OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 21, 2014, 11:31:34 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   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Traditionalist site against the Orthodox  (Read 2596 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Mexican
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria
Posts: 489


« on: December 13, 2002, 03:32:13 PM »

Eastern Orthodox Schismatics Prevent Restoration of Traditional Latin Mass

This is a BIG revelation that explains a lot. According to a Zenit News Agency story, the pope in a speech on May 24 in Bulgaria praised "diversity" with respect to the Eastern Schismatics. The reason the pope resists the general use of the Traditional Latin Mass is that it obstructs "dialog" with the Eastern Schismatics.

The post-Vatican II popes have particularly fixated on compromising with the Eastern Orthodox Schismatics. Those popes have been more than willing to sell out the Roman Catholic Faith; it is the Eastern Schismatics who have been dragging their feet on the pope's sweetheart deal.

Whereas the Vatican is willing to sell out the true Roman Catholic Faith, the Eastern Orthodox are virulently anti-Roman. The current persecution of Catholics in Russia is just one example of this hostility. I have seen anti-Catholic vitriol from the Eastern Schismatics that makes Fundamentalist Bob Jones look like a pussycat!

This "unity in diversity" ploy was used by the Modernists of the 19th century to undercut the praestantia ritus Romani, the pre-eminence of the Roman Rite, the Rite of Sts. Peter & Paul, in the Roman Catholic Church. That ploy has lead to the terrible liturgical, doctrinal, and moral relativism that we have suffered in the post-Vatican II period.

That ploy has also led to the deconstructing notion of "inculturation," palmed off by Vatican II. "Inculturation" means that if you're an African Catholic, it makes sense for you to include the sacrificing of chickens at Mass. I kid you not. A "Catholic" archbishop of Africa seriously proposed this because certain African communities were used to animal sacrifice in religious worship. They wanted real blood, not wine transubstantiated into the Precious Blood. This, of course, is blasphemy and heresy of the worst kind.

To the Eastern Orthodox Schismatics, the Traditional Roman Rite is despicable. It stands for true Catholic and Apostolic orthodoxy and orthopraxis against the schism and heresy of Eastern Orthodoxy. Its nearly universal use in centuries past was a slap in the face to Eastern Schismastics, who are virulently anti-Roman. No wonder the pope is willing to sell the Traditional Roman Rite out in order to please his new friends, the Protestants and Eastern Orthodox Schismatics!

(the comment comes from this site:

http://www.traditio.com/comment/com0205.htm )

It is incredible how ignorant they are, they have no idea about what the orthodox would think in this case. I do think that the restoration of the Traditional Mass would be a great Ecumenical step toward unity with the Orthodox Church.

Logged
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,745


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #1 on: December 13, 2002, 04:00:40 PM »

To be fair, Roman Rite traditionalists are understandably, even justifiably angry — they are vilified while the Eastern Rites, every bit as traditional, are treated relatively better (as in having many of their own officially recognized churches out in the open, not having Mass in rented halls and being called not Catholic anymore like a lot of the Latin Massers have). (Of course, those of us who follow these matters know the Eastern Rites get shoved around too, but note I said relatively better.) Statues get made fun of, but icons are HIP. WTH?

Now, to take this thing apart:

Quote
This is a BIG revelation that explains a lot. According to a Zenit News Agency story, the pope in a speech on May 24 in Bulgaria praised "diversity" with respect to the Eastern Schismatics. The reason the pope resists the general use of the Traditional Latin Mass is that it obstructs "dialog" with the Eastern Schismatics.


I don't see how the writer draws this conclusion from this papal speech.

Quote
The post-Vatican II popes have particularly fixated on compromising with the Eastern Orthodox Schismatics. Those popes have been more than willing to sell out the Roman Catholic Faith; it is the Eastern Schismatics who have been dragging their feet on the pope's sweetheart deal.

If that were true, the Roman Rite wouldn't have all but dumped fasting and the Novus Ordo never would have been invented.

Quote
Whereas the Vatican is willing to sell out the true Roman Catholic Faith, the Eastern Orthodox are virulently anti-Roman. The current persecution of Catholics in Russia is just one example of this hostility. I have seen anti-Catholic vitriol from the Eastern Schismatics that makes Fundamentalist Bob Jones look like a pussycat!

A quick read of the Internet will speak for itself.

Quote
This "unity in diversity" ploy was used by the Modernists of the 19th century to undercut the praestantia ritus Romani, the pre-eminence of the Roman Rite, the Rite of Sts. Peter & Paul, in the Roman Catholic Church. That ploy has lead to the terrible liturgical, doctrinal, and moral relativism that we have suffered in the post-Vatican II period.

Of course SS. Peter and Paul lived before any of our rites had evolved.

The writer is mixing apples and oranges. The Modernists couldn't have cared less about the Eastern Rites and the Orthodox, and people like Metropolitan Andrew (Sheptytsky) weren't Modernists.

Quote
That ploy has also led to the deconstructing notion of "inculturation," palmed off by Vatican II. "Inculturation" means that if you're an African Catholic, it makes sense for you to include the sacrificing of chickens at Mass. I kid you not. A "Catholic" archbishop of Africa seriously proposed this because certain African communities were used to animal sacrifice in religious worship. They wanted real blood, not wine transubstantiated into the Precious Blood. This, of course, is blasphemy and heresy of the worst kind.

It sure is. And the writer has a penumbra of a legitimate complaint. Those of us in the Eastern Churches should be aware that much of the solicitude to the Eastern Rites (again, relative to the embattled Tridentine Mass) is this brand of PC condescension to 'ethnics', also in the name of a trendy ecumenism.  Pretending to care about the Orthodox looks charitable and looks good on a clerical resume.

Quote
To the Eastern Orthodox Schismatics, the Traditional Roman Rite is despicable. It stands for true Catholic and Apostolic orthodoxy and orthopraxis against the schism and heresy of Eastern Orthodoxy. Its nearly universal use in centuries past was a slap in the face to Eastern Schismastics, who are virulently anti-Roman. No wonder the pope is willing to sell the Traditional Roman Rite out in order to please his new friends, the Protestants and Eastern Orthodox Schismatics!

Seems this person won't let pesky things like facts get in the way of his fixation on the externals of the Roman Mass, as holy and admirable as those externals are.

I for one can't imagine this person's enemies in the Catholic Church (no matter how much they may dabble with using icons) using the unreformed, nothing-cut-out Russian Orthodox version of the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom I am familiar with, or even the typical abbreviated version used at an Eastern Catholic church. Either way it is the same ethos as the Tridentine Mass, only perhaps a little better because it is all sung and often in the vernacular, with that mystical bent not quite like anything else.

No, the notion that these enemies are bent on reunion with the Orthodox at his expense is, in all charity, obviously mistaken.
Logged

Jennifer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,154


« Reply #2 on: December 13, 2002, 05:22:23 PM »

Traditio is a very weird site.  For example, look at the list of condemned authors.  He even includes that guy who started CTNGreg who to my knowledge is not an author.  The guy who owns Traditio claims to be a priest but apparently he's not really a priest.  This was reported (or his priesthood was questioned) on some traditional websites and e-mail lists and the guy went nuts.  The site reminds me of a bizarre sedevacantist site that condemns every other trad even the CMRI and Fr. Cekada.  

But there is a problem here for all Roman Catholics (or any Catholics in communion with Rome for that matter).  This guy, no matter how wacky and ignorant he is of history, represents the traditional Roman Catholic view of the Orthodox.  Roman Catholicism has boxed itself into a corner.  The trads correctly point out that the VII teachings on the Orthodox are radical and new.  Now of course my sympathies are with the 'neo-cons' on this one.  IMHO, VII finally got it right.  But how can I be "traditional" if I reject a thousand years of teaching for something that's only a little older than me?  

I constantly badger (are you surprised?) my conservative Catholic priest about this.  He's never had an answer for me.  What's funny is that until I started asking him these questions he had no idea what his Church was really doing.  He's a good conservative "we are happy to be obedient to the pope" Catholic.  Balamand really surprised him although he wouldn't admit that to me.  I always e-mail him articles I find on the web about how RC leaders promise not to convert Russians and he never responds because he doesn't know how to respond to it.  

I'm probably a bit legalistic (I'm a Roman at heart which is probably why I haven't converted yet), but I can't find any way to reconcile the VII teachings on the Orthodox with prior RC teachings.  To my way of looking at things, if the Orthodox are the Church (why would people who aren't in the Church not need to be evangelized?) then how can Trent, VI or VII be ecumenical councils?  Frankly that's how I live with this inconsistency but I have no illusions that this makes me 'traditional' despite my love for the Tridentine Mass and traditional latin devotions.  I'm a "neo-Catholic" "neo-con" Vatican II Catholic because the POV expressed on sites like Traditio is traditional.  And that's why all "in communion with Rome" trads and conservatives are in a real Catch-22.  
Logged
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,745


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #3 on: December 13, 2002, 05:35:51 PM »

Quote
The trads correctly point out that the VII teachings on the Orthodox are radical and new.

I'm no expert, but are they?

I think, then and now, Orthodox are seen as 'almost the Church', only before the emphasis was negative and now it's more positive.

Before VII, were Orthodox bishops seen as 'valid' but in kind of a vacuum ecclesiastically, being outside the jurisdiction of the Pope?

I am fairly sure that pre-VII, born Orthodox weren't considered hellbound but in about the same position as any born non-Catholic: 'we don't know'. (After all, Fr Leonard Feeney was excommunicated and taught all non-Catholics are hellbound.)

So AFAIK, born Orthodox aren't blamed for being where they are.

And the Eucharist is, sacramentally, God Himself. He can't be divided in essence.

Catholicism, then and now, believes He is sacramentally in the Orthodox Churches.
Logged

Jennifer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,154


« Reply #4 on: December 13, 2002, 09:14:24 PM »

I think, then and now, Orthodox are seen as 'almost the Church', only before the emphasis was negative and now it's more positive.

Before VII, were Orthodox bishops seen as 'valid' but in kind of a vacuum ecclesiastically, being outside the jurisdiction of the Pope?

I am fairly sure that pre-VII, born Orthodox weren't considered hellbound but in about the same position as any born non-Catholic: 'we don't know'. (After all, Fr Leonard Feeney was excommunicated and taught all non-Catholics are hellbound.)

So AFAIK, born Orthodox aren't blamed for being where they are.

And the Eucharist is, sacramentally, God Himself. He can't be divided in essence.

Catholicism, then and now, believes He is sacramentally in the Orthodox Churches.

Fr. Feeney got in trouble because he denied baptism by blood and baptism by desire not because he said that all non-Catholics were going to hell.  Baptism by blood and desire can be defined narrowly or broadly (like in VII).  The really narrow view is that a catechumenate can be baptized by desire.  The broad view is that a good person who is ignorant of the necessity to be a Catholic has been baptized by desire because if they knew they needed to be baptized they would be baptized.  

As an Orthodox leaning Roman, I cannot understand how Christ can be present in the Orthodox Eucharist if the Orthodox are schism but Roman Catholicism doesn't have that same hang up.  There's a separation of the sacraments from the Church in Roman Catholicism (or at least RC post 1054).  

I think there's definitely support in Patristic sources for the broad view of baptism by desire, however, I think that the narrow view was more often taught by the RC for the last thousand years.  Of course even from a traditional Catholic perspective, the Orthodox are 'validly' baptized.  

But Rome has been pretty clear that obedience, or being subject to, the pope is "absolutely necessary for salvation."  It's an odd belief from a sacramental standpoint.  It simply makes no sense that sacraments can exist outside of the Church but while I won't go so far as to say that is the traditional Catholic teaching (because I don't there is one traditional Catholic teaching here), that is what was taught most often before VII.  What causes problems for Rome is that some of these phrases were uttered by popes who are supposedly infallible in matters of faith and morals and this qualifies.  Of course there's some wiggle room here.  You can say that someone is subject to the pope without knowing it.  But on the other hand, most Orthodox Christians above the age of reason know that they are not subject to the pope.  

It's a big gray area and the ultra-trads aren't saying anything different than many orthodox Catholics said before VII.  And their POV would have been more often taught before VII.  And if Rome wants to claim that the VII perspective is the real teaching then it has some old documents to explain away.  This wouldn't create a problem if it weren't for papal infallibility.  I can't come across the specific document, but I believe there are some papal declarations specifically saying the "Greeks" are condemned for schism.  There are also problems because if papal infallibility is considered a "dogma" then it is part of the "true faith" which according to just about every pre-VII document, "profession of the true faith" is necessary to be in the Church.  Of course there's that odd separation of the Church from the sacraments.  The Orthodox don't believe the "true faith" if they reject papal infallibility and the Immaculate Conception so they're not in the Church according to that view and membership is absolutely necessary for salvation...and on and on and on...

Of course nothing was ever neat and tidy in the real world of interaction between the Orthodox and the Catholics which presents a problem for the ultra-trads.  

BTW, in doing some research for this post, I came across this little gem (typical pre-VII RC) from Pope Benedict XIV in 1755 forbidding a transfer from the latin rite to the eastern rite because the latin rite is to be preferred because the latin Church is the "teacher" of other Churches.
Logged
Roman
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 19

Constantinople will shine again


« Reply #5 on: April 07, 2005, 08:00:42 PM »

I do not understand why people view the Orthodox as schismatic since history teaches us that the Orthodox Church is the oldest and first christian church. I am a Roman who follows the traditional christian religion of the Roman Empire which was Orthodox. When the roman emperors moved to Constantinople, this left a power vacuum in old Rome which the bishop of Rome took over. Thinking that since they have taken over the power of the roman emperors the popes began to change dogmas and traditions of the first christian church. However, the Romans who moved to New Rome along with Emperor Constantine kept all the traditions and dogmas that Christ and the Apostles gave to us. I belong to one of those old Roman patrician families that moved to New Rome and although we are not Greek we still belong to the same One True Orthodox Christian Church that was the religion of the Roman Empire.
Logged
Kizzy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 229



« Reply #6 on: April 07, 2005, 10:17:29 PM »

I do not understand why people view the Orthodox as schismatic since history teaches us that the Orthodox Church is the oldest and first christian church. I am a Roman who follows the traditional christian religion of the Roman Empire which was Orthodox. When the roman emperors moved to Constantinople, this left a power vacuum in old Rome which the bishop of Rome took over. Thinking that since they have taken over the power of the roman emperors the popes began to change dogmas and traditions of the first christian church. However, the Romans who moved to New Rome along with Emperor Constantine kept all the traditions and dogmas that Christ and the Apostles gave to us. I belong to one of those old Roman patrician families that moved to New Rome and although we are not Greek we still belong to the same One True Orthodox Christian Church that was the religion of the Roman Empire.
Roman, my grandparents came from Constantinople in 1921...they were Greek by heritage but spoke Turkish... And you are right, the Orthodox Church was the religion of the Roman Empire...and it was united for quite awhile... The East-West issues and the view of 'schismatic' of the Orthodox really started to come during Iconoclasm. Rome (I believe Pope Leo) fought hard for return of the icons in Constantinople...but the situation persisted... During this time of 'disarray' in the east, it was the west that continued with the church tradition...and it was during this time that trying to consult with the East became very difficult.... as you can imagine with the terrible ongoings during this time... with even Saints relics being tossed into the sea, and people who worshipped them along with them... So when we celebrate Sunday of Orthodoxy, it really is about more than just the icons... After iconoclasm it was however, still very difficult for several centuries...the emperor in New Rome tried hard to bring back people to the church, and in doing so, the Patriarch permitted that it be merged with elements of the theater, using professional singers and actors...this practice also went on for a long time...we're talking about 990 AD. (this practice gave birth to ecclesiastical dramas, which travellers brough back throughout Europe in the theater itself- up until then, staged theater was unknown in the west) So increasingly, in the various battles the East fought, it became difficult to be 'consistent' with as it was a hotbed of issues on all sides...While the church in the East eventually emerged, it had not operated consistently through history...It is not as if it was consistently the same as it is today for all of the 2000 years...it was in turmoil for a good portion of those years. The other point is that throughout the early history, the Patriarch of Rome was viewed as First among equals and as such, was consulted for agreement on things like :should we have a council? - the Roman Bishop was a center contact point... that began to be difficult during and after iconoclasm as well, with the East doing it's own thing... whether or not by force or will. In the meantime the West had her own problems... and consulting with the East was strained... So, while I believe they both should have consulted with each other on everything, not having been in the mess of history in both places, I can honestly say they both had it tough and I believe God forgives for all shortcomings during these times....The question is now, where to go from here? How do we treat each other now...

 While all of this is now 'water under the bridge' it just is more history that lead to a perception of the East being schismatic..and which the late Pope JPII , with EP Bartholomew worked hard to erase that view... issuing joint statements on mutual quest for unity to fulfill Christ's last will and testament. Several joint EO/RC working committees have tackled subjects in this area, recommending no longer using words such as 'heretic' in speaking of each other, encouraging prayer and dialogue to find the way toward unity... recognizing each other as sister churches... I am curious to see how this goes with the next Pope. Having read their bios it's hard to say by that... I hope there will be a continued effort to find the way forward through prayer and dialogue..which hopefully will reduce, if not eliminate, attacks against the Orthodox and also attacks against the Catholics...enough is enough...both are being attacked by a worse foe... islam extremists... for which Pope JPII took a bullet for us all....

in XC, Kizzy



 


Logged

In XC, Kizzy
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 0.065 seconds with 34 queries.