OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 01, 2014, 11:30:43 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  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Struggling Between Latin and Orthodoxy  (Read 8414 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #45 on: January 13, 2005, 04:05:21 PM »

Okay, here's the rundown.

Regardless of what the Latin bishops are accustomed to, I am speaking on a matter of principle.
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

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


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #46 on: January 13, 2005, 04:07:54 PM »

It's not a question of "accustomed".  It's canon law.

As a matter of principle, I would tend to agree with you.  But it's the way things are and that's how the process works within the Catholic Church.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,571



« Reply #47 on: January 13, 2005, 04:12:59 PM »

Yeah, definately, "do nothing important without the bishop's knowledge" and all that. He's the one that has the final say, and it'd be hard to go "around him" unless the action was so unjustified and spiritually harmful that you could catch the attention of his synod Smiley
« Last Edit: January 13, 2005, 04:14:20 PM by Paradosis » Logged
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #48 on: January 13, 2005, 04:14:30 PM »

But it's the way things are and that's how the process works within the Catholic Church.

I'm glad that we both know that the way things are is not necessarily the way that things should be.
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Irish Melkite
Information Mongeror
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite Greek-Catholic
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Newton
Posts: 977


WWW
« Reply #49 on: January 13, 2005, 04:44:42 PM »

Catholics of any Church, Latin, Eastern, or Oriental may request a "Change of Canonical Enrollment" (the formal name for the process of translating from one Particular Church to another). The process is essentially as described by Schultz, although "sitting on the petition" is no longer acceptable and expedient action on it is to be expected (and can be enforced by recourse to proper authority). That does not mean that all such petitions are granted.

The length of time involved in the process can vary significantly. The authority to approve such a Change is formally delegated to the discretion of the ordinaries involved (the bishop or eparch of the local diocese/ eparchy of the Church from which the petitioner is originating and his counterpart of the Church to which the petitioner seeks to join).

In brief, the process begins when a person believes that his or her spiritual well-being would best be served by fully participating in the life of a sui iuris Church other than the one of which he or she is then a member. How soon after becoming acquainted with another Church sui iuris can one legitimately claim such discernment? It varies from individual to individual, but some jurisdictions have quantified it from their perspective, formally requiring participation by the petitioner in the life of one of their parishes for anywhere from 1 to 3 years before approval will be granted. I think it's safe to say that, on the whole, a minimum of two years should/would be expected.

The petitioner addresses the request to both his/her existing ordinary and the ordinary into whose jurisdiction he/she seeks to transfer, explaining the motivation for seeking to change. (When a change is sought for the express purpose of pursuing the Mystery of Holy Orders, the approval to grant such Change is ordinarily reserved to the Sacred Congregation for the Oriental Church. This is intended to assure that such is not done merely to bypass the Latin Church's discipline against married clergy.)

Most movement is from West to East and there is a decided prejudice on the part of both Latin and Eastern hierarchs against changes that are motivated by dissatisfaction with the liturgical praxis of the Latin Church. While we of the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches appreciate interest in us and in our liturgical traditions, we want to and must be understood and appreciated for ourselves, not as an antidote to what disaffected Latins perceive as wrong in their own Church. The Novus Ordo Mass is neither less authentic nor holy than the Tridentine Mass; each, as a service of worship directed to God, has its own intrinsic holiness when served faithfully and reverently. To the extent that abuses exist within either, they must needs be addressed; but the form is only that - an external; ultimately, worship comes from within oneself, one's heart and soul. Petitions espousing traditionalist viewpoints that result in an antagonistic view toward the Novus Ordo and post-Vatican II reforms are not ordinarily deemed an appropriate basis for granting Change. Why? Among other reasons are the fact that the Eastern or Oriental Catholic Church one sees today may not be the one of tomorrow, as our Churches undergo their own reforms, intended to remove latinizations and restore our own traditions.

The extent to which one might potentially encounter this kind of situation (disenchantment with one's new liturgical environment) will vary. Some Eastern and Oriental Churches are much further along in achieving a return to their historical liturgical origins than others - so, to use a computer analogy, WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get). In others, what you see may not be what you'll ultimately have.  Even within Churches, there are differences in how far along parishes are in doing so. Will a transplanted Latin still like us when we look less like the Church they've romanticized us to be? Or will they be disenchanted and want to move on? And to where? In most instances, as several have indicated, only a single Change of Canonical Enrollment is permitted, although there is presently no canonical provision to that effect and it is speculative whether it would be enforced across the board (under earlier Canon Law, there was a provision to this effect).

In assessing the motivation for a requested change, one consideration on the part of the both hierarchs (especially the one who is being asked to receive the petitioner) is the extent to which it is perceived that the petitioner truly understands and is drawn to the Church for reasons related to his/her theological development and spiritual well-being.

The prevailing view is that a Change of Canonical Enrollment is a decision that should not be lightly made. For many, it is not only a change of parish and rite, but also a whole process of inculturation, particularly given the ethnicity of our parishes. We tend to be a 'family' and 'family' is more than liking the pirohi, the fataya, or the lahmajun at the annual food fair weekend. Anyone intending to make a change should feel certain that they feel comfortable not only with the spirituality, but with the community with whom they will share and explore and develop that spirituality. They are often entering into a community whose ties to one another stretch back generations - sometimes back to a single village in the Levant, the Ukraine, or elsewhere. Our parishes are either very welcoming to outsiders who come among us or incredibly closed - there is no in-between. And we do need to be welcoming - assimilation and a ghetto mentality may be opposite ends of a continuum, but
they both represent a real danger to the continued viability of our Churches.

Under the now abrogated 1917 Code of Canon LAw, converts to Catholicism were to be accepted into the Church which was "most akin" to the convert's religion of origin. This meant that Proterstants would convert to the Latin Church and Orthodox would convert to the most appropriate Eastern or Oriental Catholic Church.  That provision has been removed from the current Latin and Eastern Codes, which now provide:
 
Latin Code

Canon 111

-º1 Through the reception of baptism a child becomes a member of the Latin Church if the parents belong to that Church or, should one of them not belong to it, if they have both by common consent chosen that the child be baptised in the Latin Church: if that common consent is lacking, the child becomes a member of the ritual Church to which the father belongs.

-º2 Any candidate for baptism who has completed the fourteenth year of age may freely choose to be baptised either in the Latin Church or in another autonomous ritual Church; in which case the person belongs to the Church which he or she has chosen.

Eastern Code

Canon 587

-º1 Persons who desire to join the Church are to be admitted with liturgical ceremonies to the catechumenate, which is not a mere presentation of teachings and precepts, but a formation in all the Christian life and an apprenticeship duly lasting for sometime.

Canon 588

Catechumens are free to enroll in whatever Church sui iuris they want, according to the norm of Canon 30; however, it has to be provided that nothing stands in the way of their enrollment in the Church that is more appropriate to their culture.

Canon 30

Anyone to be baptized who has completed the fourteenth year of age can freely select any Church sui iuris in which he or she then is enrolled by virtue of baptism received in that same Church, with due regard for particular law established by the Apostolic See.

Canon 31

No one can presume in any way to induce the Christian faithful to transfer to another Church sui iuris.

As to marriage and children, according to the Eastern Code:

Canon 33

A wife is at liberty to transfer to the Church of the husband at the celebration of or during the marriage; when the marriage has ended, she can freely return to the original Church sui iuris.

Canon 34

If the parents, or the Catholic spouse in the case of a mixed marriage, transfer to another Church sui iuris, children under fourteen years old by the law itself are enrolled in the same Church; if in a marriage of Catholics only one parent transfers to another Church sui iuris, the children transfer only if both parents consent. Upon completion of the fourteenth year of age, the children can return to the original Church sui iuris.

Many years,

Neil

Logged

"Not only is it unnecessary to adopt the customs of the Latin Rite to manifest one's Catholicism, it is an offense against the unity of the Church."

- Melkite Archbishop Joseph (Tawil), of blessed memory
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #50 on: January 14, 2005, 04:36:16 PM »

If Byzantine Catholicism has the fullness of Orthodox liturgy and Orthodox doctrine but is under the juristiction of Rome, then wouldn't joining this church solve the struggle of one who struggles between Latin and Orthodoxy?
« Last Edit: January 14, 2005, 04:36:39 PM by Matthew777 » Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
the_grip
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 21


« Reply #51 on: January 14, 2005, 04:41:00 PM »

It would if part of my struggle was not with accepting the current state of papal jurisdiction in the Latin communion (which is one part of the issue). It's hard to figure out as i don't want to give the issue my personal interpretation - rather, i want to try and discern the true teaching of the Church. This is likely to take at least several years; thus, i'm always open to suggestions.

To further illustrate, if the Orthodox Church is indeed the true Church, then it wouldn't matter if i was Byzantine Catholic or if i stayed Anglican - either way i wouldn't be in the communion of the true Church (albeit that is a simplified example... there are other issues involved in this).

i'm planning on speaking with an Orthodox priest soon (i'm in contact with one), and i hope to discuss the issue with a priest of a Byzantine Catholic parish that is in my area.

In peace,
the_grip
« Last Edit: January 14, 2005, 04:42:43 PM by the_grip » Logged
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #52 on: January 14, 2005, 04:48:13 PM »

To further illustrate, if the Orthodox Church is indeed the true Church, then it wouldn't matter if i was Byzantine Catholic or if i stayed Anglican - either way i wouldn't be in the communion of the true Church (albeit that is a simplified example... there are other issues involved in this).

Have you considered the quotes of the Eastern Orthodox fathers that are favorable of papal supremacy?
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
the_grip
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 21


« Reply #53 on: January 14, 2005, 04:49:55 PM »

i'm trying to consider all i can Smiley.  If you have reading suggestions, please do let me know the sources so that i can look at them.

Thanks for your help,
the_grip
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,508


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #54 on: January 14, 2005, 04:51:04 PM »

If Byzantine Catholicism has the fullness of Orthodox liturgy and Orthodox doctrine but is under the juristiction of Rome, then wouldn't joining this church solve the struggle of one who struggles between Latin and Orthodoxy?

But you're presuming that Byzantine Catholicism

1.  has the fulness of Orthodox liturgy and

2.  the fulness of Orthodox doctrine.
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,508


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #55 on: January 14, 2005, 04:55:23 PM »



Have you considered the quotes of the Eastern Orthodox fathers that are favorable of papal supremacy?

Are you Orthodox?

There's a whole thread buried here somewhere in which Linus and Peter Farrington went through this issue, with Linus presenting a lot of quotes which seemed to support Petrine primacy (a version of which I can accept).  The discussion was interesting at times.  However, it must be said that the Church has come out against what is now taught by the RCC, and has as much, if not more, Scriptural and patristic support for her position. 
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #56 on: January 14, 2005, 04:55:30 PM »

I do not hold to papal supremacy but one could argue that the following quotes do:

“Peter, who is called 'the rock on which the church should be built,' who also obtained 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven...'” Tertullian, On the Prescription Against the Heretics, 22 (c. A.D. 200).

“And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail...” Origen, Commentary on John, 5:3 (A.D. 232).

“By this Spirit Peter spake that blessed word, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' By this Spirit the rock of the Church was established.” Hippolytus, Discourse on the Holy Theophany, 9 (ante A.D. 235).

“'...thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church' ... It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church's) oneness...If a man does not fast to this oneness of Peter, does he still imagine that he still holds the faith. If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church?” Cyprian, De Unitate Ecclesiae (Primacy text), 4 (A.D. 251).

“...folly of (Pope) Stephen, that he who boasts of the place of the episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundation of the Church were laid...” Firmilian, Epistle To Cyprian, Epistle 75(74):17(A.D. 256).

“...Peter, that strongest and greatest of all the apostles, and the one who on account of his virtue was the speaker for all the others...” Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 2:14 (A.D. 325).

“And Peter,on whom the Church of Christ is built, 'against which the gates of hell shall not prevail'” Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6:25 (A.D. 325).

“...the chief of the disciples...the Lord accepted him, set him up as the foundation, called him the rock and structure of the church.” Aphraates, De Paenitentibus Homily 7:15 (A.D. 337).

“Peter, the foremost of the Apostles, and Chief Herald of the Church...” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures,1 1:3 (A.D. 350).

lessed Simon, who after his confession of the mystery was set to be the foundation-stone of the Church, and received the keys of the kingdom...” Hilary de Poiters, On the Trinity, 6:20(A.D. 359).

« Last Edit: January 14, 2005, 04:56:59 PM by Matthew777 » Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #57 on: January 14, 2005, 04:55:58 PM »

Thank you, Mor Ephrem. I was going to post something to the effect of "that's a BIG IF".
But I don't have to now.  Wink

But this thread is starting to set off my 'sniff-test' alarms.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2005, 04:57:38 PM by +æ-ü+¦-â-ä+++¦+++«-é » Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Fr. David
The Poster Formerly Known as "Pedro"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA, Diocese of the South
Posts: 2,828



WWW
« Reply #58 on: January 14, 2005, 05:05:34 PM »

I do not hold to papal supremacy but one could argue that the following quotes do:

I took the name Peter upon entering the Church because of the fact that his confession and him as a man could hardly be separated.  Which is why, I think, the Fathers were so "divided" (and those are big quotes there, folks) on what "The Rock" was.  As I posted earlier, you can't disembody belief without destroying both.  Peter was the Rock, as long as he held to his confession of Christ, the Rock.
Logged

Priest in the Orthodox Church in America - ordained on March 18, 2012

Oh Taste and See (my defunct blog)

From Protestant to Orthodox (my conversion story)
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #59 on: January 14, 2005, 05:11:48 PM »

Bravo, Pedro, bravo! (Works in Greek AND Spanish)
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #60 on: January 14, 2005, 08:02:46 PM »

The quotes I provided not only suggest that Peter is the rock but that he was also supreme among the apostles and that the Bishop of Rome is the successor to his special authority.
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,508


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #61 on: January 14, 2005, 08:07:45 PM »

Oh, where is Orthodoc when you need him??  Smiley
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #62 on: January 14, 2005, 08:14:50 PM »

The reason why I do not believe in papal supremacy is the terrible fruit this religious-political authority has caused.

Matthew 7:15 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Therefore by their fruits you will know them."
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,571



« Reply #63 on: January 14, 2005, 08:21:59 PM »

Quote
The quotes I provided not only suggest that Peter is the rock but that he was also supreme among the apostles and that the Bishop of Rome is the successor to his special authority.

Beginning with the Scripture, the Church also teaches that there is no authority where there is also false teaching or schism. Authority can never be severed from orthodox faith and praxis. Would anyone have followed Judas Iscariot after he had fallen, even though he was given the extreme honor of being counted among the twelve? Peter, and his successors, indeed had a primacy of honor, and were first among equals. They were the visible head of the Church... except at those times in which they were unorthodox (e.g., Roman Pope Honorius, posthumously anathematized by the 6th Ecumenical Council). From an Orthodox perspective, we are obviously at one of those points where Rome isn't authoritative right now, and have been so for a long time.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2005, 08:23:33 PM by Paradosis » Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #64 on: January 14, 2005, 08:27:48 PM »

If Byzantine Catholicism has the fullness of Orthodox liturgy and Orthodox doctrine but is under the juristiction of Rome, then wouldn't joining this church solve the struggle of one who struggles between Latin and Orthodoxy?

No, because as has been pointed out, it does not have such fulness.  You can't be in communion with heresy, which is an Orthodox doctrine. Papal infallibility is a heresy.

Anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
Marjorie
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


OC.net


WWW
« Reply #65 on: January 14, 2005, 08:33:04 PM »

One should remember that Orthodoxy is not aesthetics but a living communion. Byzantine Catholicism is no "closer" to Orthodoxy than Catholicism or indeed *anything* outside of the Church, because, as John Zizioulas stated, "the Word of God does not dwell in the human mind as rational knowledge or in the human soul as mystical inner experience, but as communion within a community."

Marjorie
Logged

"The land of God is wide and large enough to provide room for everyone if we are humans. If we act like brutes, then there will not be enough room even if there are only four of us."

- His Holiness Patriarch +PAVLE of Serbia
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #66 on: January 14, 2005, 08:44:51 PM »


Beginning with the Scripture, the Church also teaches that there is no authority where there is also false teaching or schism.
The reason why I do not believe in papal supremacy is the terrible fruit this religious-political authority has caused.

Matthew 7:15 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Therefore by their fruits you will know them."
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #67 on: January 16, 2005, 05:41:58 PM »

Now on the Church's emphasis of "right worship"
-"Orthodoxy is primarily liturgical. It informs and enlightens the people not so much by sermons and the teaching of norms and laws but by liturgical services themselves which give a foreshadowing of transfigured life. It likewise teaches the people through the examples of saints and instills the cult of holiness. But the images of saints are not normative; to them is granted the graceful enlightenment and transfiguration of creation by the action of the Holy Spirit. This, not being the normative type for Orthodoxy, makes it more difficult for the ways of human life, for history; it makes it less attractive for any kind of organization and for cultural creativity. The hidden mystery of the Holy Spirit's activity upon creation has not been actually realized by the ways of historical life. Characteristic for Orthodoxy is FREEDOM. This internal freedom may not be noticed from the outside but it is everywhere present. The idea of freedom as the foundation of Orthodoxy was developed in Russian religious thinking of the XIX and XX centuries. The admission of the freedom of conscience radically distinguishes the Orthodox Church from the Catholic Church. But the understanding of freedom in Orthodoxy is different from the understanding of freedom in Protestantism. In Protestantism, as in all Western thought, freedom is understood individualistically, as a personal right, preserved from encroachment on the part of any other person, and declaring it to be autonomous. Individualism is foreign to Orthodoxy, to it belongs a particular collectivism. A religious person and a religious collective are not incompatible with each other, as external friend to friend. The religious person is found within the religious collective and the religious collective is found within the religious person. Thus the religious collective does not become an external authority for the religious person, burdening the person externally with teaching and the law of life. The Church is not outside of religious persons, opposed to her. The Church is within them and they are within her. Thus the Church is not an authority. The Church is a grace-filled unity of love and freedom. Authoritativeness is incompatible with Orthodoxy because this form engenders a fracture between the religious collective and the religious person, between the Church and her members. There is no spiritual life without the freedom of conscience, there is not even a concept of the Church, since the Church does not tolerate slaves within her, but God wants only the free. But the authentic freedom of religious conscience, freedom of the spirit, is made evident not in an isolated autonomous personality, self-asserted in individualism but in a personality conscious of being in a superpersonal spiritual unity, in a unity with a spiritual organism, within the Body of Christ, i.e. the Church. My personal conscience is not placed outside and is not placed in opposition to the superpersonal conscience of the Church, it is revealed only within the Church's conscience. But, without an active spiritual deepening of my personal conscience, of my personal spiritual freedom, the life of the Church is not realized, since this life cannot be external to, nor be imposed upon, the person. Participation in the Church demands spiritual freedom, not only from the first entry into the Church, which Catholicism also recognizes, but throughout one's whole life. The Church's freedom with respect to the State was always precarious, but Orthodoxy always enjoyed freedom within the Church. In Orthodoxy freedom is organically linked with Sobornost', i.e. with the activity of the Holy Spirit upon the religious collective which has been with the Church not only during the times of the Ecumenical Councils, but at all times. Sobornost' in Orthodoxy, which is the life of the Church's people, never had any external juridical signs. Not even the Ecumenical Councils enjoyed indisputable external authority. The infallibility of authority was enjoyed only by the whole Church throughout her whole history, and the bearers and custodians of this authority were the whole people of the Church. The Ecumenical Councils enjoyed their authority not because they conformed with external juridical legal requirements but because the people of the Church, the whole Church recognized them as Ecumenical and genuine. Only that Ecumenical Council is genuine in which there was an outpouring of the Holy Spirit; the outpouring of the Holy Spirit has no external juridical criteria, it is discerned by the people of the Church in accordance with internal spiritual evidence. All this indicates a nonnormative nonjuridical character of the Orthodox Church. Along with this the Orthodox consciousness understands the Church more ontologically, i.e. it doesn't see the Church primarily as an organization and an establishment, not just a society of faithful, but as a spiritual, religious organism, the Mystical Body of Christ. Orthodoxy is more cosmic than Western Christianity. Neither Catholicism nor Protestantism sufficiently expresses the cosmic nature of the Church, as the Body of Christ. Western Christianity is primarily anthropological. But the Church is also the Christianized cosmos; within her, the whole created world is subject to the effect of the grace of the Holy Spirit. Christ's appearance has a cosmic, cosmogonic significance; it signifies somehow a new creation, a new day of the world's creation."
 http://www.kosovo.com/ortruth.html
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
francis
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 24



« Reply #68 on: January 17, 2005, 09:33:28 AM »

grip (we meet yet again Smiley ),

I'll pray for you for right discernment. I would recommend that you speak to an Orthodox priest, an Eastern Catholic priest, as well as a Roman Catholic priest. In addition, read, read, read from each of these sources. I would also agree with the person who recommended that you take this journey with your wife - that is the ideal situation. She may have insights you are blind to, and vice versa.

But most of all: pray, pray, pray!!!




Logged
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2  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 0.103 seconds with 50 queries.