyone is a saint and of the number of the elect, than to see him leading a good life and at the same time a prey to desolation, suffering, and trials. - Saint Aloysius Gonzaga
ChristusDominus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Latin Rite
Posts: 936


Saint Aloysius Gonzaga


« Reply #330 on: January 15, 2011, 09:42:46 PM »

Before:


After:


At least tell the whole story. Half-truths are no better than lies.
http://www.melkite.org/parishinfo.html
Logged

There is no more evident sign that anyone is a saint and of the number of the elect, than to see him leading a good life and at the same time a prey to desolation, suffering, and trials. - Saint Aloysius Gonzaga
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,467


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #331 on: January 15, 2011, 10:17:11 PM »

Before:


After:


At least tell the whole story. Half-truths are no better than lies.
http://www.melkite.org/parishinfo.html

He did, or did you miss this very important comment from Isa which is incredibly appropriate given your response:

Quote
It never ceases to amuse me how so many of the Vatican's followers, who otherwise claim that Christ founded their ecclesiastical community, act as if the Vatican started in 1962 when it comes to this issue.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,205


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #332 on: January 15, 2011, 11:19:40 PM »

Before:


After:


At least tell the whole story. Half-truths are no better than lies.
http://www.melkite.org/parishinfo.html

He did, or did you miss this very important comment from Isa which is incredibly appropriate given your response:

Quote
It never ceases to amuse me how so many of the Vatican's followers, who otherwise claim that Christ founded their ecclesiastical community, act as if the Vatican started in 1962 when it comes to this issue.

That quite true as far as I was taught and observed. My father's Greek Catholic parish in New Jersey had its iconostasis removed and western innovations including a rail as in Isa's picture during the period after the parish split and the Orthodox faction led by my grandfather left to build their own church. Sometime in the late 70's or 80's the Westernizations vanished and a new iconostasis was installed along with liturgical and sacramental changes more in line with Orthodox tradition.  I think that in the 'old country' such changes were not tolerated for the most part in that the Greek Catholics had no problem differentiating themselves from the Latins, in the States some were so willing to Americanize themselves that they allowed the changes or they were just too tired from all of the fighting that occurred over the property and celibacy disputes. One also has to remember that for many of the Slavic Greek Catholics the monolith to the East, i.e. the Russian Bear was more feared than the one from the West.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2011, 11:21:42 PM by podkarpatska » Logged
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #333 on: January 15, 2011, 11:36:18 PM »

The first photograph highlights the sad condition of the Melkite Church in America prior to Vatican II, while the second picture shows the degree of progress made since the close of that Western Synod.  That said, the process of de-Latinization is ongoing, and will no doubt continue for several generations, because Latinization has sadly been engrained into the thinking of many Melkite Catholics, and changing that way of thinking will take a very long time.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2011, 11:40:29 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #334 on: January 15, 2011, 11:45:22 PM »

The first photograph highlights the sad condition of the Melkite Church in America prior to Vatican II, while the second picture shows the degree of progress made since the close of that Western Synod.  That said, the process of de-Latinization is ongoing, and will no doubt continue for several generations, because Latinization has sadly been engrained into the thinking of many Melkite Catholics, and changing that way of thinking will take a very long time.
Perhaps some day the Eastern Orthodox Churches will stop imposing easternizations upon the Western Rite and allow unleavened hosts, the filioque, and the standard western epiclesis to Churches who decide to become Western Rite Orthodox. Are Western Rite Orthodox parishes allowed to have statues or must they have Icons?
Logged
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #335 on: January 15, 2011, 11:57:12 PM »

The first photograph highlights the sad condition of the Melkite Church in America prior to Vatican II, while the second picture shows the degree of progress made since the close of that Western Synod.  That said, the process of de-Latinization is ongoing, and will no doubt continue for several generations, because Latinization has sadly been engrained into the thinking of many Melkite Catholics, and changing that way of thinking will take a very long time.
Perhaps some day the Eastern Orthodox Churches will stop imposing easternizations upon the Western Rite and allow unleavened hosts, the filioque, and the standard western epiclesis to Churches who decide to become Western Rite Orthodox. Are Western Rite Orthodox parishes allowed to have statues or must they have Icons?
Alas, historically speaking, it is the Latin Church that has required that its theology and liturgical usages be adopted by others, and not the Eastern Orthodox Churches. 

I have seen first hand the damage done to the Melkite Catholic Church in the United States, and Melkites are still struggling to overcome the Latinization that devastated our Churches, as the photographs posted above clearly show.  I have not seen comparable photographs of Western Rite Orthodox parishes that show the same degree of damage.

The Melkite website, from which the photographs were taken, also provides a handy list (albeit incomplete) of the Latinizations that have affected our Churches:


Latinizations

1. Unmarried priesthood (Still generally true of Melkite clergy)

2. Statues

3. Altar rails

4. Confessional boxes

5. Stations of the Cross hanging on walls

6. 3-D Crucifixes on walls

7. Western-style paintings

8. Suppression of liturgical hours

9. Suppression of Presanctified in favour of Divine Liturgy

10. Use of Western style Mass instead of the Liturgies of St. John Crystsostom or St. Basil

11. Introduction of Western prayers: the Rosary, etc.

12. Introduction of Western music and songs

13. Use of musical instruments

14. Emphasizing the words of Institution and silencing the Epiklesis prayers

15. Truncation of prayers, esp. psalms in liturgies

16. Reduction of prostrations and reverences

17. Use of Genuflections, Kneeling

18. Combining Divine Liturgy with other services: marriage, funeral

19. Not distributing the antidoron

20. Elimination of using hot water during Consecration

21. Not having a curtain behind the Royal Doors

23. First Communion and Chrismation separated from Baptism

Source:  List of Latinizations
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,226



« Reply #336 on: January 15, 2011, 11:57:43 PM »

The first photograph highlights the sad condition of the Melkite Church in America prior to Vatican II, while the second picture shows the degree of progress made since the close of that Western Synod.  That said, the process of de-Latinization is ongoing, and will no doubt continue for several generations, because Latinization has sadly been engrained into the thinking of many Melkite Catholics, and changing that way of thinking will take a very long time.
Perhaps some day the Eastern Orthodox Churches will stop imposing easternizations upon the Western Rite and allow unleavened hosts, the filioque, and the standard western epiclesis to Churches who decide to become Western Rite Orthodox. Are Western Rite Orthodox parishes allowed to have statues or must they have Icons?
What do you know about the pre-schism West or perhaps the question is what do you think you know about the pre-schism West that makes you say such things?

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,345



« Reply #337 on: January 16, 2011, 12:01:30 AM »

In all honesty, that is what is really appealing to me about my Church is its universality. We allow a variety of rites and traditions to coexist,

You know, it's not always a bad thing:


http://www.kath.ch/oberkirch
Is that your church? The link is in German.
No, but this is. The link is in German.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #338 on: January 16, 2011, 12:06:24 AM »


Supremacy is no more than FIRST among Equals where FIRST actually means something more than a platitude.


Here are the words of Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev) who is the doyen of Russian theologians and always heads our delegations to Orthodox-Catholic dialogue.  I fear that you will assess it as providing the Archbishop of Rome with no more than a platitude.  Smiley

Metropolitan  Hilarion, speaking to "Inside The Vatican", 15 November 2007:

"We do not have any theology of the Petrine office on the level of the
Universal Church. Our ecclesiology does not have room for such a concept.
This is why the Orthodox Church has for centuries opposed the idea of the
universal jurisdiction of any bishop, including the Bishop of Rome.

"We recognize that there is a certain order in which the primates of the
Local Churches should be mentioned. In this order the Bishop of Rome
occupied the first place until 1054, and then the primacy of order in the
Orthodox Church was shifted to the Patriarch of Constantinople, who until
the schism had been the second in order. But we believe that all primates of
the Local Churches are equal to one another, and none of them has
jurisdiction over any other."


From
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1925822/posts

And elsewhere he speaks even more strongly of the Russian Church NEVER accepting any concept of global primacy and papal primacy..
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #339 on: January 16, 2011, 12:06:58 AM »

Alas, historically speaking, it is the Latin Church that has required that its theology and liturgical usages be adopted by others, and not the Eastern Orthodox Churches. 

I have seen first hand the damage done to the Melkite Catholic Church in the United States, and Melkites are still struggling to overcome the Latinization that devastated our Churches, as the photographs posted above clearly show.  I have not seen comparable photographs of Western Rite Orthodox parishes that show the same degree of damage.

The Melkite website, from which the photographs were taken, also provides a handy list (albeit incomplete) of the Latinizations that have affected our Churches:


Latinizations

1. Unmarried priesthood (Still generally true of Melkite clergy)

2. Statues

3. Altar rails

4. Confessional boxes

5. Stations of the Cross hanging on walls

6. 3-D Crucifixes on walls

7. Western-style paintings

8. Suppression of liturgical hours

9. Suppression of Presanctified in favour of Divine Liturgy

10. Use of Western style Mass instead of the Liturgies of St. John Crystsostom or St. Basil

11. Introduction of Western prayers: the Rosary, etc.

12. Introduction of Western music and songs

13. Use of musical instruments

14. Emphasizing the words of Institution and silencing the Epiklesis prayers

15. Truncation of prayers, esp. psalms in liturgies

16. Reduction of prostrations and reverences

17. Use of Genuflections, Kneeling

18. Combining Divine Liturgy with other services: marriage, funeral

19. Not distributing the antidoron

20. Elimination of using hot water during Consecration (using cold?)

21. Not having a curtain behind the Royal Doors

23. First Communion and Chrismation separated from Baptism

Source:  List of Latinizations

Some of these "Latinizations" are amusing. Oh, the agony!

Of course, considering the Latins have a few hundred years head start with alternate rites, they've had more time to make mistakes. Its pretty easy to be critical when comparing apples to oranges.

P.S.  You really hate being Catholic don't you?
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,226



« Reply #340 on: January 16, 2011, 12:09:07 AM »

Alas, historically speaking, it is the Latin Church that has required that its theology and liturgical usages be adopted by others, and not the Eastern Orthodox Churches. 

I have seen first hand the damage done to the Melkite Catholic Church in the United States, and Melkites are still struggling to overcome the Latinization that devastated our Churches, as the photographs posted above clearly show.  I have not seen comparable photographs of Western Rite Orthodox parishes that show the same degree of damage.

The Melkite website, from which the photographs were taken, also provides a handy list (albeit incomplete) of the Latinizations that have affected our Churches:


Latinizations

1. Unmarried priesthood (Still generally true of Melkite clergy)

2. Statues

3. Altar rails

4. Confessional boxes

5. Stations of the Cross hanging on walls

6. 3-D Crucifixes on walls

7. Western-style paintings

8. Suppression of liturgical hours

9. Suppression of Presanctified in favour of Divine Liturgy

10. Use of Western style Mass instead of the Liturgies of St. John Crystsostom or St. Basil

11. Introduction of Western prayers: the Rosary, etc.

12. Introduction of Western music and songs

13. Use of musical instruments

14. Emphasizing the words of Institution and silencing the Epiklesis prayers

15. Truncation of prayers, esp. psalms in liturgies

16. Reduction of prostrations and reverences

17. Use of Genuflections, Kneeling

18. Combining Divine Liturgy with other services: marriage, funeral

19. Not distributing the antidoron

20. Elimination of using hot water during Consecration (using cold?)

21. Not having a curtain behind the Royal Doors

23. First Communion and Chrismation separated from Baptism

Source:  List of Latinizations

Some of these "Latinizations" are amusing. Oh, the agony!

Of course, considering the Latins have a few hundred years head start with alternate rites, they've had more time to make mistakes. Its pretty easy to be critical when comparing apples to oranges.

P.S.  You really hate being Catholic don't you?

Have you no compassion, man?

The Latins claim that they had the entire 1,000 years of the pre-schism Church to "start with alternate rites." We don't see their blunders from the various "unia" then, do we?

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #341 on: January 16, 2011, 12:14:53 AM »

Alas, historically speaking, it is the Latin Church that has required that its theology and liturgical usages be adopted by others, and not the Eastern Orthodox Churches. 

I have seen first hand the damage done to the Melkite Catholic Church in the United States, and Melkites are still struggling to overcome the Latinization that devastated our Churches, as the photographs posted above clearly show.  I have not seen comparable photographs of Western Rite Orthodox parishes that show the same degree of damage.

The Melkite website, from which the photographs were taken, also provides a handy list (albeit incomplete) of the Latinizations that have affected our Churches:


Latinizations

1. Unmarried priesthood (Still generally true of Melkite clergy)

2. Statues

3. Altar rails

4. Confessional boxes

5. Stations of the Cross hanging on walls

6. 3-D Crucifixes on walls

7. Western-style paintings

8. Suppression of liturgical hours

9. Suppression of Presanctified in favour of Divine Liturgy

10. Use of Western style Mass instead of the Liturgies of St. John Crystsostom or St. Basil

11. Introduction of Western prayers: the Rosary, etc.

12. Introduction of Western music and songs

13. Use of musical instruments

14. Emphasizing the words of Institution and silencing the Epiklesis prayers

15. Truncation of prayers, esp. psalms in liturgies

16. Reduction of prostrations and reverences

17. Use of Genuflections, Kneeling

18. Combining Divine Liturgy with other services: marriage, funeral

19. Not distributing the antidoron

20. Elimination of using hot water during Consecration (using cold?)

21. Not having a curtain behind the Royal Doors

23. First Communion and Chrismation separated from Baptism

Source:  List of Latinizations

Some of these "Latinizations" are amusing. Oh, the agony!

Of course, considering the Latins have a few hundred years head start with alternate rites, they've had more time to make mistakes. Its pretty easy to be critical when comparing apples to oranges.

P.S.  You really hate being Catholic don't you?
I simply want to be Melkite Catholic, which means holding to the traditions of the Byzantine Churches.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,345



« Reply #342 on: January 16, 2011, 12:20:42 AM »

The first photograph highlights the sad condition of the Melkite Church in America prior to Vatican II, while the second picture shows the degree of progress made since the close of that Western Synod.  That said, the process of de-Latinization is ongoing, and will no doubt continue for several generations, because Latinization has sadly been engrained into the thinking of many Melkite Catholics, and changing that way of thinking will take a very long time.
Perhaps some day the Eastern Orthodox Churches will stop imposing easternizations upon the Western Rite and allow unleavened hosts,

Other then communing with the Armenian Orthodox, why would we do that?  In particular as unleaven hosts are an innovation in the West, not even kept by most of the heteretic or heterodox West anymore?

the filioque,

Heretics are free to do what they want, but to commune in the Orthodox Catholic Church, you have to confess the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

and the standard western epiclesis to Churches who decide to become Western Rite Orthodox.
The lack of an epiclesis in the Roman rite is what prompted the issue to be sure.

Are Western Rite Orthodox parishes allowed to have statues or must they have Icons?
http://www.westernorthodox.com/walsingham.html
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #343 on: January 16, 2011, 12:26:04 AM »


As long as Orthodoxy holds up the ideal of one bishop-one vote as the ONLY measure of real power in the Church, [size]

I fear you have misunderstood what is being said.  Nobody has stated that one-bishop-one-vote is the ONLY measure.  What has been stated is that this is a principle which must be accepted by Rome for its return to the Church and that so far, unfortunately,  Rome has shown no inclination at all to even consider this.

Quote
and nurtures congregationalist aspirations, then Orthodoxy will remain blind to her own internal realities...

This results from a misapprehension of Orthodoxy reality and ecclesiology and our understanding of the place of conciliarism.  It is in the nature of Cardinal Kasper's irritated remark "We are becoming increasingly aware that there is no such thing as the Orthodox Church."

Your trouble and Cardinal Kasper's is that you have an incorrect views of conciliarisim. Over the centuries as papal power has increased exponentially and reduced bishops to an inferior status, you cannot help but see conciliarism as a principle which extends only so far and then, wham,  it is negated by the overriding supreme power of the Pope.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #344 on: January 16, 2011, 12:29:32 AM »

So it served the practical purpose of not letting the Orthodox be fooled by the Latin filioque hiding  behind Chalcedon.

I don't understand what the use of unleavened bread has to do with the filioque.
For one, it was being forced on the Orthodox as the same time as the filioque, taking the new leaven out of the eucharist and putting the new heresy into the Creed.  Like I said, "practical purpose."
I know you enjoy rehashing the past, but modern Eastern Catholics are in full communion with us and they are not obliged to recite filioque in their creed, nor do they have to use unleavened bread. Because of this, it would seem that these things are no longer a stumbling block to full communion, so why do the Eastern Orthodox still wish to bring these things up as points of disunity?

I can't speak for anyone else. But every time I pray the litany that refers to "the union of all" my heart feels the pain of all the separation that exists among followers of Christ. We Orthodox and you Catholics are so very close to one another, it is tragic we cannot resolve our differences. Even more tragic is that we Orthodox are not even united amongst ourselves.

To me, the one stumbling block I cannot get past is Rome's insistence on the supremacy of Peter, as opposed to the primacy of Peter, inter pares, which we already acknowledged in the earliest ecumenical councils. Most of the other issues, which as far as I can tell are mainly due to developments  in our respective churches during the centuries of separation, could probably be resolved. That one is a deal breaker and doesn't appear to leave room for compromise.
 

Supremacy is no more than FIRST among Equals where FIRST actually means something more than a platitude.


There is real primatial power in Orthodoxy or there'd never have been need for Primates in the first place. 

It seems to me Orthodoxy needs to gain a bit of that back before we can really move forward. 

You are not in charge of that process... Smiley...BBG, BBHHN
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #345 on: January 16, 2011, 12:40:05 AM »

And as I said before, one of the things Orthodoxy really needs to admit to herself is that some bishops are more equal than others, and perhaps rightly so for the good health of the body.

Mary , you could only say that if you are not acquainted with our ecclesiology ands our sacred canons.

Primacy on a regional/provincial level and at the level of Local Churches is catered for in the canons. The Orthodox do not dispute that. We have embedded it in our ecclesiology.  But primacy on a global level does not exist.

But, as Saint Justin the New says, these various manners of primacies must not impede the proper functioning and powers of the episcopate.  His words are here in message 84 at

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,32532.msg517455/topicseen.html#msg517455

Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #346 on: January 16, 2011, 12:50:31 AM »

Perhaps some day the Eastern Orthodox Churches will stop imposing easternizations upon the Western Rite and allow unleavened hosts,

This is not a byzantinization.  It is simply using the authentic customs of the Western Church of the first millennium when we were in communion.

Please see the article at message 21 at

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13141.msg272267.html#msg272267

CATHOLIC SCHOLARS SAY THAT THE CHURCH OF ROME USED LEAVENED BREAD
for the first 800 and more years.

Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,345



« Reply #347 on: January 16, 2011, 01:10:41 AM »

So it served the practical purpose of not letting the Orthodox be fooled by the Latin filioque hiding  behind Chalcedon.

I don't understand what the use of unleavened bread has to do with the filioque.
For one, it was being forced on the Orthodox as the same time as the filioque, taking the new leaven out of the eucharist and putting the new heresy into the Creed.  Like I said, "practical purpose."
I know you enjoy rehashing the past, but modern Eastern Catholics are in full communion with us and they are not obliged to recite filioque in their creed, nor do they have to use unleavened bread. Because of this, it would seem that these things are no longer a stumbling block to full communion, so why do the Eastern Orthodox still wish to bring these things up as points of disunity?

I can't speak for anyone else. But every time I pray the litany that refers to "the union of all" my heart feels the pain of all the separation that exists among followers of Christ. We Orthodox and you Catholics are so very close to one another, it is tragic we cannot resolve our differences. Even more tragic is that we Orthodox are not even united amongst ourselves.

To me, the one stumbling block I cannot get past is Rome's insistence on the supremacy of Peter, as opposed to the primacy of Peter, inter pares, which we already acknowledged in the earliest ecumenical councils. Most of the other issues, which as far as I can tell are mainly due to developments  in our respective churches during the centuries of separation, could probably be resolved. That one is a deal breaker and doesn't appear to leave room for compromise.
 

Supremacy is no more than FIRST among Equals where FIRST actually means something more than a platitude.


There is real primatial power in Orthodoxy or there'd never have been need for Primates in the first place.


Primates we have. Supreme pontiffs we don't.

It seems to me Orthodoxy needs to gain a bit of that back


AFAIK, at present every local Church has a primate.  IIRC Serbia had the last vacancy to fill, and she did so a year or so ago.

before we can really move forward.
Who's "we"?

You are not in charge of that process

And you are?

Like I said, there is no problem for me to be in charge of solving.

... Smiley...
Grin

BBG, BBHHN
Sorry, since I didn't drink the kool-aid, I didn't have the proof of purchases to send away for the decoder ring.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,474



« Reply #348 on: January 16, 2011, 01:13:57 AM »

Mary , you could only say that if you are not acquainted with our ecclesiology ands our sacred canons.

Primacy on a regional/provincial level and at the level of Local Churches is catered for in the canons. The Orthodox do not dispute that. We have embedded it in our ecclesiology.  But primacy on a global level does not exist.

But, as Saint Justin the New says, these various manners of primacies must not impede the proper functioning and powers of the episcopate.  His words are here in message 84 at

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,32532.msg517455/topicseen.html#msg517455

One thing I found interesting about the ecclesiology of St. Justin is that he advocated not returning merely to the governmental forms of the later years of the undivided Church, but rather said that we should remember the principles that predated pentarchies and all such later administrative schemes:

Quote
"Moreover, is it correct, is it Orthodox to have such representations of the Orthodox Churches at various pan Orthodox gatherings on Rhodes or in Geneva? The representatives of Constantinople who began this system of representation of Orthodox Churches at the councils and those who accept this principle which, according to their theory, is in accord with the system of autocephalous and autonomous local Churches — they have forgotten that such a principle in fact contradicts the conciliar tradition of Orthodoxy. Unfortunately this principle of representation was accepted quickly and by all the other Orthodox: sometimes silently, sometimes with voted protests, but forgetting that the Orthodox Church, in its nature and its dogmatically unchanging constitution is episcopal and centred in the bishops. For the bishop and the faithful gathered around him are the expression and manifestation of the Church as the Body of Christ, especially in the Holy Liturgy: the Church is Apostolic and Catholic only by virtue of its bishops, insofar as they are the heads of true ecclesiastical units, the dioceses.

At the same time, the other, historically later and variable forms of church organisation of the Orthodox Church: the metropolias, archdioceses, patriarchates, pentarchias, autocephalies, autonomies, etc., however many there may be or shall be, cannot have and do not have a determining and decisive significance in the conciliar system of the Orthodox Church. Furthermore, they may constitute an obstacle in the correct functioning of the conciliar principle if they obstruct and reject the episcopal character and structure of the Church and of the Churches. Here, undoubtedly, is to be found the primary difference between Orthodox and papal ecclesiology." - On a Summoning of a Great Council of the Orthodox Church

EDIT--Just wanted to say that I realised that I quote the same as you, but wanted to give a bit more context, though I'm not sure that I've done that or helped any...  Undecided well anyway...
« Last Edit: January 16, 2011, 01:23:07 AM by Asteriktos » Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #349 on: January 16, 2011, 02:23:06 PM »

Other then communing with the Armenian Orthodox, why would we do that?  In particular as unleaven hosts are an innovation in the West, not even kept by most of the heteretic or heterodox West anymore?
If unleavened bread is not a stumbling block resulting in schism between the Armenian Orthodox and the rest of the Eastern Orthodox Church then why is it still brought up as one of the things Rome must change before full communion could ever resume?

Heretics are free to do what they want, but to commune in the Orthodox Catholic Church, you have to confess the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
You are obviously free to believe we are heretics and free to state so since this is an Eastern Orthodox forum, but I would think if you wanted to be a more effective witness to Orthodoxy that you would try to use language which is less insulting. If you want to win over RCs, Protestants, and other non-Orthodox you probably will not have much luck insulting us repeatedly.

The lack of an epiclesis in the Roman rite is what prompted the issue to be sure.
"And so Father we bring You these gifts. We ask you to make them holy by the power of your Spirit, that they may become for us the Body and the Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, at whose command we celebrate this Eucharist." <---Epiclesis.
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,205


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #350 on: January 16, 2011, 02:29:21 PM »

Alas, historically speaking, it is the Latin Church that has required that its theology and liturgical usages be adopted by others, and not the Eastern Orthodox Churches. 

I have seen first hand the damage done to the Melkite Catholic Church in the United States, and Melkites are still struggling to overcome the Latinization that devastated our Churches, as the photographs posted above clearly show.  I have not seen comparable photographs of Western Rite Orthodox parishes that show the same degree of damage.

The Melkite website, from which the photographs were taken, also provides a handy list (albeit incomplete) of the Latinizations that have affected our Churches:


Latinizations

1. Unmarried priesthood (Still generally true of Melkite clergy)

2. Statues

3. Altar rails

4. Confessional boxes

5. Stations of the Cross hanging on walls

6. 3-D Crucifixes on walls

7. Western-style paintings

8. Suppression of liturgical hours

9. Suppression of Presanctified in favour of Divine Liturgy

10. Use of Western style Mass instead of the Liturgies of St. John Crystsostom or St. Basil

11. Introduction of Western prayers: the Rosary, etc.

12. Introduction of Western music and songs

13. Use of musical instruments

14. Emphasizing the words of Institution and silencing the Epiklesis prayers

15. Truncation of prayers, esp. psalms in liturgies

16. Reduction of prostrations and reverences

17. Use of Genuflections, Kneeling

18. Combining Divine Liturgy with other services: marriage, funeral

19. Not distributing the antidoron

20. Elimination of using hot water during Consecration (using cold?)

21. Not having a curtain behind the Royal Doors

23. First Communion and Chrismation separated from Baptism

Source:  List of Latinizations

Some of these "Latinizations" are amusing. Oh, the agony!

Of course, considering the Latins have a few hundred years head start with alternate rites, they've had more time to make mistakes. Its pretty easy to be critical when comparing apples to oranges.

P.S.  You really hate being Catholic don't you?

There is nothing 'amusing' about the actions listed above. They are similar to those imposed upon the Ruthenian and Ukrainian Greek Catholics. They led to the revolts which occurred in various countries and were the root cause of the bitter division of parish, family abd community in case after case.
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #351 on: January 16, 2011, 02:30:22 PM »

If unleavened bread is not a stumbling block resulting in schism between the Armenian Orthodox and the rest of the Eastern Orthodox.

They are in schism, 500 years longer than you are.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,205


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #352 on: January 16, 2011, 02:34:45 PM »

Other then communing with the Armenian Orthodox, why would we do that?  In particular as unleaven hosts are an innovation in the West, not even kept by most of the heteretic or heterodox West anymore?
If unleavened bread is not a stumbling block resulting in schism between the Armenian Orthodox and the rest of the Eastern Orthodox Church then why is it still brought up as one of the things Rome must change before full communion could ever resume?

Heretics are free to do what they want, but to commune in the Orthodox Catholic Church, you have to confess the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
You are obviously free to believe we are heretics and free to state so since this is an Eastern Orthodox forum, but I would think if you wanted to be a more effective witness to Orthodoxy that you would try to use language which is less insulting. If you want to win over RCs, Protestants, and other non-Orthodox you probably will not have much luck insulting us repeatedly.

The lack of an epiclesis in the Roman rite is what prompted the issue to be sure.
"And so Father we bring You these gifts. We ask you to make them holy by the power of your Spirit, that they may become for us the Body and the Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, at whose command we celebrate this Eucharist." <---Epiclesis.

Even those within EO who do not call you heretics, myself included, do consider you at least to be schismatics. I doubt that soothes your ears any more than heretic upsets them. Call it what you want, the fact remains that we are divided and, as Fr. Ambrose aptly points out, the issue of the purported universal supremacy of the Patriarch of Rome is the primary stumbling block that looms betwen us. I would worry less about words and more about substance.
Logged
Hermogenes
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 493



« Reply #353 on: January 16, 2011, 03:41:13 PM »

 
Quote

Supremacy is no more than FIRST among Equals where FIRST actually means something more than a platitude.


Straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel...
« Last Edit: January 16, 2011, 03:44:29 PM by Hermogenes » Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #354 on: January 16, 2011, 03:50:02 PM »

Other then communing with the Armenian Orthodox, why would we do that?  In particular as unleaven hosts are an innovation in the West, not even kept by most of the heteretic or heterodox West anymore?
If unleavened bread is not a stumbling block resulting in schism between the Armenian Orthodox and the rest of the Eastern Orthodox Church then why is it still brought up as one of the things Rome must change before full communion could ever resume?

Heretics are free to do what they want, but to commune in the Orthodox Catholic Church, you have to confess the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
You are obviously free to believe we are heretics and free to state so since this is an Eastern Orthodox forum, but I would think if you wanted to be a more effective witness to Orthodoxy that you would try to use language which is less insulting. If you want to win over RCs, Protestants, and other non-Orthodox you probably will not have much luck insulting us repeatedly.

The lack of an epiclesis in the Roman rite is what prompted the issue to be sure.
"And so Father we bring You these gifts. We ask you to make them holy by the power of your Spirit, that they may become for us the Body and the Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, at whose command we celebrate this Eucharist." <---Epiclesis.

Even those within EO who do not call you heretics, myself included, do consider you at least to be schismatics. I doubt that soothes your ears any more than heretic upsets them. Call it what you want, the fact remains that we are divided and, as Fr. Ambrose aptly points out, the issue of the purported universal supremacy of the Patriarch of Rome is the primary stumbling block that looms betwen us. I would worry less about words and more about substance.
Actually "schismatic" is not offensive because it only indicates disunity, not false teaching like "heretic" does. There has to be the right balance between honesty and charity, and I find many of ialmisry's posts less than charitable.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #355 on: January 16, 2011, 07:05:31 PM »


Quote

Supremacy is no more than FIRST among Equals where FIRST actually means something more than a platitude.


Straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel...

Not at all.   It is what it is. 

There is no primatial power without the means to access and utilize that power.
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #356 on: January 16, 2011, 11:19:12 PM »


Quote

Supremacy is no more than FIRST among Equals where FIRST actually means something more than a platitude.


Straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel...

Not at all.   It is what it is. 

There is no primatial power without the means to access and utilize that power.

Just another example of the Catholic obsession with power and authority.   It pervades everything that a Catholic apologist writes.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #357 on: January 16, 2011, 11:21:37 PM »


Quote

Supremacy is no more than FIRST among Equals where FIRST actually means something more than a platitude.


Straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel...

Not at all.   It is what it is. 

There is no primatial power without the means to access and utilize that power.

Just another example of the Catholic obsession with power and authority.   It pervades everything that a Catholic apologist writes.
Oh stop it.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #358 on: January 16, 2011, 11:22:22 PM »

Other then communing with the Armenian Orthodox, why would we do that?  In particular as unleaven hosts are an innovation in the West, not even kept by most of the heteretic or heterodox West anymore?
If unleavened bread is not a stumbling block resulting in schism between the Armenian Orthodox and the rest of the Eastern Orthodox Church then why is it still brought up as one of the things Rome must change before full communion could ever resume?

Heretics are free to do what they want, but to commune in the Orthodox Catholic Church, you have to confess the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
You are obviously free to believe we are heretics and free to state so since this is an Eastern Orthodox forum, but I would think if you wanted to be a more effective witness to Orthodoxy that you would try to use language which is less insulting. If you want to win over RCs, Protestants, and other non-Orthodox you probably will not have much luck insulting us repeatedly.

The lack of an epiclesis in the Roman rite is what prompted the issue to be sure.
"And so Father we bring You these gifts. We ask you to make them holy by the power of your Spirit, that they may become for us the Body and the Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, at whose command we celebrate this Eucharist." <---Epiclesis.

Even those within EO who do not call you heretics, myself included, do consider you at least to be schismatics. I doubt that soothes your ears any more than heretic upsets them. Call it what you want, the fact remains that we are divided and, as Fr. Ambrose aptly points out, the issue of the purported universal supremacy of the Patriarch of Rome is the primary stumbling block that looms betwen us. I would worry less about words and more about substance.
Actually "schismatic" is not offensive because it only indicates disunity, not false teaching like "heretic" does. There has to be the right balance between honesty and charity, and I find many of ialmisry's posts less than charitable.
You and everyone who has ever read anything he has ever posted.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #359 on: January 16, 2011, 11:23:43 PM »

Alas, historically speaking, it is the Latin Church that has required that its theology and liturgical usages be adopted by others, and not the Eastern Orthodox Churches. 

I have seen first hand the damage done to the Melkite Catholic Church in the United States, and Melkites are still struggling to overcome the Latinization that devastated our Churches, as the photographs posted above clearly show.  I have not seen comparable photographs of Western Rite Orthodox parishes that show the same degree of damage.

The Melkite website, from which the photographs were taken, also provides a handy list (albeit incomplete) of the Latinizations that have affected our Churches:


Latinizations

1. Unmarried priesthood (Still generally true of Melkite clergy)

2. Statues

3. Altar rails

4. Confessional boxes

5. Stations of the Cross hanging on walls

6. 3-D Crucifixes on walls

7. Western-style paintings

8. Suppression of liturgical hours

9. Suppression of Presanctified in favour of Divine Liturgy

10. Use of Western style Mass instead of the Liturgies of St. John Crystsostom or St. Basil

11. Introduction of Western prayers: the Rosary, etc.

12. Introduction of Western music and songs

13. Use of musical instruments

14. Emphasizing the words of Institution and silencing the Epiklesis prayers

15. Truncation of prayers, esp. psalms in liturgies

16. Reduction of prostrations and reverences

17. Use of Genuflections, Kneeling

18. Combining Divine Liturgy with other services: marriage, funeral

19. Not distributing the antidoron

20. Elimination of using hot water during Consecration (using cold?)

21. Not having a curtain behind the Royal Doors

23. First Communion and Chrismation separated from Baptism

Source:  List of Latinizations

Some of these "Latinizations" are amusing. Oh, the agony!

Of course, considering the Latins have a few hundred years head start with alternate rites, they've had more time to make mistakes. Its pretty easy to be critical when comparing apples to oranges.

P.S.  You really hate being Catholic don't you?
I simply want to be Melkite Catholic, which means holding to the traditions of the Byzantine Churches.
Fixed it for you.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 »   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 0.23 seconds with 72 queries.