OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 17, 2014, 05:45:18 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags CHAT Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Geographicalism  (Read 344 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,168



« on: June 06, 2011, 06:41:06 PM »

Christ is Ascended!

I have been wondering about this ever since my Eastern Catholic days, the notion of classifying things as "Eastern" or "Western." It's incredibly common amongst the Eastern Catholic groups as they tend to define themselves in opposition to Rome and anything "western," but I've noticed it in Orthodoxy, too, and I think it's silly. Either something is Orthodox or it is not. Centuries ago we have determined the modern Roman church not to be Orthodox, but that does not mean that everything that might be geographically in the West is dripping with heterodoxy, hence why we have "Western" Orthodoxy, but could we drop these geographical prefixes and judge things as either Orthodox or Heterodox**? For example, the rosary geographically came from the west but it is also used by those in Orthodoxy as well. It's not (or shouldn't be) dismissed solely on the basis of being from the West, but on whether or not it was Orthodox.

I hope I am making sense, please forgive my lack of eloquence. It makes more sense in my head. Tongue

In Christ,
Andrew

**(I'm not arguing against the so-called Western Rite Orthodox, I just prefer to call it Orthodox)
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
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 3,704


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #1 on: June 06, 2011, 09:12:09 PM »

Christ is Ascended!

I have been wondering about this ever since my Eastern Catholic days, the notion of classifying things as "Eastern" or "Western." It's incredibly common amongst the Eastern Catholic groups as they tend to define themselves in opposition to Rome and anything "western," but I've noticed it in Orthodoxy, too, and I think it's silly. Either something is Orthodox or it is not. Centuries ago we have determined the modern Roman church not to be Orthodox, but that does not mean that everything that might be geographically in the West is dripping with heterodoxy, hence why we have "Western" Orthodoxy, but could we drop these geographical prefixes and judge things as either Orthodox or Heterodox**? For example, the rosary geographically came from the west but it is also used by those in Orthodoxy as well. It's not (or shouldn't be) dismissed solely on the basis of being from the West, but on whether or not it was Orthodox.

I hope I am making sense, please forgive my lack of eloquence. It makes more sense in my head. Tongue

In Christ,
Andrew

**(I'm not arguing against the so-called Western Rite Orthodox, I just prefer to call it Orthodox)

Well basically yes and no is the answer to your question (If I understand what you are asking correctly).

For instance the rosary & prayer rope usage has been traced pre-schism, so in those days there was unified communion between the ecumenical patriarchs so the geographical / jurisdictional issues were more "translucent" (if there is a good word for it).   

Correct me if I'm wrong but the Greek church first adapted the prayer ropes out of the Rosary (arg I forget exactly) but I think rope was used instead of beads due to Greece being less wealthy.  Something like that anyway. Shocked)   I forget the entire story of that.

So is the Roman Catholic (west) dripping in heterodoxy?  "Dripping" may be a strong word.  Ask any Roman Catholic who is their Lord and Savior and they'll respond (depending on language) with "Jesus Christ".   Of course that is Orthodox.   Who is the Mother of God "Mary" (Theotokos), that's Orthodox.

But there are vast issues of heterodoxy dating slightly pre-schism but absolutely during schism and post schism.

The western Filioque addition to the creed is "heterodox" to the Eastern Orthodox.
Papal Supremacy is "heterodox" to the Eastern Orthodox.
The "ecumenical councils" post Great Schism that the West has had would be "heterodox in principal" to the Eastern Orthodox.
Just remember that there has been nearly 1000 years since the schism for "heterodoxies" to formulate under the "heterodox" Papal supremacy.

Now the Roman Catholics find what they are doing as "Orthodox" (defined the right way), and see the Eastern Orthodox as sometimes a "sister church" or "schismatics".   They believe the Eastern Orthodox practice many heterodox things such as NOT recognizing the Papal supremacy, but rather seeing the Pope as the 1st amongst equals.

I don't know if you meant exactly everything physically "geographically in the west" is heterodox, because that's not true.  There are many Eastern Orthodox in Italy. (I know of only 1 individual personally in Italy, but I'm sure there are more).

I may be misunderstanding your question though.  If you are speaking of Western Rite Orthodox, then I am not.

But you are right it is either "Orthodox" or "It's not Orthodox".   The Roman Catholic church in many teachings is Orthodox, its the heterodox things that divides. (Pre schsim purgatory?  I don't think so.)

Anyway, I hope this helps. 
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
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 0.041 seconds with 29 queries.