OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 17, 2014, 08:43:57 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 2 3 4 5 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Converts from Orthodox Church to Catholic or Protestant Churches, Please Share  (Read 11286 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 9,100


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #135 on: July 05, 2013, 07:44:09 AM »

More nonsense. The glue which most visibly binds the Orthodox churches together, and expresses apostolic conciliarity is their liturgical and iconographic integrity and commonality. Lex orandi, lex credendi.

Western rite?

WR is a very recent experiment, and a very small-scale one at that, though I'd expect its liturgical content conforms with established Orthodox teaching.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #136 on: July 05, 2013, 08:58:24 AM »

WR is a very recent experiment, and a very small-scale one at that, though I'd expect its liturgical content conforms with established Orthodox teaching.

There's the rub.

Just consider the differences between Eastern Catholics and Western[-Rite] Orthodox ... I'm not suggesting that there should be no differences; but consider how, any time Rome makes an unpopular decision regarding Eastern Catholics, Orthodox will point to it and say "See! That's how they would treat us if we were in communion!" and then try to imagine Catholics pointing to WRO and saying "See! That's how they would treat us if we were in communion!"

I know, I know, Trip Larson says no one ever solved anything with a run-on sentence. (cf Luann Platter)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 9,100


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #137 on: July 05, 2013, 10:02:14 AM »

WR is a very recent experiment, and a very small-scale one at that, though I'd expect its liturgical content conforms with established Orthodox teaching.

There's the rub.

Just consider the differences between Eastern Catholics and Western[-Rite] Orthodox ... I'm not suggesting that there should be no differences; but consider how, any time Rome makes an unpopular decision regarding Eastern Catholics, Orthodox will point to it and say "See! That's how they would treat us if we were in communion!" and then try to imagine Catholics pointing to WRO and saying "See! That's how they would treat us if we were in communion!"

I know, I know, Trip Larson says no one ever solved anything with a run-on sentence. (cf Luann Platter)

1. The history of the Eastern Catholics goes back over 500 years. The treatment of them by Rome is a matter of historical record.

2. WRO is not, and never has been, "Orthodox in communion with Rome". Therefore your comparison of them with the Eastern Catholics is a false one.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #138 on: July 05, 2013, 11:09:20 AM »

WR is a very recent experiment, and a very small-scale one at that, though I'd expect its liturgical content conforms with established Orthodox teaching.

There's the rub.

Just consider the differences between Eastern Catholics and Western[-Rite] Orthodox ... I'm not suggesting that there should be no differences; but consider how, any time Rome makes an unpopular decision regarding Eastern Catholics, Orthodox will point to it and say "See! That's how they would treat us if we were in communion!" and then try to imagine Catholics pointing to WRO and saying "See! That's how they would treat us if we were in communion!"

I know, I know, Trip Larson says no one ever solved anything with a run-on sentence. (cf Luann Platter)

1. The history of the Eastern Catholics goes back over 500 years. The treatment of them by Rome is a matter of historical record.

I'm well aware. As an EC I've spent a considerable amount of time complaining about it.

2. WRO is not, and never has been, "Orthodox in communion with Rome". Therefore your comparison of them with the Eastern Catholics is a false one.

Yes, I understand the differences. (I made a point of saying "I'm not suggesting that there should be no differences [between WRO and EC].") I'm talking about Orthodox who leverage their complaints against Rome by pointing to Eastern Catholicism and saying "See! That's how they would treat us if we were in communion!" and the like.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #139 on: July 05, 2013, 11:33:20 AM »

2. WRO is not, and never has been, "Orthodox in communion with Rome". Therefore your comparison of them with the Eastern Catholics is a false one.

Actually, I think it's an excellent comparison. Cool

I have seen, many times on this very Forum, RC devotions made fun of (i.e. the Sacred Heart "you pray to a Body Part? ha ha  Roll Eyes stupid Catholics!") only to have some brave soul point out that the WRO also use that particular devotion. To which the inevitable response is, "Well, they don't count, they're only an experiment!" or "Oh yeah? What's their bishop's name? I'm writing a sternly worded letter!  police "

So whenever I see that "RC treats the ECs so so badly, evil evil!" mantra beginning, I just say, "Father Pot, meet Pa[triarch] Kettle".

Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
Christopher McAvoy
Never forget the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate & all persecuted christians!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodóxis, atque cathólice et apostólice fídei
Jurisdiction: Crypto-Lefebvrian Catholic
Posts: 401



WWW
« Reply #140 on: July 05, 2013, 04:01:49 PM »

Quote
Quote from: The young fogey on Today at 07:15:34 AM
(The Orthodox communion is not so much a close family of apostolic equals as an aggregation of churches very little to do with each other.)

Even when I was in communion with Rome I found such claims insulting. As it does apply equally well to those Eastern Churches that are in communion with Rome. I remember the RC parish priest in Front Royal, Virginia saying such things as a reason to consider the Orthodox Church as a joke and quite unserious in legitimacy.

I could say that the Roman Catholic Church is an artificially centralized cult designed to convert Orthodox christians into pseudo protestants who no longer believe in the "real presence" of Our Lord in the Eucharist, no longer believe in the Divine right of Christ the King over secular rulers, denies the necessity of converting all peoples to Christ and eliminates their individual cultures to replace them with a universal franco-english individuality to encourage obedience.

But wouldn't that be an exaggeration too??


Let us be a bit kinder toward each other perhaps?

Nothing much is gained by overly polemical anti-western and anti-eastern bias.

For every weakness and sin pointed out there is a virtue and and strength I believe, in both RC and Orthodox Churches.

Because we believe one to be true, does not allow us to deny the other as having profound merit, or is my moderate position impossible to be condoned? Am I infected with the heresy of false ecumenism?
« Last Edit: July 05, 2013, 04:04:21 PM by Christopher McAvoy » Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,730


« Reply #141 on: July 05, 2013, 10:00:28 PM »

Most readers know about Catholic development of doctrine and of course most here don't believe in it. That the papacy looked more or less the same as far back as 1054 bolsters the papal claims. The Catholic Church is so big that the Pope couldn't micromanage you even if he wanted to (certainly true for most of history, with poor communication and travel), so we're puzzled when non-Catholics complain about papal power. Usually, from other Westerners, it really means they want him to have more power, to change the church into what they want: divorce and remarriage, birth control, abortion, homosexual pseudo-marriage, and women clergy. His office can't change those things. (Development of doctrine can't.) They're not mad at him for universal jurisdiction but for being Catholic. With Orthodox ethnics it's not really about egalitarianism among the apostles but asserting their own now-outmoded claims to empire (Byzantium and tsarist Russia); they saw Rome as a rival and threat and still do. (The Orthodox communion is not so much a close family of apostolic equals as an aggregation of churches very little to do with each other.) The self-loathing easternizing American converts have simply brought over their anti-papalism from Protestantism. I like the East but I don't hate the West, and can't believe God would leave his true church basically landlocked in Eastern Europe. (Catholicism has fulfilled the Great Commission.) So I'm happy being Catholic.
The question I had was whether  in 1054 the Eastern part of the Catholic Church believed that the Roman Pope had supreme jurisdiction over them? I don't see it because all of the Eastern bishops remained with Cerularius and not Rome. As you know, Vatican I says that: The Roman Pontiff "does not only have the office of inspection and direction," but enjoys "full and supreme power of jurisdiction, not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and governance of the Church dispersed throughout the world".
Logged
LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 9,100


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #142 on: July 05, 2013, 10:03:57 PM »

Most readers know about Catholic development of doctrine and of course most here don't believe in it. That the papacy looked more or less the same as far back as 1054 bolsters the papal claims. The Catholic Church is so big that the Pope couldn't micromanage you even if he wanted to (certainly true for most of history, with poor communication and travel), so we're puzzled when non-Catholics complain about papal power. Usually, from other Westerners, it really means they want him to have more power, to change the church into what they want: divorce and remarriage, birth control, abortion, homosexual pseudo-marriage, and women clergy. His office can't change those things. (Development of doctrine can't.) They're not mad at him for universal jurisdiction but for being Catholic. With Orthodox ethnics it's not really about egalitarianism among the apostles but asserting their own now-outmoded claims to empire (Byzantium and tsarist Russia); they saw Rome as a rival and threat and still do. (The Orthodox communion is not so much a close family of apostolic equals as an aggregation of churches very little to do with each other.) The self-loathing easternizing American converts have simply brought over their anti-papalism from Protestantism. I like the East but I don't hate the West, and can't believe God would leave his true church basically landlocked in Eastern Europe. (Catholicism has fulfilled the Great Commission.) So I'm happy being Catholic.
The question I had was whether  in 1054 the Eastern part of the Catholic Church believed that the Roman Pope had supreme jurisdiction over them? I don't see it because all of the Eastern bishops remained with Cerularius and not Rome. As you know, Vatican I says that: The Roman Pontiff "does not only have the office of inspection and direction," but enjoys "full and supreme power of jurisdiction, not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and governance of the Church dispersed throughout the world".

Stanley, Rome never had supreme authority over the other patriarchates before the schism. I thought I made that clear in my earlier post.
Logged
Christopher McAvoy
Never forget the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate & all persecuted christians!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodóxis, atque cathólice et apostólice fídei
Jurisdiction: Crypto-Lefebvrian Catholic
Posts: 401



WWW
« Reply #143 on: July 06, 2013, 01:04:29 AM »

Quote
The question I had was whether  in 1054 the Eastern part of the Catholic Church believed that the Roman Pope had supreme jurisdiction over them? I don't see it because all of the Eastern bishops remained with Cerularius and not Rome. As you know, Vatican I says that: The Roman Pontiff "does not only have the office of inspection and direction," but enjoys "full and supreme power of jurisdiction, not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and governance of the Church dispersed throughout the world". - stanley123

In 1198, the Catholicos of Sis, Grigor VI Apirat, proclaimed a union between the Armenian Church and the Roman Catholic Church; however, this had no notable effect, as the local clergy and populace was strongly opposed to such a union. The Western Church sent numerous missions to Cilician Armenia to help with rapprochement, but had limited results. The Franciscans were put in charge of this activity. John of Monte Corvino himself arrived in Cilician Armenia in 1288.

Het'um II became a Franciscan monk after his abdication. The Armenian historian Nerses Balients was a Franciscan and an advocate of union with the Latin Church. The papal claim of primacy did not contribute positively to the efforts for unity between the Churches. Mkhitar Skewratsi, the Armenian delegate at the council in Acre in 1261, summed the Armenian frustration in these words:

    Whence does the Church of Rome derive the power to pass judgment on the other Apostolic sees while she herself is not subject to their judgments? We ourselves [the Armenians] have indeed the authority to bring you [the Catholic Church] to trial, following the example of the Apostles, and you have no right to deny our competency.[
« Last Edit: July 06, 2013, 01:05:22 AM by Christopher McAvoy » Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,228


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #144 on: July 06, 2013, 01:35:48 AM »

The self-loathing easternizing American converts have simply brought over their anti-papalism from Protestantism.
I haven't met any American converts to Orthodoxy who hate themselves.

Logged

Silly Stars
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #145 on: July 06, 2013, 08:40:23 AM »

2. WRO is not, and never has been, "Orthodox in communion with Rome". Therefore your comparison of them with the Eastern Catholics is a false one.

Actually, I think it's an excellent comparison. Cool

I have seen, many times on this very Forum, RC devotions made fun of (i.e. the Sacred Heart "you pray to a Body Part? ha ha  Roll Eyes stupid Catholics!") only to have some brave soul point out that the WRO also use that particular devotion. To which the inevitable response is, "Well, they don't count, they're only an experiment!" or "Oh yeah? What's their bishop's name? I'm writing a sternly worded letter!  police "

So whenever I see that "RC treats the ECs so so badly, evil evil!" mantra beginning, I just say, "Father Pot, meet Pa[triarch] Kettle".



Thanks and .

And I'd like to add, I think one of the biggest problems is the one-size-fits-all approach to ECism (or at least GCism). As represented, for example, by blanket generalizations I've heard a million times like "When Catholics and Orthodox reunite, some of the Greek Catholics will join the corresponding Orthodox church."
Logged

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

Faith: <Insert your favourite patriotic attribute here> Orthodox
Posts: 5,940



« Reply #146 on: July 06, 2013, 10:58:44 AM »

2. WRO is not, and never has been, "Orthodox in communion with Rome". Therefore your comparison of them with the Eastern Catholics is a false one.

Actually, I think it's an excellent comparison. Cool

I have seen, many times on this very Forum, RC devotions made fun of (i.e. the Sacred Heart "you pray to a Body Part? ha ha  Roll Eyes stupid Catholics!") only to have some brave soul point out that the WRO also use that particular devotion. To which the inevitable response is, "Well, they don't count, they're only an experiment!" or "Oh yeah? What's their bishop's name? I'm writing a sternly worded letter!  police "

So whenever I see that "RC treats the ECs so so badly, evil evil!" mantra beginning, I just say, "Father Pot, meet Pa[triarch] Kettle".



Please stop making sense. It's not allowed around here.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2013, 10:59:22 AM by Alpo » Logged

88Devin12
Moderated
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,841



« Reply #147 on: July 06, 2013, 11:44:11 AM »

2. WRO is not, and never has been, "Orthodox in communion with Rome". Therefore your comparison of them with the Eastern Catholics is a false one.

Actually, I think it's an excellent comparison. Cool

I have seen, many times on this very Forum, RC devotions made fun of (i.e. the Sacred Heart "you pray to a Body Part? ha ha  Roll Eyes stupid Catholics!") only to have some brave soul point out that the WRO also use that particular devotion. To which the inevitable response is, "Well, they don't count, they're only an experiment!" or "Oh yeah? What's their bishop's name? I'm writing a sternly worded letter!  police "

So whenever I see that "RC treats the ECs so so badly, evil evil!" mantra beginning, I just say, "Father Pot, meet Pa[triarch] Kettle".



It isn't quite the same. I would argue that the WR is often poorly executed. It should, instead of being sort of a middle road, rather be a step for Roman Catholics to go back to pre-schism Roman practice and belief. This would exclude the Sacred Heart, Immaculate Conception, Assumption, Original Sin etc...

Plus, keep in mind that much of the WRO falls under Antioch, whose own Metropolitan isn't all that "orthodox" in his practices or behavior (and its under him most WRO entered).
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #148 on: July 06, 2013, 12:00:45 PM »

It isn't quite the same.

No, Greek Catholics, for the most part, aren't much like WRO-in-reverse.

However, it is rather amazing that those few Greek Catholics who are like WRO-in-reverse are the Greek Catholics who are criticized the most harshly. (Lest anyone think that I've have easy answers to provide, let me confess that I've done some of that criticizing myself.)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #149 on: July 06, 2013, 03:22:23 PM »

It isn't quite the same. I would argue that the WR is often poorly executed. It should, instead of being sort of a middle road, rather be a step for Roman Catholics to go back to pre-schism Roman practice and belief. This would exclude the Sacred Heart, Immaculate Conception, Assumption, Original Sin etc...

Plus, keep in mind that much of the WRO falls under Antioch, whose own Metropolitan isn't all that "orthodox" in his practices or behavior (and its under him most WRO entered).

So even though the Western Orthodox Rite is Orthodox, it's not "really" Orthodox because the branch of Orthodoxy it's in isn't completely Orthodox.

Got it.  Roll Eyes
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
Michał Kalina
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,465


WWW
« Reply #150 on: July 06, 2013, 03:49:41 PM »

It isn't quite the same. I would argue that the WR is often poorly executed. It should, instead of being sort of a middle road, rather be a step for Roman Catholics to go back to pre-schism Roman practice and belief. This would exclude the Sacred Heart, Immaculate Conception, Assumption, Original Sin etc...

Plus, keep in mind that much of the WRO falls under Antioch, whose own Metropolitan isn't all that "orthodox" in his practices or behavior (and its under him most WRO entered).

So even though the Western Orthodox Rite is Orthodox, it's not "really" Orthodox because the branch of Orthodoxy it's in isn't completely Orthodox.


It's Devin.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2013, 03:49:56 PM by Michał Kalina » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #151 on: July 06, 2013, 04:23:59 PM »

It's Devin.

Was theme music supposed to play? (I think my speakers my be acting up.)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Nephi
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Auntie Oak
Posts: 2,987



« Reply #152 on: July 06, 2013, 04:55:05 PM »

Plus, keep in mind that much of the WRO falls under Antioch, whose own Metropolitan isn't all that "orthodox" in his practices or behavior (and its under him most WRO entered).

Hmm...
Logged

Liberalochian: Ecumenism Lite™
TheTrisagion
Jack-of-all-Trades, Master of none
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,974



« Reply #153 on: July 06, 2013, 07:17:35 PM »

Plus, keep in mind that much of the WRO falls under Antioch, whose own Metropolitan isn't all that "orthodox" in his practices or behavior (and its under him most WRO entered).

Hmm...
I thought ROCOR has most of the WR?
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,730


« Reply #154 on: July 06, 2013, 09:30:43 PM »

It isn't quite the same. I would argue that the WR is often poorly executed. It should, instead of being sort of a middle road, rather be a step for Roman Catholics to go back to pre-schism Roman practice and belief. This would exclude the Sacred Heart, Immaculate Conception, Assumption, Original Sin etc...

Plus, keep in mind that much of the WRO falls under Antioch, whose own Metropolitan isn't all that "orthodox" in his practices or behavior (and its under him most WRO entered).

So even though the Western Orthodox Rite is Orthodox, it's not "really" Orthodox because the branch of Orthodoxy it's in isn't completely Orthodox.

Got it.  Roll Eyes
Also, keep in mind that the Antioch metropolitan is not all that "orthodox"?
Logged
Nephi
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Auntie Oak
Posts: 2,987



« Reply #155 on: July 06, 2013, 09:36:52 PM »

Plus, keep in mind that much of the WRO falls under Antioch, whose own Metropolitan isn't all that "orthodox" in his practices or behavior (and its under him most WRO entered).

Hmm...
I thought ROCOR has most of the WR?

There are approximately 26 ROCORWRV parishes in the USA according to this.
There are approximately 27 AWRV parishes in the USA according to this.

Both websites might be slightly out of date, but it seems they're relatively equal parish-wise although that's not a comment on the actual sizes of said parishes. Maybe someone else knows more about the statistics.
Logged

Liberalochian: Ecumenism Lite™
Christopher McAvoy
Never forget the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate & all persecuted christians!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodóxis, atque cathólice et apostólice fídei
Jurisdiction: Crypto-Lefebvrian Catholic
Posts: 401



WWW
« Reply #156 on: July 06, 2013, 11:45:12 PM »

It isn't quite the same. I would argue that the WR is often poorly executed. It should, instead of being sort of a middle road, rather be a step for Roman Catholics to go back to pre-schism Roman practice and belief. This would exclude the Sacred Heart, Immaculate Conception, Assumption, Original Sin etc...

Plus, keep in mind that much of the WRO falls under Antioch, whose own Metropolitan isn't all that "orthodox" in his practices or behavior (and its under him most WRO entered).

So even though the Western Orthodox Rite is Orthodox, it's not "really" Orthodox because the branch of Orthodoxy it's in isn't completely Orthodox.

Got it.  Roll Eyes

It is Orthodox, but it because the congregations and sacred art typically hasnt matured to a point comparable to either the Byzantine rite or the traditional Latin rite RC type churches of the SSPX or FSSP (not to say all their sacred art is fully ideal, but musically, usually they are), it can give the impression of to being in a more limited primitive state.

Yes, I will agree with this particular comment, that it is often not executed as well as is ideal, but over time, as it grows larger, I believe it will be. Certain parishes are more ideal than others. For instance one can't walk into most western rite Orthodox churches and hear the original elaborate gregorian chant proper melodies from the 12th century being sung very often, whereas more of the latin masses within the RC do achieve that result with greater frequency. Often that is because it has fewer members in what are most often between a few months to few years old "missions". Amongst fewer people, there are fewer abilities or fewer people confident enough to learn the ancient melodies.

However, I sometimes wonder if I am the only one here who actually studies the historic lectionaries, graduals , latin rite liturgy and theological books from the 8th to 15th century.

The Assumption and Original Sin are clearly present and deeply entrenched part of the Latin Tradition from long before 1100.
They are also present in the byzantine tradition.

Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott stated,
Quote
"The idea of the bodily assumption of Mary is first expressed in certain transitus-narratives of the fifth and sixth centuries....The first Church author to speak of the bodily assumption of Mary, in association with an apocryphal transitus B.M.V., is St. Gregory of Tours."

The Sacred Heart originates as an outgrowth of the Five Holy Wounds.
Quote
"When consecrating an altar a number of Christian churches anoint it in five places, indicative of the Five Holy Wounds. Eastern Orthodox churches will sometimes have five domes on them, symbolizing the Five Holy Wounds, along with the alternate symbolism of Christ and the Four Evangelists."

Quote
"The revival of religious life and the zealous activity of St. Bernard and St. Francis in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, together with the enthusiasm of the Crusaders returning from the Holy Land, gave a rise to devotion to the Passion of Jesus Christ and particularly to practices in honour of the Sacred Wounds."

I've never understood the harm in devotion to the sacred heart which seems to show the God's philanthropic love toward mankind.
One can argue that the Latins in the later middle ages had more focus on the suffering humanity of Christ that was necessary, but that seems to be easy to resolve and balance today. Abandonment of the "Sacred Heart" is not necessary.

It is true that the it was not on any calendar until the 17th century.
Personally I am not deeply concerned whether it is officially on the calendar or in the propers or office books we use, but I would definitely be amazed if anything was theologically wrong with it.

The only harm I see is in the particular image chosen at a very late date to represent it.
That is easily solved by adopting earlier images for it, such as perhaps the "man of sorrows" or perhaps a crucifixion.

(post-schism RC) Saint Bonaventura of Bagnoregio (1221 circa – Lione, 15 luglio 1274)
in his treatise "On the Tree of Life" says:

Quote
"So that the Church might be formed from Christ as he slept, it was allowed by divine dispensation that one of the soldiers should pierce that sacred side with a spear, and that, in the tide of blood and water, the price of our salvation should be poured forth. This tide, flowing from the secret fountain of the Heart, was to provide the power for the Church's Sacraments for the conferring of the life of grace; and to all who would live in Christ that draught was to be a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

   Arise, therefore, O soul that lovest Christ, and be ye like to a nesting bird: be ye like to the sparrow who has found her an house, and watch without ceasing: be ye like to the swallow, and lay here the young of thy chaste love: place here thy mouth, that thou mayest draw water from the wells of the Saviour. For this is the river that went out of Eden and was parted into four heads, for streaming out of that Sacred Heart, it irrigates the whole world and makes it fertile."

It is probable that the mysticism of the Sacred Heart of Our Lord confuses those who are newly disposed to the concept. (Unless I am the one confused?). It appears to have enough roots and continuity with pre-1054 mysticism, so that I do not know why it would be in error.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2013, 12:02:02 AM by Christopher McAvoy » Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,730


« Reply #157 on: July 07, 2013, 03:21:32 AM »

Stanley, Rome never had supreme authority over the other patriarchates before the schism. I thought I made that clear in my earlier post.
How then does one explain the Slavonic Nomocanon which comments on a letter  written to Empress Pulcheria?
As you know, Pope Leo wrote in his letter to Pulcheria: "As for agreements of bishops opposed to the rules of the holy canons established at Nicea... by the authority of Blessed Peter we declare them utterly null and void by an all-embracing definition." [Ep. 105. PL 54: 1000]
And according to the text of  the Slavonic Nomocanon: ".. It is not true, as this canon says, that the holy Fathers gave the primacy to Old Rome because it was capital of the Empire; it is rather from on high, from divine grace, that this primacy originated... Peter, highest of the apostles, heard these words from our Lord Jesus Christ himself: "Peter, lovest thou me? Feed my sheep." That is why Rome holds the pre-eminent place and first See among hierarchs. This is why the privileges of Old Rome are eternally immovable. Because her bishop presides over all the churches, he is not bound to go to all the holy ecumenical councils; but without his participation, manifested by sending legates, no ecumenical council exists, for it is he who presides in the council. If anybody wishes to deny the truth of what we say, let him refer to... Leo’s letters to Marcian and to Pulcheria of blessed memory, and also what he wrote to the above-mentioned bishop of Constantinople [Anatolius], and he will be convinced that this really is the case." [Vizantiiskii Vremennik 4 (1897), 150-2. Tr. DTC 13: 364]
Logged
LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 9,100


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #158 on: July 07, 2013, 07:19:03 AM »

Stanley, Rome never had supreme authority over the other patriarchates before the schism. I thought I made that clear in my earlier post.
How then does one explain the Slavonic Nomocanon which comments on a letter  written to Empress Pulcheria?
As you know, Pope Leo wrote in his letter to Pulcheria: "As for agreements of bishops opposed to the rules of the holy canons established at Nicea... by the authority of Blessed Peter we declare them utterly null and void by an all-embracing definition." [Ep. 105. PL 54: 1000]
And according to the text of  the Slavonic Nomocanon: ".. It is not true, as this canon says, that the holy Fathers gave the primacy to Old Rome because it was capital of the Empire; it is rather from on high, from divine grace, that this primacy originated... Peter, highest of the apostles, heard these words from our Lord Jesus Christ himself: "Peter, lovest thou me? Feed my sheep." That is why Rome holds the pre-eminent place and first See among hierarchs. This is why the privileges of Old Rome are eternally immovable. Because her bishop presides over all the churches, he is not bound to go to all the holy ecumenical councils; but without his participation, manifested by sending legates, no ecumenical council exists, for it is he who presides in the council. If anybody wishes to deny the truth of what we say, let him refer to... Leo’s letters to Marcian and to Pulcheria of blessed memory, and also what he wrote to the above-mentioned bishop of Constantinople [Anatolius], and he will be convinced that this really is the case." [Vizantiiskii Vremennik 4 (1897), 150-2. Tr. DTC 13: 364]


Over to you, Isa.  Wink
Logged
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,389


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #159 on: July 07, 2013, 07:25:56 AM »

The self-loathing easternizing American converts have simply brought over their anti-papalism from Protestantism.
I haven't met any American converts to Orthodoxy who hate themselves.

Anti-Western Westerners.

My impression is most of the few WRO are in the Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate. Non-Catholic but not at all anti-Catholic. Either sincere old-school Old Catholic (St Augustine's, Denver, a former vagante parish) or '50s high Episcopal, both very much like my pre-conciliar Catholicism. They draw on Catholicism's living tradition, minus the Catholic claims about the papacy, rather than archaeolology/rewriting history. Some byzantinization. They're understandably suspect in Orthodoxy's anti-Western atmosphere (understandably defensive being a smaller church alongside the Catholic Church in America); the Greeks, America's biggest Orthodox church, want nothing to do with them, and the biggest Slavic Orthodox church in America, the OCA, has no Western Rite parishes.

ROCOR is so anti-Western*, its Western Rite so artificial and byzantinized, I don't know why they bother. I understand the purism, reflected by some on this board (nothing post-schism Catholic). ROCOR's Western Rite is 'anything but Rome': 1) recently written, cobbled-together services using material from classical Anglicanism, and/or 2) archaeology/rewriting history/trying to revive dead rites (their heavily byzantinized Gallican liturgies and their version of the Roman Rite, pruned of post-schism Catholic content and, on top of that, byzantinized).

In both cases, while I like the first group, the AWRV, I'm not interested in joining an imitation of Catholicism or a would-be competitor to it.

*Or rather, anti-Catholic, since the 19th-century Russian culture they identify with is very westernized in a way unhip in modern Western culture, including Orthodox anti-Westernism: the choral music, the westernized icons and architecture, and the scholastic theology. In a lot of ways a would-be Catholic Church, a rival.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2013, 07:32:25 AM by The young fogey » Logged

Cyrillic
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Moscow
Posts: 7,951


The Reactionary Rebel


WWW
« Reply #160 on: July 07, 2013, 07:37:20 AM »

1) recently written, cobbled-together services using material from classical Anglicanism, and/or 2) archaeology/rewriting history/trying to revive dead rites (their heavily byzantinized Gallican liturgies and their version of the Roman Rite, pruned of post-schism Catholic content and, on top of that, byzantinized).

Spot on.
Logged

Odi profanum vulgus et arceo

"J'ai pour les institutions démocratiques un goût de tête, mais je suis aristocrate par instinct"
-A. de Tocqueville

'Don't bother arguing with Cyrillic, he is Dutch or something queer like that.'
-Byron
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #161 on: July 07, 2013, 07:45:13 AM »

The self-loathing easternizing American converts have simply brought over their anti-papalism from Protestantism.
I haven't met any American converts to Orthodoxy who hate themselves.

Anti-Western Westerners.

My impression is most of the few WRO are in the Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate. Non-Catholic but not at all anti-Catholic. Either sincere old-school Old Catholic (St Augustine's, Denver, a former vagante parish) or '50s high Episcopal, both very much like my pre-conciliar Catholicism. They draw on Catholicism's living tradition, minus the Catholic claims about the papacy, rather than archaeolology/rewriting history. Some byzantinization. They're understandably suspect in Orthodoxy's anti-Western atmosphere (understandably defensive being a smaller church alongside the Catholic Church in America); the Greeks, America's biggest Orthodox church, want nothing to do with them, and the biggest Slavic Orthodox church in America, the OCA, has no Western Rite parishes.

ROCOR is so anti-Western*, its Western Rite so artificial and byzantinized, I don't know why they bother. I understand the purism, reflected by some on this board (nothing post-schism Catholic). ROCOR's Western Rite is 'anything but Rome': 1) recently written, cobbled-together services using material from classical Anglicanism, and/or 2) archaeology/rewriting history/trying to revive dead rites (their heavily byzantinized Gallican liturgies and their version of the Roman Rite, pruned of post-schism Catholic content and, on top of that, byzantinized).

In both cases, while I like the first group, the AWRV, I'm not interested in joining an imitation of Catholicism or a would-be competitor to it.

*Or rather, anti-Catholic, since the 19th-century Russian culture they identify with is very westernized in a way unhip in modern Western culture, including Orthodox anti-Westernism: the choral music, the westernized icons and architecture, and the scholastic theology. In a lot of ways a would-be Catholic Church, a rival.

Since you're talking about "anti-western", I'd like to ask your opinion on the term "easternist". Specifically, do you see that as just another way of saying "anti-western" (tomato, tomato) or is there a slight difference?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,389


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #162 on: July 07, 2013, 07:50:51 AM »

From me at byzcath.org:

There are vostochnyky (easternists) and there are vostochnyky. From what I remember of Fr Serge including in person, from my point of view he was one of the good guys. Restoring the Orthodox heritage of Greek Catholicism was part of his life's calling. Easternizing doesn't necessarily mean being self-hating (most vostochny Greek Catholics are born Westerners), anti-Western, or un-Catholic. It seems to me he was Catholic. He was what Rome always wanted Greek Catholics to be.

Then there are the anti-Western and anti-Catholic including self-hating converts, even a few in the Catholic Church, who think the traditional Latin Mass is for idiots; liberal snobs in Orthodox drag.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2013, 07:53:45 AM by The young fogey » Logged

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

Posts: 2,389


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #163 on: July 07, 2013, 07:52:49 AM »

Fr Serge was a born Roman Catholic turned Russian Orthodox priest turned longtime Greek Catholic priest who died recently.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2013, 07:56:01 AM by The young fogey » Logged

Cyrillic
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Moscow
Posts: 7,951


The Reactionary Rebel


WWW
« Reply #164 on: July 07, 2013, 08:10:48 AM »

I like the East but I don't hate the West, and can't believe God would leave his true church basically landlocked in Eastern Europe. (Catholicism has fulfilled the Great Commission.)

A few weeks ago I was, among other places, in Macedonia. Not very surprisingly, there was no Roman Catholic parish around. Why is it so hard to believe that the true Church was landlocked in the east for centuries while the Roman Catholic Church still is mostly limited to the west?

You know my answer: we claim you as an estranged part of us, which upsets you like when an Anglican claims us as a branch of his church.


So you agree with the branch theory?
« Last Edit: July 07, 2013, 08:11:23 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

Odi profanum vulgus et arceo

"J'ai pour les institutions démocratiques un goût de tête, mais je suis aristocrate par instinct"
-A. de Tocqueville

'Don't bother arguing with Cyrillic, he is Dutch or something queer like that.'
-Byron
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,389


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #165 on: July 07, 2013, 09:17:33 AM »

Not as the Anglicans believe. There's only one church but you're an estranged part of it.
Logged

Cyrillic
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Moscow
Posts: 7,951


The Reactionary Rebel


WWW
« Reply #166 on: July 07, 2013, 09:28:00 AM »

What's the difference between your branch theory and that of the Tractarians?
Logged

Odi profanum vulgus et arceo

"J'ai pour les institutions démocratiques un goût de tête, mais je suis aristocrate par instinct"
-A. de Tocqueville

'Don't bother arguing with Cyrillic, he is Dutch or something queer like that.'
-Byron
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,389


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #167 on: July 07, 2013, 12:00:56 PM »

What's the difference between your branch theory and that of the Tractarians?

Mine/Catholicism's is not really a branch theory.

The Tractarians believed that everybody claiming apostolic succession is equally part of a divided true church ('Rome's good but in error'; we're a little better, being Englishmen and all that). They didn't think they were an estranged part of Catholicism but rather that the true church was equally divided. Which of course neither Catholicism nor Orthodoxy believes, because logically it would mean there's no church.

We believe Catholicism's the church but that the other pre-'Reformation' churches – you guys – have apostolic succession and thus real sacraments too, and are not personally guilty of schism. So you're not a separate church to us but an estranged part of us. So we sort of have our cake and eat it too: we include you but maintain an undivided true-church claim.

Protestants are different. They're Christians too but they're not churches. No bishop = no Mass = no church.
Logged

xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,228


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #168 on: July 07, 2013, 05:34:53 PM »

The self-loathing easternizing American converts have simply brought over their anti-papalism from Protestantism.
I haven't met any American converts to Orthodoxy who hate themselves.
Anti-Western Westerners. ...Or rather, anti-Catholic
I'm not sure how you are defining "ANTI-RC," "self-loathing," or even "anti-Western."

These labels fairly characterize all American converts to Orthodoxy in your view?

Is anyone who simply "isn't" RC, in your view, "an ANTI-Roman Catholic", or are there other specific characteristics one must have to merit such an appellation? If so what exactly are those?

Your descriptions of "American converts" seem to me pretty broad brush, perhaps even dipped in the juice of sour grapes, than an accurate portrayal of any American convert to Orthodoxy I have personally met.


« Last Edit: July 07, 2013, 05:44:08 PM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,389


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #169 on: July 07, 2013, 05:41:08 PM »

Most American converts join because of marriage and have no axe to grind.
Logged

xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,228


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #170 on: July 07, 2013, 05:46:19 PM »

We have had hundreds of American converts to Orthodoxy locally fairly recently; very few because of marriage.

There are many parishes almost entirely composed of converts in America. How is this reducible to "most everyone joins because of marriage?"

Our family, for example, just sponsored a couple who were former Wiccans. I have not heard an "anti-RC" peep out of either of them.

Please provide documentation and please answer the questions of my previous post.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2013, 06:05:45 PM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
Nephi
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Auntie Oak
Posts: 2,987



« Reply #171 on: July 07, 2013, 06:03:33 PM »

Of all the other converts I've met IRL, I must say I've only met one that I'd begin to characterize as "anti-Catholic."
Logged

Liberalochian: Ecumenism Lite™
Christopher McAvoy
Never forget the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate & all persecuted christians!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodóxis, atque cathólice et apostólice fídei
Jurisdiction: Crypto-Lefebvrian Catholic
Posts: 401



WWW
« Reply #172 on: July 07, 2013, 09:37:26 PM »

Stanley, Rome never had supreme authority over the other patriarchates before the schism. I thought I made that clear in my earlier post.
How then does one explain the Slavonic Nomocanon which comments on a letter  written to Empress Pulcheria?
As you know, Pope Leo wrote in his letter to Pulcheria: "As for agreements of bishops opposed to the rules of the holy canons established at Nicea... by the authority of Blessed Peter we declare them utterly null and void by an all-embracing definition." [Ep. 105. PL 54: 1000]
And according to the text of  the Slavonic Nomocanon: ".. It is not true, as this canon says, that the holy Fathers gave the primacy to Old Rome because it was capital of the Empire; it is rather from on high, from divine grace, that this primacy originated... Peter, highest of the apostles, heard these words from our Lord Jesus Christ himself: "Peter, lovest thou me? Feed my sheep." That is why Rome holds the pre-eminent place and first See among hierarchs. This is why the privileges of Old Rome are eternally immovable. Because her bishop presides over all the churches, he is not bound to go to all the holy ecumenical councils; but without his participation, manifested by sending legates, no ecumenical council exists, for it is he who presides in the council. If anybody wishes to deny the truth of what we say, let him refer to... Leo’s letters to Marcian and to Pulcheria of blessed memory, and also what he wrote to the above-mentioned bishop of Constantinople [Anatolius], and he will be convinced that this really is the case." [Vizantiiskii Vremennik 4 (1897), 150-2. Tr. DTC 13: 364]


Stanley, you impress me. That is an excellent quote, I agree that it represents the authentic teaching and faith of the Orthodox Church.
Rome's supreme authority of that time, is not however identical to what it is now, your quote is in fact a referring to a more limited form of power than he currently appears to have according to the RC - as far as I know.

The quote from the nomocanon seems to not be harmonious with the 1870's dogma that the pope has universal, immediate, ordinary jurisdiction over the entire Church; so decreed Vatican I, in Chapter 3 of Pastor aeternus:

Quote
    2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.

    9. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.

Celebrated Catholic theologian Dr. Ludwig Ott explains what is meant by the definition in his monumental Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Book Four, Part 2, Chapter 2, Section 7:

Quote
    In consonance with this declaration, the Primatial power is:

    a) A true power of jurisdiction that is, a true governing power, not merely a warrant of supervision or direction, such as, for example, belongs to the president of a political party, or a society, or of a conference. As a governmental power, it embraces the full power of legislation, administration of justice (disputed and voluntary jurisdiction) and of its execution. Corresponding to it on the part of the subjects is the duty of subordination and of obedience.

    b) A universal power, that is, it extends personally to the pastors (bishops) and to the faithful, totally and individually, of the whole Church. Materially it refers, not merely to matters of faith and morals (teaching office), but also to Church discipline and government (pastoral office).

    c) Supreme power in the Church, that is, there is no jurisdiction possessing a greater or equally great power. The power of the Pope transcends both the power of each individual bishop and also of all the other bishops together. The bishops collectively (apart from the Pope), therefore, are not equal to or superior to the Pope.

    d) A full power, that is, the Pope possesses of himself alone, the whole fullness of the Church power of jurisdiction and not merely a greater share than the other bishops taken individually or conjointly. Thus the Pope can rule independently on any matter which comes under the sphere of the Church's jurisdiction without the concurrence of the other bishops or of the rest of the Church.

    e) An ordinary power, that is, it is connected with the office, by virtue of divine ordinance, and is not delegated from a higher possessor of jurisdiction. Thus it can be exercised at any time, i.e., not merely in exceptional cases, e.g., where the bishops neglect their pastoral duties in their territories (Febronius, Eybel).

    f) A truly episcopal power, that is, the Pope is just as much a "universal bishop" of the whole Church, as he is bishop of his diocese of Kome ("Episcopus Urbis et Orbis"; Jacob of Viterbo). Thus, the Papal power, like any other episcopal power, embraces the legislative, the juridical and the punitive power.

    g) An immediate power, that is, the Pope can exercise his power, without the intervention of an intermediary, over the bishops and the faithful of the whole Church.



On June 27th, 2013 user A"GMMF" stated this the rorate-caeli blog:
Quote
The ignorance and exaggerations are saddening, as at least Fellay seemed to have bene moving away from such things in more recent times. For example, the Magsiterium teaching in a pastoral way is not new, but has existed as long as the Church has existed and as long as bishops have been pastors (this was formalized as the episcopal pastoral letter). The Church has never only defined truths in the abstract, but has always applied them to concrete circumstances in attempts to achieve the greatest good for the flock and all men. The supreme authority of the Chuch has done this frequently especially since the time of Leo XIII. The times when the supreme authority would only intervene to definitively judge doctrinal questions ended centuries and centuries ago.


According to  Archbishop Stylianos Harkianakis in his book "The Infallibility of the Church in Orthodox Theology":

Quote
The (Second Vatican) Council, however, did not wish to admit this view consistently and unreservedly. It tried to characterise the Ecumenical Synod as the highest authority in the Church, even though it was clearly placed under the absolute jurisdiction and governance of the pope, who alone had the right to convene, preside and validate. The assembly of bishops therefore have no power whatsoever over against the pope, but only with him and under him. Thus, it is truly inconceivable for an impartial researcher to perceive how the Council dared to characterize the action of the bishops in the Church under such terms and limitations as actions performed in the own right (plenipotentiary). However, the reader can note these incsonsistences in the following text of the (Second Vatican Council) Constitutio:

"In it (that is this college), the bishops faithfully recognizing the primacy and pre-eminence of their head, exercise their own authority for the good of their own faithful, and indeed of the whole Church... The supreme power in the universal Church, which the college enjoys, is exercised in a solemn way in an ecumenical council. A council is never ecumenical unless it is confirmed or at least accepted as such by the Successor of Peter, and it is the prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to convoke these councils, to preside over them and to confirm them."

Therefore no gathering of bishops or any common action that undertake (irrespective, of course, of their number or whether this action is faithfully carried out according to Tradition and the true teaching of the Church) has power against the pope nor can it be called their collective action, unless it is approved explicitly by the Roman pontiff:

This same collegiate power can be exercised together with the pope by bishops living in all parts of the world, provided that he head of the college calls them to collegiate action, or at least approves of or freely accepts the united action of the scattered bishops, so that it is thereby made a colllegiate act.
Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot
Nephi
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Auntie Oak
Posts: 2,987



« Reply #173 on: July 07, 2013, 09:59:11 PM »

^ Those quotes were interesting to read, as I'd never read much into Papacy-related documents.
Logged

Liberalochian: Ecumenism Lite™
Christopher McAvoy
Never forget the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate & all persecuted christians!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodóxis, atque cathólice et apostólice fídei
Jurisdiction: Crypto-Lefebvrian Catholic
Posts: 401



WWW
« Reply #174 on: July 07, 2013, 10:02:15 PM »

ROCOR is so anti-Western*, its Western Rite so artificial and byzantinized, I don't know why they bother. I understand the purism, reflected by some on this board (nothing post-schism Catholic). ROCOR's Western Rite is 'anything but Rome': 1) recently written, cobbled-together services using material from classical Anglicanism, and/or 2) archaeology/rewriting history/trying to revive dead rites (their heavily byzantinized Gallican liturgies and their version of the Roman Rite, pruned of post-schism Catholic content and, on top of that, byzantinized).

http://www.allmercifulsavior.com/Liturgy/SarumMassLatin2011c.pdf
http://www.theorthodoxchurch.org/files/SarumMass2011c.pdf

I only wonder if young forgey would consider this to be a dead rite?

If the majority of the elements in Sarum use of the Roman rite from 1534 are identical to that of the Dominican use of the Roman rite before until 1969, how can this be called a dead rite?
Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot
Christopher McAvoy
Never forget the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate & all persecuted christians!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodóxis, atque cathólice et apostólice fídei
Jurisdiction: Crypto-Lefebvrian Catholic
Posts: 401



WWW
« Reply #175 on: July 07, 2013, 10:13:47 PM »

Most American converts join because of marriage and have no axe to grind.

I encounter this situation often. In Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America parishes, that seems to be true.

In the Antiochian, ROCOR and OCA jurisdictions , I do not find it to be true. In those jurisdictions, I find the majority of those not born into Orthodoxy convert based upon their own individual decision, without other incentive, such as to have a more content "non-mixed" marriage.  (Being that mixed marriages are harder and less traditional, that seems to me to be a good decision! I would do the same!)
« Last Edit: July 07, 2013, 10:17:12 PM by Christopher McAvoy » Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,389


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #176 on: July 07, 2013, 10:35:09 PM »

Sarum re-enactments are nice. Both Catholics and Anglicans sometimes do them. But yes, the 'Reformation' killed Sarum and the other medieval English versions of the Roman Rite.

Right, most non-Greeks with the Greeks are marriage converts, and most American Orthodox are Greeks.
Logged

xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,228


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #177 on: July 07, 2013, 11:39:46 PM »

Well, I'm in a Greek parish, and the majority of converts here -there are A LOT of them- are absolutely not converts because of marriage.

But for the sake of keeping my original question on track, I'll reword it. (next post)









« Last Edit: July 07, 2013, 11:40:18 PM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,228


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #178 on: July 07, 2013, 11:40:31 PM »

The self-loathing easternizing American converts have simply brought over their anti-papalism from Protestantism.
I haven't met any American converts to Orthodoxy who hate themselves.
Anti-Western Westerners. ...Or rather, anti-Catholic
I'm not sure how you are defining "ANTI-RC," "self-loathing," or even "anti-Western."

These labels fairly characterize all American converts to Orthodoxy [not "marrying into the faith"] in your view?

Is anyone who simply "isn't" RC, in your view, "an ANTI-Roman Catholic", or are there other specific characteristics one must have to merit such an appellation? If so what exactly are those?

Your descriptions of "American converts" [except those who marry into Orthodoxy] seem to me pretty broad brush, perhaps even dipped in the juice of sour grapes, than an accurate portrayal of any American convert to Orthodoxy [the majority in our parish who are not marrying into the faith] I have personally met.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2013, 11:41:42 PM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,473



« Reply #179 on: July 08, 2013, 03:53:50 AM »

Sarum re-enactments are nice.

So are Tridentine Mass re-enactments too.  Grin
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Tags:
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 0.168 seconds with 72 queries.