OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 31, 2014, 02:22:42 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Something rotten in the state of ecumenism?  (Read 9038 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« on: July 05, 2011, 01:51:40 PM »

I have a question to pose to my Orthodox brethren, but first let me admit something: I consider myself a traditional Catholic, so I may well be biased. (I won't be surprised if some of you respond to this post by saying that traditional Catholics like me “just don't understand” ecumenism.)

Assuming you're still reading after that admission, here's my big problem with ecumenism, stated in the simplest way I can think of: How is it that it's fine for “ecumenical-minded” Catholics, like Dr. Scott Hahn and Fr. Robert Taft, to makes statement like those quoted below, and yet if a traditional Catholic said the same things he would be decried as un-ecumenical and intolerant?


Quote from: Scott Hahn
Upon closer examination, I found the various Orthodox churches to be hopelessly divided among themselves, similar to the Protestants, except that the Orthodox were split along the lines of ethnic nationalisms; there were Orthodox bodies that called themselves Greek, Russian, Ruthenian, Rumanian, Bulgarian, Hungarian, Serbian and so on. They have coexisted for centuries, but more like a family of brothers who have lost their father.

Further study led me to conclude that Orthodoxy was wonderful for its liturgy and tradition but stagnant in theology. In addition, I became convinced that it was mistaken in doctrine, having rejected certain teachings of Scripture and the Catholic Church, especially the filioque clause (and the son) that had been added to the Nicene Creed. In addition, their rejection of the Pope as head of the Church seemed to be based on imperial politics, more than on any serious theological grounds. This helped me to understand why, throughout their history, Orthodox Christians have tended to exalt the Emperor and the State over the Bishop and the Church (otherwise known as Caesaropapism). It occurred to me that Russia had been reaping the consequences of this Orthodox outlook throughout the twentieth century.


Quote from: an interview with Fr. Taft
Taft: To attempt to apply rational analysis to this is to fail to understand what the East is. Once you get over on this side of the Atlantic Ocean, the further you go South or East from anywhere, the worse everything gets, except the food. Logic gets worse, rationality gets worse, and everything ultimately winds up in hysteria and emotionalism. It’s futile to try and reason about this.

Interviewer: So the Catholic church is never going to persuade the Orthodox to accept the patriarchate?

Taft: No, and I don’t think we should even try. To hell with Moscow.


P.S. To anyone who is a Shakespeare fan/purist, sorry about the cheesy thread title.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
pensateomnia
Bibliophylax
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Posts: 2,347


metron ariston


« Reply #1 on: July 05, 2011, 02:10:09 PM »

Could you supply the references for those quotes, especially the one by Fr Taft?

To answer your question: I was not aware that either of the authors were "ecumenically minded." They might have been so at one point, but Fr Taft has been more than a little sour on the topic for many years.
Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,030



WWW
« Reply #2 on: July 05, 2011, 02:14:18 PM »

Much of Ecumenism is just the "revolutionary mentality", as defined by Olavo de Carvalho, applied to world religions and the Church in particular.

The reason why ecumenists can say such politically incorrect things and get away with it while traditionalist papists can't is that they are on the "right" side of the line: supporting ideas and values that would eventually converge to a "revolution" of the world. It's the same reason why Cuba and Iran criminalize homossexualism and get away with "cultural relativism", but if a Christian expresses his personal opinion that homossexualism is disgusting (even not being violent) than he's a bygot.

Olavo de Carvalho uses the expression in a restrict sense, not in the generic concept of "revolution". He defines it in these two articles:

http://www.philosophyseminar.com/texts/articles/124-the-revolutionary-mentality.html

http://www.theinteramerican.org/commentary/191-more-on-the-revolutionary-mentality.html

Here's a summary of the articles:

The revolutionary mind is a perfectly identifiable and continuous historical phenomenon, whose developments over five centuries may be traced in countless documents. This is the subject of an investigation that has occupied me for several years now.
The revolutionary mind is not essentially a political phenomenon, but a spiritual and psychological one, though its field of expression and its fundamental instrument is political action.

To make things easier, I use the expressions "revolutionary mind" and "revolutionary mentality" in order to distinguish between the concrete historical phenomenon, with its varied manifestations, and the essential and permanent characteristic that enables one to grasp its unity throughout time.

The "revolutionary mentality" is the permanent or transitory state of spirit in which an individual or a group believes himself capable of remodeling the whole society – if not human nature in general – through political action.

Socialism and Nazism are not revolutionary because they propose supremacy of a social class or of a race, but because they turn these goals into principles for a radical remodeling not only of the political order, but of all human life.

That is why it must be stressed that the meaning here given to the term "revolution" is at once more encompassing and more precise than the one generally attributed to it by historiography and by the current social sciences. Many socio-political processes usually called "revolutions" are not actually "revolutionary", because they do not partake of the revolutionary mentality, they do not aim at the total remodeling of society, culture and the human species, but work only to modify local and momentary situations, ideally for the better.

What truly characterizes the revolutionary movement is that it imposes the authority of a hypothetical future on the judgment of all the human species, present or past. By its very nature, the revolution is totalitarian and universally expansive: there is not a single aspect of human life that it does not intend to submit to its power, there is no region of the world where it does not wish to extend the tentacles of its influence.

1. A revolutionary does not understand injustice and evil as factors inherent in the human condition that can be attenuated but not eliminated, but rather as temporary anomalies created by a segment of humanity—the bourgeoisie, the Jews, Christians, etc.—which can be identified and punished, thereby extirpating the root of evil.

2. The guilty segment of mankind spreads evil and sin by exercising a power—economic, political, military, and cultural. Hence, it must be eliminated by means of a superior power, the revolutionary power, deliberately created to achieve this purpose.

3. The revolutionary power, like the Biblical God, “makes all things new.” There are no limits to the range and depth of revolutionary action.

4. The demand for proof (of the need for the total remodelling of society) is automatically impugned as a subterfuge for avoiding change and condemned ipso facto as an element to be eliminated. The revolution is its own foundation and cannot be questioned from the outside.

5. The crimes and mistakes of a fallen leader, not imputable to the future society, nor to the revolutionary process as such, nor to the revolutionary movement as a whole, can therefore only be explained as a residual effect of the condemned past: a revolutionary, by definition, sins only by not being sufficiently revolutionary.
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,030



WWW
« Reply #3 on: July 05, 2011, 02:23:27 PM »

When Ecumenists:

1. Speak and work for a Future "Ideal" Church;
2. See themselves as present representatives of this future ideal church, therefore only accountable to this "FIC" and not to current and traditional morality;
3. Put the blame on "traditionalists" of every Church for "bygotry", schisms and general evilness and ignorance;
4. See and practice every slander and backstage politics to neutralize this "guilty segment" of society  - after all they are working under the ethics of the FIC, before which the "traditionalists" are really hereticals;

They put themselves deep in the "revolutionary mentality" front.

That is why I think it is more honest to start with the fact that we consider each other schismatic at best, heretic at worse and union is actually conversion. That is "yes, yes, no, no" to me.
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Kasatkin fan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Archdiocese of Canada
Posts: 636



« Reply #4 on: July 05, 2011, 02:27:38 PM »

I don't think it is fine for them to say such things. They are ignorant. Anyone who supports statements like those are likewise ignorant.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #5 on: July 06, 2011, 05:43:57 PM »

Could you supply the references for those quotes, especially the one by Fr Taft?

Sure. Interview with Jesuit Fr. Robert Taft of the Pontifical Oriental Institute, February 4, 2004.

The other quote is from Rome Sweet Home: Our Journey to Catholicism by Scott and Kimberly Hahn, 1993.

To answer your question: I was not aware that either of the authors were "ecumenically minded." They might have been so at one point, but Fr Taft has been more than a little sour on the topic for many years.

Come to think of it, I don't exactly know why Dr. Hahn and Fr. Taft are considered "ecumenical-minded". Just about every conversation on them that I've ever been involved in, took for granted that they are.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #6 on: July 06, 2011, 06:00:36 PM »

As I have mentioned before Scott Hahn can sometimes entertain his readers with his hilarious blunders and this is one of them.  Sometimes it really does pay to engage the brain and avoid making daft statements!!

Quote from: Scott Hahn

Further study led me to conclude that Orthodoxy was wonderful for its liturgy and tradition but stagnant in theology.

Does this mean that when Catholic theology reaches a satisfactory level of development and clarification it then starts to stagnate??!  

Or is it imperative that Catholic doctrine *never* stops developing?    Avoid stagnation at all cost.  The genuine Church shall be known by its never ending evolution of doctrine.   laugh

Last century we brought you the Immaculate Conception.  This century we are going to keep your attention by unveiling the Co-redemptrix.  And wait for it.... to stretch your mind in the 22nd century we shall be rolling out the Quasi-Incarnation of the Spirit!
« Last Edit: July 06, 2011, 06:06:18 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
William
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Posts: 4,306


« Reply #7 on: July 06, 2011, 06:16:25 PM »

And wait for it.... to stretch your mind in the 22nd century we shall be rolling out the Quasi-Incarnation of the Spirit!
In whom?
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant

Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. - Matt. 5:24
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #8 on: July 06, 2011, 06:30:23 PM »

And wait for it.... to stretch your mind in the 22nd century we shall be rolling out the Quasi-Incarnation of the Spirit!
In whom?

In the Immaculata.

Try a google search with   kolbe quasi incarnation
« Last Edit: July 06, 2011, 06:32:01 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #9 on: July 06, 2011, 06:38:06 PM »

I have to say that, as a traditional Catholic, I am agreement with Dr. Hahn with regard to his assessment of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Why would it surprise anyone that an orthodox Catholic would view the Eastern Orthodox as being in error?
« Last Edit: July 06, 2011, 06:38:49 PM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #10 on: July 06, 2011, 06:46:24 PM »

Quote from: Scott Hahn

Further study led me to conclude that Orthodoxy was wonderful for its liturgy and tradition but stagnant in theology.

Yes, with just about all the definitions over and done with (apart from a few Marian ones) you are probably approaching the state of theological stagnation so feared by Scott Hahn.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #11 on: July 06, 2011, 06:51:40 PM »

Scott Hahn:

It occurred to me that Russia had been reaping the consequences of this Orthodox outlook throughout the twentieth century.


Seriously, the man should take his blinkers off.   *THIS* is what we have reaped in the 20th century  -- a harvest of 50 million martyrs who stand now before the throne of Jesus Christ and are already preparing the Church for a renewed flourishing of Christian faith and holiness. 

To take Russia as an example, in the last 20 years the monasteries have grown from just 4 under Communism to over 400. Monasteries and convents filled with monks and nuns, and fresh accommodation being built at as fast as can be.  So many aspirants that the Holy Synod has asked the abbots and abbesses  to discourage older married couples separating and going into monasteries and to concentrate on taking the younger applicants. The same situation in Serbia.  Everywhere young monks with black beards.

We give glory and praise to God for these holy Martyrs and what their prayers are now bringing about.

"In Memory Of The 50 Million Victims Of The Orthodox Christian Holocaust"

http://www.serfes.org/orthodox/memoryof.htm
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,472



« Reply #12 on: July 06, 2011, 06:52:31 PM »

And wait for it.... to stretch your mind in the 22nd century we shall be rolling out the Quasi-Incarnation of the Spirit!
In whom?

In the Immaculata.

Try a google search with   kolbe quasi incarnation
Google?  He can do a search here. We've dealt with it several times, with links to the Vatican's sources.
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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,472



« Reply #13 on: July 06, 2011, 06:55:58 PM »

I have a question to pose to my Orthodox brethren, but first let me admit something: I consider myself a traditional Catholic, so I may well be biased. (I won't be surprised if some of you respond to this post by saying that traditional Catholics like me “just don't understand” ecumenism.)

Assuming you're still reading after that admission, here's my big problem with ecumenism, stated in the simplest way I can think of: How is it that it's fine for “ecumenical-minded” Catholics, like Dr. Scott Hahn and Fr. Robert Taft, to makes statement like those quoted below, and yet if a traditional Catholic said the same things he would be decried as un-ecumenical and intolerant?


Quote from: Scott Hahn
Upon closer examination, I found the various Orthodox churches to be hopelessly divided among themselves, similar to the Protestants, except that the Orthodox were split along the lines of ethnic nationalisms; there were Orthodox bodies that called themselves Greek, Russian, Ruthenian, Rumanian, Bulgarian, Hungarian, Serbian and so on. They have coexisted for centuries, but more like a family of brothers who have lost their father.

Further study led me to conclude that Orthodoxy was wonderful for its liturgy and tradition but stagnant in theology. In addition, I became convinced that it was mistaken in doctrine, having rejected certain teachings of Scripture and the Catholic Church, especially the filioque clause (and the son) that had been added to the Nicene Creed. In addition, their rejection of the Pope as head of the Church seemed to be based on imperial politics, more than on any serious theological grounds. This helped me to understand why, throughout their history, Orthodox Christians have tended to exalt the Emperor and the State over the Bishop and the Church (otherwise known as Caesaropapism). It occurred to me that Russia had been reaping the consequences of this Orthodox outlook throughout the twentieth century.


Quote from: an interview with Fr. Taft
Taft: To attempt to apply rational analysis to this is to fail to understand what the East is. Once you get over on this side of the Atlantic Ocean, the further you go South or East from anywhere, the worse everything gets, except the food. Logic gets worse, rationality gets worse, and everything ultimately winds up in hysteria and emotionalism. It’s futile to try and reason about this.

Interviewer: So the Catholic church is never going to persuade the Orthodox to accept the patriarchate?

Taft: No, and I don’t think we should even try. To hell with Moscow.


P.S. To anyone who is a Shakespeare fan/purist, sorry about the cheesy thread title.
Fine with whom? Certainly not the Orthodox. Hahn's stupid statement and Fr. Taft's even more baseless (and ignorant) one have been dealt with us several times here.
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
Kasatkin fan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Archdiocese of Canada
Posts: 636



« Reply #14 on: July 06, 2011, 07:17:54 PM »

I have to say that, as a traditional Catholic, I am agreement with Dr. Hahn with regard to his assessment of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Why would it surprise anyone that an orthodox Catholic would view the Eastern Orthodox as being in error?
It's not surprising.

It is an oddity when one claims to be for union and then makes such ignorant statements.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #15 on: July 06, 2011, 07:31:36 PM »

I have to say that, as a traditional Catholic, I am agreement with Dr. Hahn with regard to his assessment of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Hahn really does not know what he is talking about.

He takes a swipe at us because our theology is unchanging.

But then he praises us for our liturgy    ~which is also unchanging.

The last change to our "stagnant" liturgy was about the 12th century when we added in the priest's prayer at the beginning of the Anaphora/Canon.

"No one bound by worldly desires and pleasures is worthy to approach, draw near or minister to Thee, the King of glory.."
 
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #16 on: July 06, 2011, 08:04:14 PM »

Quote from: Scott Hahn
Upon closer examination, I found the various Orthodox churches to be hopelessly divided among themselves, similar to the Protestants, except that the Orthodox were split along the lines of ethnic nationalisms; there were Orthodox bodies that called themselves Greek, Russian, Ruthenian, Rumanian, Bulgarian, Hungarian, Serbian and so on. They have coexisted for centuries, but more like a family of brothers who have lost their father.

Further study led me to conclude that Orthodoxy was wonderful for its liturgy and tradition but stagnant in theology. In addition, I became convinced that it was mistaken in doctrine, having rejected certain teachings of Scripture and the Catholic Church, especially the filioque clause (and the son) that had been added to the Nicene Creed. In addition, their rejection of the Pope as head of the Church seemed to be based on imperial politics, more than on any serious theological grounds. This helped me to understand why, throughout their history, Orthodox Christians have tended to exalt the Emperor and the State over the Bishop and the Church (otherwise known as Caesaropapism). It occurred to me that Russia had been reaping the consequences of this Orthodox outlook throughout the twentieth century.


Quote from: an interview with Fr. Taft
Taft: To attempt to apply rational analysis to this is to fail to understand what the East is. Once you get over on this side of the Atlantic Ocean, the further you go South or East from anywhere, the worse everything gets, except the food. Logic gets worse, rationality gets worse, and everything ultimately winds up in hysteria and emotionalism. It’s futile to try and reason about this.

Interviewer: So the Catholic church is never going to persuade the Orthodox to accept the patriarchate?

Taft: No, and I don’t think we should even try. To hell with Moscow.

I see two great Catholic theologians of the 20th century saying "To hell with Orthodoxy."

Well at least they are honest, unlike the Pope whom you say won't put all his cards on the table.

What are you saying to us, Peter?  Are you saying that we ought to take Hahn and Taft as the Vatican's true voice in the dialogue?  That we should abandon the dialogue?
Logged
CRCulver
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Finland and Romanian Orthodox Church
Posts: 1,159


St Stephen of Perm, missionary to speakers of Komi


WWW
« Reply #17 on: July 06, 2011, 08:40:36 PM »

To take Russia as an example, in the last 20 years the monasteries have grown from just 4 under Communism to over 400. Monasteries and convents filled with monks and nuns, and fresh accommodation being built at as fast as can be.  So many aspirants that the Holy Synod has asked the abbots and abbesses  to discourage older married couples separating and going into monasteries and to concentrate on taking the younger applicants. The same situation in Serbia.  Everywhere young monks with black beards.

Growth in Orthodoxy in Russia is limited to only a few parts of the country. As impressive as the growth may be in a few places, elsewhere the Church is shrinking or has pulled out entirely. In the areas I do fieldwork, the Orthodox have decided not to maintain priests or rebuild churches in spite of demand, because the ROC in the area now considers itself only a church for ethnic Russians and not despised non-Russian-speaking minorities, so the Lutheran Church has come in to minister. There has been no return to the pre-Communist flourishing of the Church, when whole peoples were being brought to Christ. Rather, there has been a change of priorities that will leave most of the country abandoned.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2011, 08:43:15 PM by CRCulver » Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #18 on: July 06, 2011, 08:59:23 PM »

I have to say that, as a traditional Catholic, I am agreement with Dr. Hahn with regard to his assessment of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Hahn really does not know what he is talking about.

He takes a swipe at us because our theology is unchanging.

But then he praises us for our liturgy    ~which is also unchanging.

The last change to our "stagnant" liturgy was about the 12th century when we added in the priest's prayer at the beginning of the Anaphora/Canon.

"No one bound by worldly desires and pleasures is worthy to approach, draw near or minister to Thee, the King of glory.."
 

Hi Father and Papist.

Is Dr. Hahn a traditional Catholic?

Of course, if he is, it might be wise to keep that quiet, since it could cause his popularity to plummet. But, more relevant to this thread, it would mean that I owe him an apology:

How is it that it's fine for “ecumenical-minded” Catholics, like Dr. Scott Hahn and Fr. Robert Taft, to makes statement like those quoted below, and yet if a traditional Catholic said the same things he would be decried as un-ecumenical and intolerant?
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #19 on: July 06, 2011, 09:00:57 PM »

Quote from: Scott Hahn
Upon closer examination, I found the various Orthodox churches to be hopelessly divided among themselves, similar to the Protestants, except that the Orthodox were split along the lines of ethnic nationalisms; there were Orthodox bodies that called themselves Greek, Russian, Ruthenian, Rumanian, Bulgarian, Hungarian, Serbian and so on. They have coexisted for centuries, but more like a family of brothers who have lost their father.

Further study led me to conclude that Orthodoxy was wonderful for its liturgy and tradition but stagnant in theology. In addition, I became convinced that it was mistaken in doctrine, having rejected certain teachings of Scripture and the Catholic Church, especially the filioque clause (and the son) that had been added to the Nicene Creed. In addition, their rejection of the Pope as head of the Church seemed to be based on imperial politics, more than on any serious theological grounds. This helped me to understand why, throughout their history, Orthodox Christians have tended to exalt the Emperor and the State over the Bishop and the Church (otherwise known as Caesaropapism). It occurred to me that Russia had been reaping the consequences of this Orthodox outlook throughout the twentieth century.


Quote from: an interview with Fr. Taft
Taft: To attempt to apply rational analysis to this is to fail to understand what the East is. Once you get over on this side of the Atlantic Ocean, the further you go South or East from anywhere, the worse everything gets, except the food. Logic gets worse, rationality gets worse, and everything ultimately winds up in hysteria and emotionalism. It’s futile to try and reason about this.

Interviewer: So the Catholic church is never going to persuade the Orthodox to accept the patriarchate?

Taft: No, and I don’t think we should even try. To hell with Moscow.

I see two great Catholic theologians of the 20th century saying "To hell with Orthodoxy."

Well at least they are honest, unlike the Pope whom you say won't put all his cards on the table.

What are you saying to us, Peter?  Are you saying that we ought to take Hahn and Taft as the Vatican's true voice in the dialogue? 

Good question. I can definitely see some advantages to doing that. When it comes to ecumenism, neo-conservative Catholics are the 600-lb gorilla in the room, and "tak[ing] Hahn and Taft as the Vatican's true voice in the dialogue" would definitely make the gorilla happy.

That we should abandon the dialogue?

Also a good question, but I'm not going to try to tackle it here.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

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


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #20 on: July 06, 2011, 09:17:25 PM »

Quote from: Scott Hahn
Upon closer examination, I found the various Orthodox churches to be hopelessly divided among themselves, similar to the Protestants, except that the Orthodox were split along the lines of ethnic nationalisms; there were Orthodox bodies that called themselves Greek, Russian, Ruthenian, Rumanian, Bulgarian, Hungarian, Serbian and so on. They have coexisted for centuries, but more like a family of brothers who have lost their father.

Further study led me to conclude that Orthodoxy was wonderful for its liturgy and tradition but stagnant in theology. In addition, I became convinced that it was mistaken in doctrine, having rejected certain teachings of Scripture and the Catholic Church, especially the filioque clause (and the son) that had been added to the Nicene Creed. In addition, their rejection of the Pope as head of the Church seemed to be based on imperial politics, more than on any serious theological grounds. This helped me to understand why, throughout their history, Orthodox Christians have tended to exalt the Emperor and the State over the Bishop and the Church (otherwise known as Caesaropapism). It occurred to me that Russia had been reaping the consequences of this Orthodox outlook throughout the twentieth century.


Quote from: an interview with Fr. Taft
Taft: To attempt to apply rational analysis to this is to fail to understand what the East is. Once you get over on this side of the Atlantic Ocean, the further you go South or East from anywhere, the worse everything gets, except the food. Logic gets worse, rationality gets worse, and everything ultimately winds up in hysteria and emotionalism. It’s futile to try and reason about this.

Interviewer: So the Catholic church is never going to persuade the Orthodox to accept the patriarchate?

Taft: No, and I don’t think we should even try. To hell with Moscow.

I see two great Catholic theologians of the 20th century saying "To hell with Orthodoxy."

Well at least they are honest, unlike the Pope whom you say won't put all his cards on the table.

What are you saying to us, Peter?  Are you saying that we ought to take Hahn and Taft as the Vatican's true voice in the dialogue?  That we should abandon the dialogue?

The ex-Roman Catholic in me screams, "HAHN IS NOT A GREAT THEOLOGIAN!"

At best, he's an explainer of RC dogma to ex-Prots like himself.

Fr. Taft is the almost the opposite: an academic theologian trying to live in two worlds.

Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #21 on: July 06, 2011, 09:43:54 PM »

The ex-Roman Catholic in me screams, "HAHN IS NOT A GREAT THEOLOGIAN!"

At best, he's an explainer of RC dogma to ex-Prots like himself.
To me, that is a good theologian. Listening to Scott Hahn and reading his work helped me tremendously as I left Protestantism and joined the Catholic Church.
Logged
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,030



WWW
« Reply #22 on: July 07, 2011, 12:03:25 AM »

And wait for it.... to stretch your mind in the 22nd century we shall be rolling out the Quasi-Incarnation of the Spirit!
In whom?

In the Immaculata.

Try a google search with   kolbe quasi incarnation
Google?  He can do a search here. We've dealt with it several times, with links to the Vatican's sources.

Oh my! I didn't know about that. Really? Quasi-incarnation of the Holy Spirit? I just watched a video on it ( http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x9zb40_quasi-incarnation-of-the-holy-spir_news ), it's just jaw-dropping in the bad sense of the expression.

The Holy Spirit's infallibility acts only through ex cathedra statements of the Pope. The Holy Spirit acts only through Mary. Catapapism and now catamaryism... what happened to cata holicism?
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #23 on: July 07, 2011, 02:12:43 AM »

There has been no return to the pre-Communist flourishing of the Church, when whole peoples were being brought to Christ.


Do you have in mind such as the Aleuts of Alaska?  What other whole peoples were bring brought to Christ in the pre-Communist period?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #24 on: July 07, 2011, 02:15:51 AM »

Quote from: Scott Hahn
Upon closer examination, I found the various Orthodox churches to be hopelessly divided among themselves, similar to the Protestants, except that the Orthodox were split along the lines of ethnic nationalisms; there were Orthodox bodies that called themselves Greek, Russian, Ruthenian, Rumanian, Bulgarian, Hungarian, Serbian and so on. They have coexisted for centuries, but more like a family of brothers who have lost their father.

Further study led me to conclude that Orthodoxy was wonderful for its liturgy and tradition but stagnant in theology. In addition, I became convinced that it was mistaken in doctrine, having rejected certain teachings of Scripture and the Catholic Church, especially the filioque clause (and the son) that had been added to the Nicene Creed. In addition, their rejection of the Pope as head of the Church seemed to be based on imperial politics, more than on any serious theological grounds. This helped me to understand why, throughout their history, Orthodox Christians have tended to exalt the Emperor and the State over the Bishop and the Church (otherwise known as Caesaropapism). It occurred to me that Russia had been reaping the consequences of this Orthodox outlook throughout the twentieth century.


Quote from: an interview with Fr. Taft
Taft: To attempt to apply rational analysis to this is to fail to understand what the East is. Once you get over on this side of the Atlantic Ocean, the further you go South or East from anywhere, the worse everything gets, except the food. Logic gets worse, rationality gets worse, and everything ultimately winds up in hysteria and emotionalism. It’s futile to try and reason about this.

Interviewer: So the Catholic church is never going to persuade the Orthodox to accept the patriarchate?

Taft: No, and I don’t think we should even try. To hell with Moscow.

I see two great Catholic theologians of the 20th century saying "To hell with Orthodoxy."

Well at least they are honest, unlike the Pope whom you say won't put all his cards on the table.

What are you saying to us, Peter?  Are you saying that we ought to take Hahn and Taft as the Vatican's true voice in the dialogue?  That we should abandon the dialogue?

The ex-Roman Catholic in me screams, "HAHN IS NOT A GREAT THEOLOGIAN!"

At best, he's an explainer of RC dogma to ex-Prots like himself.


Yes, I think that statement by Father Irish Hermit was designed to have the efect of nails on a blackboard!   laugh Grin
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #25 on: July 07, 2011, 02:23:58 AM »

And wait for it.... to stretch your mind in the 22nd century we shall be rolling out the Quasi-Incarnation of the Spirit!
In whom?

In the Immaculata.

Try a google search with   kolbe quasi incarnation
Google?  He can do a search here. We've dealt with it several times, with links to the Vatican's sources.

Oh my! I didn't know about that. Really? Quasi-incarnation of the Holy Spirit? I just watched a video on it ( http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x9zb40_quasi-incarnation-of-the-holy-spir_news ), it's just jaw-dropping in the bad sense of the expression.

The Holy Spirit's infallibility acts only through ex cathedra statements of the Pope. The Holy Spirit acts only through Mary. Catapapism and now catamaryism... what happened to cata holicism?

Yes, it's the zaniest theology around these days, from the Franciscan University.

But zany or not, many believe it will be the Fifth Marian Dogma.   Just give the Franciscans time to percolate it through the whole Roman Catholic Church.

Remember that dogma, according to Scott Hahn, must never stop developing, otherwise it becomes stagnant.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #26 on: July 07, 2011, 06:40:44 AM »

And wait for it.... to stretch your mind in the 22nd century we shall be rolling out the Quasi-Incarnation of the Spirit!
In whom?

In the Immaculata.

Try a google search with   kolbe quasi incarnation
Google?  He can do a search here. We've dealt with it several times, with links to the Vatican's sources.

Oh my! I didn't know about that. Really? Quasi-incarnation of the Holy Spirit? I just watched a video on it ( http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x9zb40_quasi-incarnation-of-the-holy-spir_news ), it's just jaw-dropping in the bad sense of the expression.

The Holy Spirit's infallibility acts only through ex cathedra statements of the Pope. The Holy Spirit acts only through Mary. Catapapism and now catamaryism... what happened to cata holicism?

Yes, it's the zaniest theology around these days, from the Franciscan University.

But zany or not, many believe it will be the Fifth Marian Dogma.   Just give the Franciscans time to percolate it through the whole Roman Catholic Church.

Remember that dogma, according to Scott Hahn, must never stop developing, otherwise it becomes stagnant.

The Fifth-Marian-Dogma enthusiasts are, from what I've seen, generally very favorable towards quasi-incarnation talk as well. But, just to set the record straight, they don't include quasi-incarnation in their "Fifth Dogma". (Not that it matters very much to me. I consider myself a traditional Catholic, as you know.)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #27 on: July 07, 2011, 06:53:35 AM »

The Fifth-Marian-Dogma enthusiasts are, from what I've seen, generally very favorable towards quasi-incarnation talk as well. But, just to set the record straight, they don't include quasi-incarnation in their "Fifth Dogma". (Not that it matters very much to me. I consider myself a traditional Catholic, as you know.)

The Franciscans have an unparalleled record of success in imposing on your Church the new Marian doctrines which they promote.    For centuries they fought tooth and nail with the Dominicans all across Europe in the parishes and universities.   The Dominicans were strongly opposed to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception...  The Franciscans beat them to pulp.  They will do the same for the Quasi-Incarnation.  Long live the new Hypostastic Union of Mary and the Holy Spirit!

This video clip on the Quasi-Incarnation from Dr Miravalle of the Franciscan University at Steubenville is truly horrific.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x9zb40_quasi-incarnation-of-the-holy-spir_news
Logged
LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,539


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #28 on: July 07, 2011, 07:51:21 AM »

"Truly horrific" is far too mild a description.  Tongue Tongue Angry
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #29 on: July 07, 2011, 10:56:58 AM »

bump:  Hate to see this ignored.  I am sure Father Ambrose has something Anti-Taftian to say about this.


Growth in Orthodoxy in Russia is limited to only a few parts of the country. As impressive as the growth may be in a few places, elsewhere the Church is shrinking or has pulled out entirely. In the areas I do fieldwork, the Orthodox have decided not to maintain priests or rebuild churches in spite of demand, because the ROC in the area now considers itself only a church for ethnic Russians and not despised non-Russian-speaking minorities, so the Lutheran Church has come in to minister. There has been no return to the pre-Communist flourishing of the Church, when whole peoples were being brought to Christ. Rather, there has been a change of priorities that will leave most of the country abandoned.

Also I agree with Schultz's assessments above.  Who cares what Scott and Father Robert say?...besides their mothers and Scott's wife?...this is only half a tease, but neither one has much chance of making it in the big leagues...speaking of theology in its classical sense.

M.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2011, 11:02:32 AM by elijahmaria » Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #30 on: July 07, 2011, 11:07:59 AM »

Who cares what Scott and Father Robert say?...besides their mothers and Scott's wife?...this is only half a tease, but neither one has much chance of making it in the big leagues...speaking of theology in its classical sense.

I think they are significant, if only because of the sheer number of people who are influenced by them.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #31 on: July 07, 2011, 11:09:15 AM »

I don't think it is fine for them to say such things. They are ignorant. Anyone who supports statements like those are likewise ignorant.

As with my answer to pensateomnia, it's a bit difficult to provide evidence*. In my experience, it's generally taken for granted that those statements from Dr. Hahn and Fr. Taft are fine and dandy.

* Although this tidbit might help a little.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #32 on: July 07, 2011, 11:09:25 AM »

I have to say that, as a traditional Catholic, I am agreement with Dr. Hahn with regard to his assessment of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Why would it surprise anyone that an orthodox Catholic would view the Eastern Orthodox as being in error?
It's not surprising.

It is an oddity when one claims to be for union and then makes such ignorant statements.
Why would that be odd? I think that the Eastern Orthodox Church should fix the problems mentioned above and then come into communion with the Catholic Church.
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 #33 on: July 07, 2011, 11:14:30 AM »

I would like to add that I don't agree with the concept that EOs are theologically stagnant. That is one point were Hahn and I diverge. I think that theological innovation is a big part of Eastern Orthodoxy. One example is the fact that they used to believe in Purgatory and Original Sin, and have since rejected those teachings. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception came from the East, not the West,  and yet, they currently reject that as well.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #34 on: July 07, 2011, 11:20:07 AM »

Who cares what Scott and Father Robert say?...besides their mothers and Scott's wife?...this is only half a tease, but neither one has much chance of making it in the big leagues...speaking of theology in its classical sense.

I think they are significant, if only because of the sheer number of people who are influenced by them.

Ya...Puts them right up there with mortal sin, using your criteria!!   laugh
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #35 on: July 07, 2011, 11:22:26 AM »

I have to say that, as a traditional Catholic, I am agreement with Dr. Hahn with regard to his assessment of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Why would it surprise anyone that an orthodox Catholic would view the Eastern Orthodox as being in error?
It's not surprising.

It is an oddity when one claims to be for union and then makes such ignorant statements.
Why would that be odd? I think that the Eastern Orthodox Church should fix the problems mentioned above and then come into communion with the Catholic Church.

I agree. There's no contradiction between having a low opinion of Eastern Orthodoxy, and being in favor of union(s).
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #36 on: July 07, 2011, 11:25:45 AM »

I would like to add that I don't agree with the concept that EOs are theologically stagnant. That is one point were Hahn and I diverge. I think that theological innovation is a big part of Eastern Orthodoxy. One example is the fact that they used to believe in Purgatory and Original Sin, and have since rejected those teachings. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception came from the East, not the West,  and yet, they currently reject that as well.

Good clarification. I was a little surprised when you said "as a traditional Catholic, I am [in] agreement with Dr. Hahn with regard to his assessment of the Eastern Orthodox Church", but now I get what you're saying.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #37 on: July 07, 2011, 11:28:21 AM »

I have to say that, as a traditional Catholic, I am agreement with Dr. Hahn with regard to his assessment of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Why would it surprise anyone that an orthodox Catholic would view the Eastern Orthodox as being in error?
It's not surprising.

It is an oddity when one claims to be for union and then makes such ignorant statements.
Why would that be odd? I think that the Eastern Orthodox Church should fix the problems mentioned above and then come into communion with the Catholic Church.

I agree. There's no contradiction between having a low opinion of Eastern Orthodoxy, and being in favor of union(s).

Apparently some Orthodox are spoiled by the fact that the formal position of the Catholic Church toward Orthodoxy is that they are patriarchal Sister Churches and would come into communion as fully independent particular Churches.   They deny it is true and then complain when it isn't in evidence.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,472



« Reply #38 on: July 07, 2011, 11:43:17 AM »

I have to say that, as a traditional Catholic, I am agreement with Dr. Hahn with regard to his assessment of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Why would it surprise anyone that an orthodox Catholic would view the Eastern Orthodox as being in error?
It's not surprising.

It is an oddity when one claims to be for union and then makes such ignorant statements.
Why would that be odd? I think that the Eastern Orthodox Church should fix the problems mentioned above and then come into communion with the Catholic Church.

I agree. There's no contradiction between having a low opinion of Eastern Orthodoxy, and being in favor of union(s).

Apparently some Orthodox are spoiled by the fact that the formal position of the Catholic Church toward Orthodoxy is that they are patriarchal Sister Churches and would come into communion as fully independent particular Churches.   They deny it is true and then complain when it isn't in evidence.
check your code of canon law (or as it is offiically Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium (CCEO)), there is no such thing as a "fully independent particular church" in the Vatican's ecclesiastical community.
http://www.intratext.com/X/ENG1199.HTM

Your "facts" fall flat yet again.

But it is true that the Catholic Church's formal position toward Orthodoxy is that they are patriarchal sister Churches who are in communion as fully independent particular Churches, in the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church (where the Vatican's "supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the church which he can always freely exercise" has no place).
« Last Edit: July 07, 2011, 11:47:32 AM by ialmisry » 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
Orthodox11
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,999


« Reply #39 on: July 07, 2011, 11:45:34 AM »

Quote from: Scott Hahn
Upon closer examination, I found the various Orthodox churches to be hopelessly divided among themselves, similar to the Protestants, except that the Orthodox were split along the lines of ethnic nationalisms; there were Orthodox bodies that called themselves Greek, Russian, Ruthenian, Rumanian, Bulgarian, Hungarian, Serbian and so on. They have coexisted for centuries, but more like a family of brothers who have lost their father.

Further study led me to conclude that Orthodoxy was wonderful for its liturgy and tradition but stagnant in theology. In addition, I became convinced that it was mistaken in doctrine, having rejected certain teachings of Scripture and the Catholic Church, especially the filioque clause (and the son) that had been added to the Nicene Creed. In addition, their rejection of the Pope as head of the Church seemed to be based on imperial politics, more than on any serious theological grounds. This helped me to understand why, throughout their history, Orthodox Christians have tended to exalt the Emperor and the State over the Bishop and the Church (otherwise known as Caesaropapism). It occurred to me that Russia had been reaping the consequences of this Orthodox outlook throughout the twentieth century.

I think Taft gives quite a nice response to Hahn:
Quote
Do you agree that the central problem is the papacy?
Of course. What we’ve made out of the papacy is simply ridiculous. There’s no possible justification in the New Testament or anyplace else for what we’ve made out of the papacy. That doesn’t mean that I don’t believe in a Petrine ministry. I believe that Rome has inherited that Petrine ministry. But there’s no reason on God’s earth why the pope should be appointing the bishop of Peoria. None whatsoever. So we really need a devolution, a decentralization. The Catholic church has become so big that we need some kind of a synodal structure in the West the same way you have in the East. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops ought to be a kind of synod of Catholic bishops in the United States. They ought to be able to elect the bishops. Leave Rome a veto, if you want. By the way, this would be no guarantee of better bishops. The notion that the locals will necessarily pick better people than Rome is obviously false, as anybody who knows the East understands. But at least people will see these guys as their bishops and not Rome’s. Make your own bed and sleep in it. The pope could say: ‘You don’t like the archbishop of New York? Hey, I didn’t name him.’
Logged
Paisius
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Multi-Jurisdictional
Posts: 816


Reframed


« Reply #40 on: July 07, 2011, 12:04:01 PM »

I have to say that, as a traditional Catholic, I am agreement with Dr. Hahn with regard to his assessment of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Why would it surprise anyone that an orthodox Catholic would view the Eastern Orthodox as being in error?


By all means oppose Orthodoxy, but oppose reality, not some fantasy mental construct fashioned out of ignorance and bias.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2011, 12:04:34 PM by Paisius » Logged

"Is it really true that political self-interest is nobler somehow than economic self-interest?" - Milton Friedman
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,472



« Reply #41 on: July 07, 2011, 12:10:28 PM »

Quote from: Scott Hahn
Upon closer examination, I found the various Orthodox churches to be hopelessly divided among themselves, similar to the Protestants, except that the Orthodox were split along the lines of ethnic nationalisms; there were Orthodox bodies that called themselves Greek, Russian, Ruthenian, Rumanian, Bulgarian, Hungarian, Serbian and so on. They have coexisted for centuries, but more like a family of brothers who have lost their father.

Further study led me to conclude that Orthodoxy was wonderful for its liturgy and tradition but stagnant in theology. In addition, I became convinced that it was mistaken in doctrine, having rejected certain teachings of Scripture and the Catholic Church, especially the filioque clause (and the son) that had been added to the Nicene Creed. In addition, their rejection of the Pope as head of the Church seemed to be based on imperial politics, more than on any serious theological grounds. This helped me to understand why, throughout their history, Orthodox Christians have tended to exalt the Emperor and the State over the Bishop and the Church (otherwise known as Caesaropapism). It occurred to me that Russia had been reaping the consequences of this Orthodox outlook throughout the twentieth century.

I think Taft gives quite a nice response to Hahn:
Quote
Do you agree that the central problem is the papacy?
Of course. What we’ve made out of the papacy is simply ridiculous. There’s no possible justification in the New Testament or anyplace else for what we’ve made out of the papacy. That doesn’t mean that I don’t believe in a Petrine ministry. I believe that Rome has inherited that Petrine ministry. But there’s no reason on God’s earth why the pope should be appointing the bishop of Peoria. None whatsoever. So we really need a devolution, a decentralization. The Catholic church has become so big that we need some kind of a synodal structure in the West the same way you have in the East. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops ought to be a kind of synod of Catholic bishops in the United States. They ought to be able to elect the bishops. Leave Rome a veto, if you want. By the way, this would be no guarantee of better bishops. The notion that the locals will necessarily pick better people than Rome is obviously false, as anybody who knows the East understands. But at least people will see these guys as their bishops and not Rome’s. Make your own bed and sleep in it. The pope could say: ‘You don’t like the archbishop of New York? Hey, I didn’t name him.’

Wonder if Hahn has ever read the Pedalion:
Quote
Nicea II caon 3. Every appointment of a bishop, or of a presbyter, or of a deacon made by (civil) rulers shall remain void in accordance with the Canon which says: "If any bishop comes into possession of a church by employing secular rulers, let him be deposed from office, and let him be excommunicated. And all those who communicate with him too." For it behooves anyone who is going to be promoted to a bishopric to be appointed by bishops, as was decreed by the holy Fathers assembled in Nicaea, in the Canon saying: "It is most fitting that a bishop should be installed by all those in his province. But if such a thing is difficult either because of the urgency of circumstances, or because of the distance to be traveled, at least three should meet together somewhere and by their votes combined with those of the ones absent and joining in the election by letter they should carry out the ordination thereafter. But as for the ratification of the proceedings, let it be entrusted in each province to the Metropolitan."

(Ap. cc. I, II, XXX, LXI; c. IV of the 1st; cc. V, XIII of Laodicea; c. LIX of Carthage; c. VII of Timothy.)


Interpretation.

The present Canon is composed of Ap. c. XXX and c. IV of the 1st. Since we have already explained these Canons, see the interpretation of them there, in order to spare us from repeating the same things about them here. The only thing in this Canon that is not found there, is that every appointment or election of a bishop, or of a presbyter, or of a deacon that is made by authority and power of civil rulers shall remain void and invalid; and that bishops are to be elected by bishops, in accordance with a process previously described; that is to say, on the other hand, that the fact that both presbyters and deacons are elected is made plain indeed by the present Canon, concerning which see the Footnote to Ap. c. II; as for the fact, moreover, that Christians ought to vote subsequently after the bishops for those about to be admitted to holy orders, this is made plain in the Interpretation of Ap. c. LXI. See also Ap. cc. I and II, and the Footnote to c. V of Laodicea.
http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/councils_ecumenical_rudder.htm#_Toc34001967
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 #42 on: July 07, 2011, 12:14:05 PM »

I have to say that, as a traditional Catholic, I am agreement with Dr. Hahn with regard to his assessment of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Why would it surprise anyone that an orthodox Catholic would view the Eastern Orthodox as being in error?


By all means oppose Orthodoxy, but oppose reality, not some fantasy mental construct fashioned out of ignorance and bias.

Excellent advice for both Catholics and Orthodox:  and fits well with both of the quotes in question here.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,472



« Reply #43 on: July 07, 2011, 12:18:36 PM »

I have to say that, as a traditional Catholic, I am agreement with Dr. Hahn with regard to his assessment of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Why would it surprise anyone that an orthodox Catholic would view the Eastern Orthodox as being in error?
It's not surprising.

It is an oddity when one claims to be for union and then makes such ignorant statements.
Why would that be odd? I think that the Eastern Orthodox Church should fix the problems mentioned above and then come into communion with the Catholic Church.

I agree. There's no contradiction between having a low opinion of Eastern Orthodoxy, and being in favor of union(s).

Apparently some Orthodox are spoiled by the fact that the formal position of the Catholic Church toward Orthodoxy is that they are patriarchal Sister Churches and would come into communion as fully independent particular Churches.   They deny it is true and then complain when it isn't in evidence.

I have to say that, as a traditional Catholic, I am agreement with Dr. Hahn with regard to his assessment of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Why would it surprise anyone that an orthodox Catholic would view the Eastern Orthodox as being in error?


By all means oppose Orthodoxy, but oppose reality, not some fantasy mental construct fashioned out of ignorance and bias.

Excellent advice for both Catholics and Orthodox:  and fits well with both of the quotes in question here.
and other quotes.
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 #44 on: July 07, 2011, 12:32:37 PM »

I have to say that, as a traditional Catholic, I am agreement with Dr. Hahn with regard to his assessment of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Why would it surprise anyone that an orthodox Catholic would view the Eastern Orthodox as being in error?
It's not surprising.

It is an oddity when one claims to be for union and then makes such ignorant statements.
Why would that be odd? I think that the Eastern Orthodox Church should fix the problems mentioned above and then come into communion with the Catholic Church.

I agree. There's no contradiction between having a low opinion of Eastern Orthodoxy, and being in favor of union(s).

Apparently some Orthodox are spoiled by the fact that the formal position of the Catholic Church toward Orthodoxy is that they are patriarchal Sister Churches and would come into communion as fully independent particular Churches.   They deny it is true and then complain when it isn't in evidence.
check your code of canon law (or as it is offiically Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium (CCEO)), there is no such thing as a "fully independent particular church" in the Vatican's ecclesiastical community.
http://www.intratext.com/X/ENG1199.HTM

Your "facts" fall flat yet again.


No.  They do not fall flat as much as they have not been tried, yet.

This very reality is what the bilateral dialogue is trying to forge without totally jettisoning the teachings of papal primacy and infallibility. 

Logged

Tags: Scott Hahn 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.192 seconds with 73 queries.