OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 22, 2014, 11:54:18 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians  (Read 12174 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #90 on: May 26, 2013, 01:53:44 AM »

This may have been mentioned already, but I just found out that Pope Francis only has one functioning lung, which makes the whole "two lungs" thing ironic.
The two lungs theory does not refer to the two biological  lungs of the Roman Pope. It is a metaphorical description invented by ecumenists to imagine the Christian Church as a whole entity but living and breathing as two Churches, East and West. 
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #91 on: May 26, 2013, 06:10:05 AM »

This may have been mentioned already, but I just found out that Pope Francis only has one functioning lung, which makes the whole "two lungs" thing ironic.
The two lungs theory does not refer to the two biological  lungs of the Roman Pope. It is a metaphorical description invented by ecumenists to imagine the Christian Church as a whole entity but living and breathing as two Churches, East and West. 

I think that was implied in Jonathan's statement about irony. If you to be a stickler about something, you could talk about how it isn't technically irony (not even dramatic irony since he was talking about real life).  angel
Logged

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

Posts: 2,814


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #92 on: May 27, 2013, 08:12:33 AM »

This may have been mentioned already, but I just found out that Pope Francis only has one functioning lung, which makes the whole "two lungs" thing ironic.
The two lungs theory does not refer to the two biological  lungs of the Roman Pope. It is a metaphorical description invented by ecumenists to imagine the Christian Church as a whole entity but living and breathing as two Churches, East and West.  

At best, it's a way of saying Catholics don't hate the Orthodox, recognize their grace, and envision a place for their tradition in the Catholic Church (again). At worst, it's a branch theory, relativism that insults both churches exactly as you say (why I object to the few OicwR: being Catholic but thumbing your nose at Catholic authority, while saying you agree with the Orthodox but don't join; it's making religion a game).
« Last Edit: May 27, 2013, 08:13:02 AM by The young fogey » Logged

"You always were a historically illiterate jerk, John." - OicwR doyen Stuart Koehl

High-church libertarian
Blog
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 #93 on: May 27, 2013, 10:06:52 AM »

it's making religion a game).

Interesting you should make that point, because I just read an article about how one reason Westerners and Easterners should stick to their own traditions (i.e. Eastern Christians shouldn't pray the Rosary, Western Christians shouldn't pray the Akathist, etc.) is that if you're playing baseball you don't use a football or vice versa.  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)
Mor Ephrem
NO TENURE FOR DEPONIO!!
Section Moderator
Stratopedarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 18,768


"And you shall call his name Jesus..."


WWW
« Reply #94 on: May 27, 2013, 10:48:11 AM »

...because I just read an article about how one reason Westerners and Easterners should stick to their own traditions (i.e. Eastern Christians shouldn't pray the Rosary, Western Christians shouldn't pray the Akathist, etc.) is that if you're playing baseball you don't use a football or vice versa.  Roll Eyes

In general, I think it's a good idea for people to stick to the liturgical and devotional tradition of their own rite, whether they were born into it or chose it.  Too much mixing and matching will not work; a "rite" is a life, it has its own order and logic.  Schizophrenia is to be avoided. 

But I don't see the harm in adopting one or the other practice here and there, subject to one's confessor's blessing and/or other considerations.  You could make the argument that the Rosary (sans mysteries) is a different form of the Jesus Prayer, since the focal point of the Hail Mary is the name of Jesus, or that the Litany of Loreto can be considered a descendant, in a way, of the Akathist.  When picking and choosing in this way, you have to do it responsibly, but the best of the "devotional" practices of the "laity" seem to have a more universal core, and could certainly be adapted if not adopted wholesale. 

Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.

Please, James, tell us more about women!
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,814


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #95 on: May 27, 2013, 11:35:44 AM »

More or less what Mor Ephrem said.

I've long said:

Rite controls what you do in church. Privately you may do anything. But it's emotionally and spiritually healthier for most of your practices to come from your rite.

That's why I don't like seeing Greek Catholic churches without iconostases or even using the Western paschalion putting them out of sync with their mother churches and thus damaging their witness to them, but Ukrainian Catholics praying the rosary is fine with me. The first Ukrainian Catholic church I saw was hybridized but mostly Eastern, with a beautiful wooden full iconostasis but kneeling Communion, with a unique practice of passing the priest's blessing crucifix down the row of kneeling communicants to kiss before receiving (I later learned this is like the pax-brede in the traditional Roman Rite). Fine with me.

Used to know an Orthodox priest who was stationed in Palestine so he got to know Arab Christians well; lots of Orthodox have the Sacred Heart picture at home, etc. Rite is about discipline in church and should be upheld there (no mixing of rites; you can't venerate the other side's post-schism saints in church, with an exception: advanced rebyzantinized Greek Catholics, a tiny minority, do venerate the post-schism Orthodox ones, who get the benefit of the doubt), but purity of rite at home, in much of the apostolic Christian world, is probably an ex-Protestant, anti-Catholic, Orthodox convert fantasy. Big difference between your American ex-Baptist turned Orthodox priest and your typical Syrian or Lebanese Christian.

Not the same as ecumenists flouting both churches' teachings. More an affirmation of the Catholic teaching that the East has grace, rather than Eastern agnosticism about grace in the West.
Logged

"You always were a historically illiterate jerk, John." - OicwR doyen Stuart Koehl

High-church libertarian
Blog
Jonathan Gress
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,911


« Reply #96 on: May 27, 2013, 02:23:55 PM »

This may have been mentioned already, but I just found out that Pope Francis only has one functioning lung, which makes the whole "two lungs" thing ironic.
The two lungs theory does not refer to the two biological  lungs of the Roman Pope. It is a metaphorical description invented by ecumenists to imagine the Christian Church as a whole entity but living and breathing as two Churches, East and West. 

I think that was implied in Jonathan's statement about irony. If you to be a stickler about something, you could talk about how it isn't technically irony (not even dramatic irony since he was talking about real life).  angel

Yes, that's right, I was referring to the "two lungs" version of ecumenism.

I don't get how it's not ironic. The Popes believe that the RC and EO churches are "two lungs" of one Church, and yet the Pope has only one lung. To me this is symbolic of the falsity of the "two lungs" theory.
Logged
Arachne
Trinary Unit || Resident Bossy Boots
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek *and* Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of the British Isles and Ireland
Posts: 4,821


Happy Holidays!


« Reply #97 on: May 27, 2013, 02:32:56 PM »

But I don't see the harm in adopting one or the other practice here and there, subject to one's confessor's blessing and/or other considerations.  You could make the argument that the Rosary (sans mysteries) is a different form of the Jesus Prayer, since the focal point of the Hail Mary is the name of Jesus, or that the Litany of Loreto can be considered a descendant, in a way, of the Akathist.  When picking and choosing in this way, you have to do it responsibly, but the best of the "devotional" practices of the "laity" seem to have a more universal core, and could certainly be adapted if not adopted wholesale.

St. Seraphim's (of Sarov) Rule of the Theotokos is, for all intents and purposes, an Orthodox rosary. Smiley

I use a rosary, because I prefer the feel of wooden beads to that of woollen knots, but I don't pray it. It's just a prop that really helps with my concentration.
Logged

'When you live your path all the time, you end up with both more path and more time.'~Venecia Rauls

Blog ~ Bookshelf ~ Jukebox
Fabio Leite
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 3,518


Future belongs to God only.


WWW
« Reply #98 on: May 27, 2013, 02:35:56 PM »

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina (AP) — Does the pope have only one lung?

Despite erroneous reports that Pope Francis has lived most of his life with just one lung, the surgery actually only removed the upper part of his right lung, and his friends and family say he remains in good health for a 76-year-old man.

http://news.yahoo.com/pope-francis-still-most-lung-201740259.html

This may have been mentioned already, but I just found out that Pope Francis only has one functioning lung, which makes the whole "two lungs" thing ironic.
The two lungs theory does not refer to the two biological  lungs of the Roman Pope. It is a metaphorical description invented by ecumenists to imagine the Christian Church as a whole entity but living and breathing as two Churches, East and West. 

I think that was implied in Jonathan's statement about irony. If you to be a stickler about something, you could talk about how it isn't technically irony (not even dramatic irony since he was talking about real life).  angel

Yes, that's right, I was referring to the "two lungs" version of ecumenism.

I don't get how it's not ironic. The Popes believe that the RC and EO churches are "two lungs" of one Church, and yet the Pope has only one lung. To me this is symbolic of the falsity of the "two lungs" theory.
Logged

Multiple Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Mor Ephrem
NO TENURE FOR DEPONIO!!
Section Moderator
Stratopedarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 18,768


"And you shall call his name Jesus..."


WWW
« Reply #99 on: May 27, 2013, 06:06:08 PM »

Maybe the Oriental Orthodox are the upper part of the "Eastern" lung.  SOL yet again...  Tongue
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.

Please, James, tell us more about women!
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #100 on: May 27, 2013, 09:09:49 PM »

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina (AP) — Does the pope have only one lung?

Despite erroneous reports that Pope Francis has lived most of his life with just one lung, the surgery actually only removed the upper part of his right lung, and his friends and family say he remains in good health for a 76-year-old man.

http://news.yahoo.com/pope-francis-still-most-lung-201740259.html

This may have been mentioned already, but I just found out that Pope Francis only has one functioning lung, which makes the whole "two lungs" thing ironic.
The two lungs theory does not refer to the two biological  lungs of the Roman Pope. It is a metaphorical description invented by ecumenists to imagine the Christian Church as a whole entity but living and breathing as two Churches, East and West. 

I think that was implied in Jonathan's statement about irony. If you to be a stickler about something, you could talk about how it isn't technically irony (not even dramatic irony since he was talking about real life).  angel

Yes, that's right, I was referring to the "two lungs" version of ecumenism.

I don't get how it's not ironic. The Popes believe that the RC and EO churches are "two lungs" of one Church, and yet the Pope has only one lung. To me this is symbolic of the falsity of the "two lungs" theory.
Well, since the Pope has two lungs and not one, I guess that proves that the two lung theory was right all along.
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,911


« Reply #101 on: May 27, 2013, 09:25:03 PM »

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina (AP) — Does the pope have only one lung?

Despite erroneous reports that Pope Francis has lived most of his life with just one lung, the surgery actually only removed the upper part of his right lung, and his friends and family say he remains in good health for a 76-year-old man.

http://news.yahoo.com/pope-francis-still-most-lung-201740259.html

This may have been mentioned already, but I just found out that Pope Francis only has one functioning lung, which makes the whole "two lungs" thing ironic.
The two lungs theory does not refer to the two biological  lungs of the Roman Pope. It is a metaphorical description invented by ecumenists to imagine the Christian Church as a whole entity but living and breathing as two Churches, East and West. 

I think that was implied in Jonathan's statement about irony. If you to be a stickler about something, you could talk about how it isn't technically irony (not even dramatic irony since he was talking about real life).  angel

Yes, that's right, I was referring to the "two lungs" version of ecumenism.

I don't get how it's not ironic. The Popes believe that the RC and EO churches are "two lungs" of one Church, and yet the Pope has only one lung. To me this is symbolic of the falsity of the "two lungs" theory.
Well, since the Pope has two lungs and not one, I guess that proves that the two lung theory was right all along.

Argumentum e pulmonibus
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #102 on: May 27, 2013, 09:58:38 PM »

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina (AP) — Does the pope have only one lung?

Despite erroneous reports that Pope Francis has lived most of his life with just one lung, the surgery actually only removed the upper part of his right lung, and his friends and family say he remains in good health for a 76-year-old man.

http://news.yahoo.com/pope-francis-still-most-lung-201740259.html

This may have been mentioned already, but I just found out that Pope Francis only has one functioning lung, which makes the whole "two lungs" thing ironic.
The two lungs theory does not refer to the two biological  lungs of the Roman Pope. It is a metaphorical description invented by ecumenists to imagine the Christian Church as a whole entity but living and breathing as two Churches, East and West. 

I think that was implied in Jonathan's statement about irony. If you to be a stickler about something, you could talk about how it isn't technically irony (not even dramatic irony since he was talking about real life).  angel

Yes, that's right, I was referring to the "two lungs" version of ecumenism.

I don't get how it's not ironic. The Popes believe that the RC and EO churches are "two lungs" of one Church, and yet the Pope has only one lung. To me this is symbolic of the falsity of the "two lungs" theory.
Well, since the Pope has two lungs and not one, I guess that proves that the two lung theory was right all along.

Argumentum e pulmonibus
Argumentum a duobus pulmonibus sit.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #103 on: May 28, 2013, 07:12:26 AM »

At best, it's a way of saying Catholics don't hate the Orthodox,

For breakfast?
Logged

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

Posts: 2,814


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #104 on: May 28, 2013, 07:51:42 AM »

At best, it's a way of saying Catholics don't hate the Orthodox,

For breakfast?

Ha ha ha. I was expecting that and almost changed the post to say 'Catholicism doesn't hate Orthodoxy' to reflect that. Of course it believes Orthodoxy is in error about the nature and scope of the papacy (a fight about a matter that's overblown from the papacy's opponents; historically in the church and in Catholics' lives today, including traditionalists, the Pope isn't that important) but other than that it doesn't want you to change a thing. (The Greek Catholics have disobeyed Rome by self-latinizing.)

There are plenty of hard feelings to go around. Poles hate Russians, etc. Once read an account of some border village in Poland where the pastime was to torch the Byelorussians' Orthodox church (they don't like Rusyn and Ukrainian Catholics any better; it doesn't matter that they're Catholic; they're not Polish). Nothing to do with the teachings of the churches. (Even if you hold the valid Orthodox opinion that Catholicism's graceless, stealing or destroying someone's property's a sin.)
« Last Edit: May 28, 2013, 07:57:56 AM by The young fogey » Logged

"You always were a historically illiterate jerk, John." - OicwR doyen Stuart Koehl

High-church libertarian
Blog
mike
Warned
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,551


« Reply #105 on: May 28, 2013, 07:58:56 AM »

There are plenty of hard feelings to go around. Poles hate Russians, etc. Once read an account of some border village in Poland where the pastime was to torch the nearby Byelorussian Orthodox church (they don't like Rusyn and Ukrainian Catholics any better; it doesn't matter that they're Catholic; they're not Polish).

It was the state policy. About 130 Orthodox churches were destroyed in 2 months.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #106 on: June 20, 2013, 09:02:01 AM »

P.S. I should have added that it's only on the internet (as far as I know) that I've encountered the sort of convert I mentioned -- I mean the I-haven't-left-anything converts who see intercommunion as "refusing to participate in schism" and what-not. (On a side note, it strikes me that they might be the "other side of the coin" of the entitled-OicwR. :thoughtful:)

Exactly.

Side question: what about the other "other side of the coin" of OicwR? That is to say, has anyone ever coined a term for the Orthodox equivalent of OicwR? ("CicwC" doesn't really work, except in an extremely loose sense, since Constantinople isn't the Orthodox equivalent of Rome.)
Logged

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

Posts: 2,814


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #107 on: June 20, 2013, 09:40:20 AM »

P.S. I should have added that it's only on the internet (as far as I know) that I've encountered the sort of convert I mentioned -- I mean the I-haven't-left-anything converts who see intercommunion as "refusing to participate in schism" and what-not. (On a side note, it strikes me that they might be the "other side of the coin" of the entitled-OicwR. :thoughtful:)

Exactly.

Side question: what about the other "other side of the coin" of OicwR? That is to say, has anyone ever coined a term for the Orthodox equivalent of OicwR? ("CicwC" doesn't really work, except in an extremely loose sense, since Constantinople isn't the Orthodox equivalent of Rome.)

No equivalent name. Rare like OicwRs but they're out there. My former pastor and I were a strange conservative version of that; speaking for myself, exile because of Vatican II, not really Orthodox. There are the easygoing ethnics such as the Syrians, who go back and forth between Melkite and Orthodox, no big deal. ACROD for many years was famously very Catholic; they obviously didn't want to leave and were pushed out for no good reason: Greek Catholics in communion with Constantinople, literally. I guess there are marriage converts who don't take the whole thing seriously. (Anecdotal: a Catholic ethnic who apostatized to Judaism to please his in-laws but still celebrates Christmas and Easter.) Then, once in a blue moon, both online and in person, I've met boomer libcaths who are 'like, into spirituality' so they convert to a kind of mystical no-popery while believing in a kind of Anglican branch theory.
Logged

"You always were a historically illiterate jerk, John." - OicwR doyen Stuart Koehl

High-church libertarian
Blog
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,194


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #108 on: June 20, 2013, 09:42:20 AM »

This may have been mentioned already, but I just found out that Pope Francis only has one functioning lung, which makes the whole "two lungs" thing ironic.
The two lungs theory does not refer to the two biological  lungs of the Roman Pope. It is a metaphorical description invented by ecumenists to imagine the Christian Church as a whole entity but living and breathing as two Churches, East and West. 

Please stop with the two lungs already.  There were no Two Lungs prior to the Schism but only one church, east or west...
Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 9,973



« Reply #109 on: June 20, 2013, 09:48:11 AM »

This may have been mentioned already, but I just found out that Pope Francis only has one functioning lung, which makes the whole "two lungs" thing ironic.
The two lungs theory does not refer to the two biological  lungs of the Roman Pope. It is a metaphorical description invented by ecumenists to imagine the Christian Church as a whole entity but living and breathing as two Churches, East and West. 

Please stop with the two lungs already.  There were no Two Lungs prior to the Schism but only one church, east or west...
Lets add more lungs.  I think we need a baptist lung, a mormon lung, a muslim lung.  The more lungs the better, I always say. If the church can breathe better with 2 lungs, imagine how great 50 lungs would be.
Logged

Why can't you just take your spiritual edification like a man? 
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,814


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #110 on: June 20, 2013, 09:52:38 AM »

This may have been mentioned already, but I just found out that Pope Francis only has one functioning lung, which makes the whole "two lungs" thing ironic.
The two lungs theory does not refer to the two biological  lungs of the Roman Pope. It is a metaphorical description invented by ecumenists to imagine the Christian Church as a whole entity but living and breathing as two Churches, East and West.  

Please stop with the two lungs already.  There were no Two Lungs prior to the Schism but only one church, east or west...

Catholicism manages to have it both ways: it acknowledges the truth and grace in Eastern churches without compromising its true-church claim. That said, I understand Orthodox being offended. The church is saying it understands your faith better than you do. Like when an Anglican means to be nice by including Catholicism and Orthodoxy as branches of the church.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2013, 09:53:15 AM by The young fogey » Logged

"You always were a historically illiterate jerk, John." - OicwR doyen Stuart Koehl

High-church libertarian
Blog
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #111 on: June 20, 2013, 09:53:24 AM »

Lets add more lungs.  I think we need a baptist lung, a mormon lung, a muslim lung.

There may be some valid criticisms of the "2 lungs" idea; but I think this ^^ does nothing but make you look closed-minded.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,966


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #112 on: June 20, 2013, 09:53:45 AM »

P.S. I should have added that it's only on the internet (as far as I know) that I've encountered the sort of convert I mentioned -- I mean the I-haven't-left-anything converts who see intercommunion as "refusing to participate in schism" and what-not. (On a side note, it strikes me that they might be the "other side of the coin" of the entitled-OicwR. :thoughtful:)

Exactly.

Side question: what about the other "other side of the coin" of OicwR? That is to say, has anyone ever coined a term for the Orthodox equivalent of OicwR? ("CicwC" doesn't really work, except in an extremely loose sense, since Constantinople isn't the Orthodox equivalent of Rome.)

No equivalent name. Rare like OicwRs but they're out there. My former pastor and I were a strange conservative version of that; speaking for myself, exile because of Vatican II, not really Orthodox. There are the easygoing ethnics such as the Syrians, who go back and forth between Melkite and Orthodox, no big deal. ACROD for many years was famously very Catholic; they obviously didn't want to leave and were pushed out for no good reason: Greek Catholics in communion with Constantinople, literally. I guess there are marriage converts who don't take the whole thing seriously. (Anecdotal: a Catholic ethnic who apostatized to Judaism to please his in-laws but still celebrates Christmas and Easter.) Then, once in a blue moon, both online and in person, I've met boomer libcaths who are 'like, into spirituality' so they convert to a kind of mystical no-popery while believing in a kind of Anglican branch theory.

Get out of the 1950's pal, the Greeks allowed ACROD a reasonable time to fully transition from the Unia to Orthodoxy. And before our time, the so-called "Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic" parishes which comprised the majority of the former Metropolia took their sweet time in shedding the pernicious Latin influences your hard line and ignorant Roman hierarchy imposed on the Ruthenians/Rusyn Greek Catholics.  

As time goes by there is little substantive difference between the modern OCA and the ACROD. We do thank you though for imprinting into our collective consciousness (ACROD and OCA) the need to regularly attend Liturgy as reflected in last year's EA survey.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #113 on: June 20, 2013, 09:56:10 AM »

P.S. I should have added that it's only on the internet (as far as I know) that I've encountered the sort of convert I mentioned -- I mean the I-haven't-left-anything converts who see intercommunion as "refusing to participate in schism" and what-not. (On a side note, it strikes me that they might be the "other side of the coin" of the entitled-OicwR. :thoughtful:)

Exactly.

Side question: what about the other "other side of the coin" of OicwR? That is to say, has anyone ever coined a term for the Orthodox equivalent of OicwR? ("CicwC" doesn't really work, except in an extremely loose sense, since Constantinople isn't the Orthodox equivalent of Rome.)

No equivalent name.

No, I suppose not.
Logged

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

Posts: 2,814


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #114 on: June 20, 2013, 09:57:29 AM »

This may have been mentioned already, but I just found out that Pope Francis only has one functioning lung, which makes the whole "two lungs" thing ironic.
The two lungs theory does not refer to the two biological  lungs of the Roman Pope. It is a metaphorical description invented by ecumenists to imagine the Christian Church as a whole entity but living and breathing as two Churches, East and West. 

Please stop with the two lungs already.  There were no Two Lungs prior to the Schism but only one church, east or west...
Lets add more lungs.  I think we need a baptist lung, a mormon lung, a muslim lung.  The more lungs the better, I always say. If the church can breathe better with 2 lungs, imagine how great 50 lungs would be.

Again I understand feeling insulted, and that the above post is rhetorical exaggeration, but Catholicism says Protestants don't have churches (heretical doctrine and no real bishops so no Mass) and Muslims and Mormons are not Christians. So no, they're not lungs.
Logged

"You always were a historically illiterate jerk, John." - OicwR doyen Stuart Koehl

High-church libertarian
Blog
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,814


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #115 on: June 20, 2013, 10:10:30 AM »

Get out of the 1950's pal

No. Make me.

...the Greeks allowed ACROD a reasonable time to fully transition from the Unia to Orthodoxy.

The Greeks were very nice and hands-off; the Carpatho-Russians just wanted to be left alone to do what they'd always done (more a grassroots po-nashomu ['our way'] folk church, which happened to be latinized, than hardline Catholic or Orthodox identity), and that was fine with the Greeks. As far as I know, nobody forced ACROD to change. They eventually did on their own, mirroring what the Greek Catholics were doing.

And before our time, the so-called "Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic" parishes which comprised the majority of the former Metropolia took their sweet time in shedding the pernicious Latin influences your hard line and ignorant Roman hierarchy imposed on the Ruthenians/Rusyn Greek Catholics.

I think the Russians russified the converts but I've come across what you describe and have read similar stories. A priest who grew up in the Metropolia had 'Solemn First Communion' so even though he received as a baby, he had the party when he was 7 like the Catholic kids, just like what the Greek Catholics, OCA, and ACROD do now with First Confession.

Try actually reading me. I never make excuses for the Roman Riters pushing Toth and Chornock out.

And 90% of the time, the Greek Catholics latinized themselves.

As time goes by there is little substantive difference between the modern OCA and the ACROD. We do thank you though for imprinting into our collective consciousness (ACROD and OCA) the need to regularly attend Liturgy as reflected in last year's EA survey.

From outside, that seems true. They're the same ethnicity, only they converted two generations apart. The main difference now is the music (though I've been to an old OCA parish that kept its Carpatho-Russian prostopinije alongside the usual OCA Russian music). I know you're being sarcastic but you're welcome. Same reason some Orthodox got involved in the March for Life. Metropolitan Herman wanted to impress his neighbor Bishop Timlin.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2013, 10:22:56 AM by The young fogey » Logged

"You always were a historically illiterate jerk, John." - OicwR doyen Stuart Koehl

High-church libertarian
Blog
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,966


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #116 on: June 20, 2013, 10:26:40 AM »

Get out of the 1950's pal

No. Make me.

...the Greeks allowed ACROD a reasonable time to fully transition from the Unia to Orthodoxy.

The Greeks were very nice and hands-off; the Carpatho-Russians just wanted to be left alone to do what they'd always done (more a grassroots po-nashomu ['our way'] folk church, which happened to be latinized, than hardline Catholic or Orthodox identity), and that was fine with the Greeks. As far as I know, nobody forced them to change. They eventually did on their own, mirroring what the Greek Catholics were doing.

And before our time, the so-called "Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic" parishes which comprised the majority of the former Metropolia took their sweet time in shedding the pernicious Latin influences your hard line and ignorant Roman hierarchy imposed on the Ruthenians/Rusyn Greek Catholics.

I think the Russians russified the converts but I've come across what you describe and have read similar stories. A priest who grew up in the Metropolia had 'Solemn First Communion' so even though he received as a baby, he had the party when he was 7 like the Catholic kids, just like what the Greek Catholics, OCA, and ACROD do now with First Confession.

Try actually reading me. I never make excuses for the Roman Riters pushing Toth and Chornock out.

And 90% of the time, the Greek Catholics latinized themselves.

As time goes by there is little substantive difference between the modern OCA and the ACROD. We do thank you though for imprinting into our collective consciousness (ACROD and OCA) the need to regularly attend Liturgy as reflected in last year's EA survey.

From outside, that seems true. They're the same ethnicity, only they converted two generations apart. The main difference now is the music (though I've been to an old OCA parish that kept its Carpatho-Russian prostopinije alongside the usual OCA Russian music). I know you're being sarcastic but you're welcome. Same reason some Orthodox got involved in the March for Life. Metropolitan Herman wanted to impress his neighbor Bishop Timlin.

I've read your blog for years and I apologize for being a tad thin skinned. I concede that ACROD'S founders did not so much "convert" or "return" to Orthodoxy as much as they TURNED to it for protection, but I would argue the same held true for St. Alexis and my many relatives who followed him pre 1920.

Those generations did not see the impact of the gradual latinizations, they believed them to be genuine, for after 300 years, that's what they had. They did know that they were not Roman Catholics. Today we know not all were Latin changes (plain chant, pre Nikonian rubrics,  certain penitentiary practices, certain architectural norms) and that some Roman influences are, in fact, positive. (Attendance being one of them.)

Your observations, taken out of context, only reinforce the preconception of more than a few Orthodox traditionalists who are less than kind towards those who they view as being ritually impure - which is typically everyone else.

No offense meant.
Logged
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,814


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #117 on: June 20, 2013, 10:29:23 AM »

Understood. Thanks.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2013, 10:52:48 AM by The young fogey » Logged

"You always were a historically illiterate jerk, John." - OicwR doyen Stuart Koehl

High-church libertarian
Blog
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #118 on: June 20, 2013, 10:40:56 AM »

Get out of the 1950's pal

No. Make me.

...the Greeks allowed ACROD a reasonable time to fully transition from the Unia to Orthodoxy.

The Greeks were very nice and hands-off; the Carpatho-Russians just wanted to be left alone to do what they'd always done (more a grassroots po-nashomu ['our way'] folk church, which happened to be latinized, than hardline Catholic or Orthodox identity), and that was fine with the Greeks. As far as I know, nobody forced them to change. They eventually did on their own, mirroring what the Greek Catholics were doing.

And before our time, the so-called "Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic" parishes which comprised the majority of the former Metropolia took their sweet time in shedding the pernicious Latin influences your hard line and ignorant Roman hierarchy imposed on the Ruthenians/Rusyn Greek Catholics.

I think the Russians russified the converts but I've come across what you describe and have read similar stories. A priest who grew up in the Metropolia had 'Solemn First Communion' so even though he received as a baby, he had the party when he was 7 like the Catholic kids, just like what the Greek Catholics, OCA, and ACROD do now with First Confession.

Try actually reading me. I never make excuses for the Roman Riters pushing Toth and Chornock out.

And 90% of the time, the Greek Catholics latinized themselves.

As time goes by there is little substantive difference between the modern OCA and the ACROD. We do thank you though for imprinting into our collective consciousness (ACROD and OCA) the need to regularly attend Liturgy as reflected in last year's EA survey.

From outside, that seems true. They're the same ethnicity, only they converted two generations apart. The main difference now is the music (though I've been to an old OCA parish that kept its Carpatho-Russian prostopinije alongside the usual OCA Russian music). I know you're being sarcastic but you're welcome. Same reason some Orthodox got involved in the March for Life. Metropolitan Herman wanted to impress his neighbor Bishop Timlin.

I've read your blog for years and I apologize for being a tad thin skinned. I concede that ACROD'S founders did not so much "convert" or "return" to Orthodoxy as much as they TURNED to it for protection, but I would argue the same held true for St. Alexis and my many relatives who followed him pre 1920.

Those generations did not see the impact of the gradual latinizations, they believed them to be genuine, for after 300 years, that's what they had. They did know that they were not Roman Catholics. Today we know not all were Latin changes (plain chant, pre Nikonian rubrics,  certain penitentiary practices, certain architectural norms) and that some Roman influences are, in fact, positive. (Attendance being one of them.)

Your observations, taken out of context, only reinforce the preconception of more than a few Orthodox traditionalists who are less than kind towards those who they view as being ritually impure - which is typically everyone else.

No offense meant.

Which preconception?
Logged

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

Posts: 2,814


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #119 on: June 20, 2013, 10:48:29 AM »

Get out of the 1950's pal

No. Make me.

...the Greeks allowed ACROD a reasonable time to fully transition from the Unia to Orthodoxy.

The Greeks were very nice and hands-off; the Carpatho-Russians just wanted to be left alone to do what they'd always done (more a grassroots po-nashomu ['our way'] folk church, which happened to be latinized, than hardline Catholic or Orthodox identity), and that was fine with the Greeks. As far as I know, nobody forced them to change. They eventually did on their own, mirroring what the Greek Catholics were doing.

And before our time, the so-called "Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic" parishes which comprised the majority of the former Metropolia took their sweet time in shedding the pernicious Latin influences your hard line and ignorant Roman hierarchy imposed on the Ruthenians/Rusyn Greek Catholics.

I think the Russians russified the converts but I've come across what you describe and have read similar stories. A priest who grew up in the Metropolia had 'Solemn First Communion' so even though he received as a baby, he had the party when he was 7 like the Catholic kids, just like what the Greek Catholics, OCA, and ACROD do now with First Confession.

Try actually reading me. I never make excuses for the Roman Riters pushing Toth and Chornock out.

And 90% of the time, the Greek Catholics latinized themselves.

As time goes by there is little substantive difference between the modern OCA and the ACROD. We do thank you though for imprinting into our collective consciousness (ACROD and OCA) the need to regularly attend Liturgy as reflected in last year's EA survey.

From outside, that seems true. They're the same ethnicity, only they converted two generations apart. The main difference now is the music (though I've been to an old OCA parish that kept its Carpatho-Russian prostopinije alongside the usual OCA Russian music). I know you're being sarcastic but you're welcome. Same reason some Orthodox got involved in the March for Life. Metropolitan Herman wanted to impress his neighbor Bishop Timlin.

I've read your blog for years and I apologize for being a tad thin skinned. I concede that ACROD'S founders did not so much "convert" or "return" to Orthodoxy as much as they TURNED to it for protection, but I would argue the same held true for St. Alexis and my many relatives who followed him pre 1920.

Those generations did not see the impact of the gradual latinizations, they believed them to be genuine, for after 300 years, that's what they had. They did know that they were not Roman Catholics. Today we know not all were Latin changes (plain chant, pre Nikonian rubrics,  certain penitentiary practices, certain architectural norms) and that some Roman influences are, in fact, positive. (Attendance being one of them.)

Your observations, taken out of context, only reinforce the preconception of more than a few Orthodox traditionalists who are less than kind towards those who they view as being ritually impure - which is typically everyone else.

No offense meant.

Which preconception?

Anti-Catholic hardline Orthodox making fun of the Carpatho-Russians for their longtime latinizations and saying the Carpatho-Russians weren't really Orthodox because of them.
Logged

"You always were a historically illiterate jerk, John." - OicwR doyen Stuart Koehl

High-church libertarian
Blog
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,814


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #120 on: June 20, 2013, 10:53:08 AM »

I think the two schisms in America, plus, in Eastern Europe, the Communists persecuting the Greek Catholics, have understandably hardened both Rusyn (and Ukrainian) sides. Easygoing po-nashomu doesn't seem the norm anymore. The Greek Catholics who stayed were taught a harder line on identity than before, and they self-latinized more; now they don't identify with the Orthodox at all. Vatican II told them to rebyzantinize but the ethnics aren't enthused.

Same thing in reverse with ACROD. No strong Orthodox identity in the '30s, but one now.

(The first Eastern Christians I knew and the first Byzantine Liturgy ['Holy Mass'] I went to were WWII-exile Ukrainian Catholic. You could call them Ukrainian Catholics, Byzantine Catholics, Greek Catholics, Uniates or Roman Catholics; just don't call them Russian or Orthodox, even though they were obviously related.)
Logged

"You always were a historically illiterate jerk, John." - OicwR doyen Stuart Koehl

High-church libertarian
Blog
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #121 on: June 20, 2013, 10:58:24 AM »

Anti-Catholic hardline Orthodox making fun of the Carpatho-Russians for their longtime latinizations and saying the Carpatho-Russians weren't really Orthodox because of them.

To be honest, I think the conflation of "Orthodoxy" with "Eastern-ness" is one of the things that troubles me most about Orthodoxy. (Not that I would necessarily become Orthodox in any case; I'm just saying.)
Logged

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

Posts: 2,814


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #122 on: June 20, 2013, 11:05:39 AM »

Anti-Catholic hardline Orthodox making fun of the Carpatho-Russians for their longtime latinizations and saying the Carpatho-Russians weren't really Orthodox because of them.

To be honest, I think the conflation of "Orthodoxy" with "Eastern-ness" is one of the things that troubles me most about Orthodoxy. (Not that I would necessarily become Orthodox in any case; I'm just saying.)

Yep.

Easternness in itself is great, but the anti-Westernism is a big turnoff. Catholicism doesn't tell Easterners to hate their heritage but rather to keep it (this is not always followed). Orthodoxy's obviously so conflicted about Westernness. (Western = you're not part of our empire = you're not the true church.) Its little Western Rite experiment usually gets as byzantinized as the Greek Catholics are self-latinized. The Antiochians' thing is more really Western and more honest about the Catholic connection. Old high Episcopalians and genuinely nice pro-Catholic folks, whom other Orthodox are suspicious of for that reason. Still, even there, the Mass is 'The Divine Liturgy of St Tikhon or St Gregory', etc. The ROCOR one's so byzantinized I don't know why they bother.
Logged

"You always were a historically illiterate jerk, John." - OicwR doyen Stuart Koehl

High-church libertarian
Blog
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #123 on: June 20, 2013, 11:35:59 AM »

the anti-Westernism is a big turnoff.

That too.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,966


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #124 on: June 20, 2013, 01:31:18 PM »

I think the two schisms in America, plus, in Eastern Europe, the Communists persecuting the Greek Catholics, have understandably hardened both Rusyn (and Ukrainian) sides. Easygoing po-nashomu doesn't seem the norm anymore. The Greek Catholics who stayed were taught a harder line on identity than before, and they self-latinized more; now they don't identify with the Orthodox at all. Vatican II told them to rebyzantinize but the ethnics aren't enthused.

Same thing in reverse with ACROD. No strong Orthodox identity in the '30s, but one now.

(The first Eastern Christians I knew and the first Byzantine Liturgy ['Holy Mass'] I went to were WWII-exile Ukrainian Catholic. You could call them Ukrainian Catholics, Byzantine Catholics, Greek Catholics, Uniates or Roman Catholics; just don't call them Russian or Orthodox, even though they were obviously related.)

But that is a generalization. The Greek Catholic Rusyns in Slovakia are old style Greek Catholic, but Bishop Milan' s eparchy in Transcarpathian Ukraine  is quite Orthodox externally, certainly in contrast to the Ukrainian Greek Catholics who are nearby.  The BCC church next door to me is closer "looking" to a ROCOR or Serbian Church than any of the other "eastern" churches in the area, Catholic or Orthodox,excepting the GOC traditionalists in Owego, NY who are out there on their own.

My two cents, for what it's worth, and my point of view is certainly clouded by personal history, is that uniatism, whether east to west or vice versa is a "bridge to nowhere." No matter how sincere you may be in your faith, and most folks are that, in the end you are always the odd child, looking in and never chosen for the team. Others may have better experiences and I respect that and their opinion.

I am looking forward to the podcasts of this year's Orientale Lumen concluded today. I understand it was quite interesting.
Logged
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,194


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #125 on: June 20, 2013, 04:06:49 PM »

It's pretty much because of attitudes expressed in this thread (for example) that I decided to remain Catholic. I do love the Orthodox Churches I've attended but even there, I've had to deal with so many people like "James" that I don't think I'd have the energy to do it on a regular basis. I'd always feel the need to defend the Catholic Church from unfair attacks, even if I left it. So I think I'll just stay where I am and keep asking God for mercy.  Wink

Well then, I am very sorry for you if this is truly the case as you describe it here.  It seems that you are letting bad Orthodox like us on this forum define your experience of Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Christianity in general.  If you are convinced that remaining in communion with Rome is the right thing to do, then surely it should come from a much more "positive" place in your heart than one that says "there are such uncharitable Orthodox here and there, therefore I will just stay where I am."  I think each one of us has the duty to ask ourselves "who is Christ?" all the time.  What would the Living God of the Gospel have to say about this or that ecclesial situation and our relation to it?  Christ said "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life."  Are we truly struggling to follow that Way, Truth and Life in Him who is Love every day, or are we following an idol of our own creation, that is not the Living God?  I think every Christian of whatever ecclesial affiliation has to keep this before them at all times.  Forgive me, but I think to do less is to cop out; it is deciding to be spiritually lazy or dishonest.  I am not saying that God does not meet us where we are in His great mercy, or that moving from one Church to another is an easy thing to do or that you don't have other good reasons for doing what you do.  But please don't let your church life be defined by how some crazy sinner like me behaves, that is just wrong.
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #126 on: June 20, 2013, 04:38:17 PM »

This relates to what TYF and I were discussing in the earlier OicwR conversation.

There's really a spectrum of possibilities: On one end of the spectrum, a Catholic might be able to come up with no real objections to Catholicism, in which case leaving Catholicism makes no sense.

On the other end, a Catholic might have objections to Catholicism that are so strong that not leaving Catholicism makes no sense. (Note that I mean sincerely believing e.g. that the Pope is in heresy, not just making excuses for wanting to leave.)

But I believe there can also be Catholics in-the-middle, for whom neither leaving nor staying is a clear choice. That's where you get the "Catholic with regret" phenomenon -- not to be confused with dissident Catholics who are glad to be the fly-in-the-ointment.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,194


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #127 on: June 20, 2013, 04:49:38 PM »

This may have been mentioned already, but I just found out that Pope Francis only has one functioning lung, which makes the whole "two lungs" thing ironic.
The two lungs theory does not refer to the two biological  lungs of the Roman Pope. It is a metaphorical description invented by ecumenists to imagine the Christian Church as a whole entity but living and breathing as two Churches, East and West. 

Please stop with the two lungs already.  There were no Two Lungs prior to the Schism but only one church, east or west...
Lets add more lungs.  I think we need a baptist lung, a mormon lung, a muslim lung.  The more lungs the better, I always say. If the church can breathe better with 2 lungs, imagine how great 50 lungs would be.

 Grin
Logged
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 #128 on: June 20, 2013, 05:02:16 PM »

It's pretty much because of attitudes expressed in this thread (for example) that I decided to remain Catholic. I do love the Orthodox Churches I've attended but even there, I've had to deal with so many people like "James" that I don't think I'd have the energy to do it on a regular basis. I'd always feel the need to defend the Catholic Church from unfair attacks, even if I left it. So I think I'll just stay where I am and keep asking God for mercy.  Wink

Well then, I am very sorry for you if this is truly the case as you describe it here.  It seems that you are letting bad Orthodox like us on this forum define your experience of Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Christianity in general.  If you are convinced that remaining in communion with Rome is the right thing to do, then surely it should come from a much more "positive" place in your heart than one that says "there are such uncharitable Orthodox here and there, therefore I will just stay where I am."  I think each one of us has the duty to ask ourselves "who is Christ?" all the time.  What would the Living God of the Gospel have to say about this or that ecclesial situation and our relation to it?  Christ said "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life."  Are we truly struggling to follow that Way, Truth and Life in Him who is Love every day, or are we following an idol of our own creation, that is not the Living God?  I think every Christian of whatever ecclesial affiliation has to keep this before them at all times.  Forgive me, but I think to do less is to cop out; it is deciding to be spiritually lazy or dishonest.  I am not saying that God does not meet us where we are in His great mercy, or that moving from one Church to another is an easy thing to do or that you don't have other good reasons for doing what you do.  But please don't let your church life be defined by how some crazy sinner like me behaves, that is just wrong.

You're right. I think I'll become a Spiritualist instead.   Cool
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)
WPM
Revolutionary Writer
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,734



« Reply #129 on: June 20, 2013, 05:12:00 PM »

I thought the Orthodox Church was already Catholic
Logged
WPM
Revolutionary Writer
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,734



« Reply #130 on: June 20, 2013, 05:20:09 PM »

I think the two schisms in America, plus, in Eastern Europe, the Communists persecuting the Greek Catholics, have understandably hardened both Rusyn (and Ukrainian) sides. Easygoing po-nashomu doesn't seem the norm anymore. The Greek Catholics who stayed were taught a harder line on identity than before, and they self-latinized more; now they don't identify with the Orthodox at all. Vatican II told them to rebyzantinize but the ethnics aren't enthused.

Same thing in reverse with ACROD. No strong Orthodox identity in the '30s, but one now.

(The first Eastern Christians I knew and the first Byzantine Liturgy ['Holy Mass'] I went to were WWII-exile Ukrainian Catholic. You could call them Ukrainian Catholics, Byzantine Catholics, Greek Catholics, Uniates or Roman Catholics; just don't call them Russian or Orthodox, even though they were obviously related.)

But that is a generalization. The Greek Catholic Rusyns in Slovakia are old style Greek Catholic, but Bishop Milan' s eparchy in Transcarpathian Ukraine  is quite Orthodox externally, certainly in contrast to the Ukrainian Greek Catholics who are nearby.  The BCC church next door to me is closer "looking" to a ROCOR or Serbian Church than any of the other "eastern" churches in the area, Catholic or Orthodox,excepting the GOC traditionalists in Owego, NY who are out there on their own.

My two cents, for what it's worth, and my point of view is certainly clouded by personal history, is that uniatism, whether east to west or vice versa is a "bridge to nowhere." No matter how sincere you may be in your faith, and most folks are that, in the end you are always the odd child, looking in and never chosen for the team. Others may have better experiences and I respect that and their opinion.

I am looking forward to the podcasts of this year's Orientale Lumen concluded today. I understand it was quite interesting.

The Catholicity of a Mother Church
Logged
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,440


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #131 on: June 20, 2013, 10:14:20 PM »

Anti-Catholic hardline Orthodox making fun of the Carpatho-Russians for their longtime latinizations and saying the Carpatho-Russians weren't really Orthodox because of them.

To be honest, I think the conflation of "Orthodoxy" with "Eastern-ness" is one of the things that troubles me most about Orthodoxy. (Not that I would necessarily become Orthodox in any case; I'm just saying.)
Frankly the kind of sentiment expressed above strikes me as excessive an overreaction as that which it seeks to counter. Why?

One hardly needs to "conflate" early Christianity Eastward insofar as contextualization of early Christianity primarily to Eastern language, culture, and thought is basic to its history. It is one thing to oppose an over-reactive "anti-Western bias" as such. It is quite another to deny, minimize, or be "troubled by" the Eastern roots and context of early Christianity which on close inspection starts to look rather more like denying one's own parents.

Judaism and Christianity began in and unfolded from the ancient Near East. Their sacred scriptures were originally penned in Eastern languages (Hebrew and Koine Greek). They are not rightly understood if wrest from the context of ancient Eastern literary genres, speech figures, thought patterns and so on. The East was the site for the first seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787AD); the overwhelming majority of bishops at these councils were Eastern. The predominant "Eastern-ness" of early Christianity is not a matter of "conflation" so much as basic historiography. There is nothing surprising about the defining of church doctrine in the East. Not only had Constantine shifted the seat of the Roman empire there; that is where most of the Christian churches, Christian learning, patriarchs and bishops and theologians and so on were.

Modem admirers of the Latin Mass claim that they are defending a universal language, the tongue of the Roman empire, but it was never that. The lingua franca of Roman rule was Greek -Rome had inherited the eastern territories conquered and settled by Alexander’s Greek troops. Koine "pidgin Greek" was what merchants and bureaucrats used to communicate with the motley elements of the empire. Pilate and Jesus had to speak to each other in Koine, since one had no Aramaic and the other had no Latin. Koine Greek was the original language of the church, of the Gospels, of the liturgy, of Jews and Christians who traveled to Rome. Latin was not to became Rome’s official language until the middle of the third century. Peter would not have spoken Latin, even in Rome, and Latin did not become the language of the Mass there until the third century. After the fall of the city of old Rome the papacy, left behind in the abandoned ruins of the former capital of the empire had to adjust to the needs of the people there -of Latins who were neither cosmopolitan intellectuals speaking classical Greek nor immigrants from areas speaking Koine, but native speakers of the native tongue.

Virgil, looking at the prospects of the Roman empire in a Greek-speaking world, had expressed a fear that Latin would be swallowed up in Greek. That fear might have seemed justified as the empire moved out from Rome to the East or to Greek-speaking cities in Italy like Milan and Aquileia and Ravenna. In the fourth century, Ambrose of Milan was a far more influential Christian leader than Pope Damasus in Rome. and not only because Ambrose possessed the more forceful character. He also had the advantage of living in the imperial city. and of speaking Greek to its rulers.

Why am I bothering to say this? Not because I am in any way "anti-West" (such an attitude as a basic mold or posture seems silly to me personally), but because what appears at times to be an equal and opposite counter-reaction, without the proper qualifications, can appear even more on the order of obscurantism and/or simply living in denial than the excesses it is seeking to reply to.

One simply cannot properly understand Judaism or early Christianity de-contextualized from ancient Near Eastern language, culture and thought forms within which it largely emerged without tacitly or explicitly falling into anachronism and obscurantism.

« Last Edit: June 20, 2013, 10:33:24 PM by xariskai » Logged

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

Posts: 2,814


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #132 on: June 21, 2013, 12:17:19 AM »

I thought the Orthodox Church was already Catholic

There are three answers. First, to my hosts: there is the textbook Orthodox position, like Catholicism's true-church claim. Simply that Orthodoxy is the true Catholic Church and Catholicism's not. Second, there's the ecumenical Orthodox opinion, something like Catholicism's recognition of Orthodox orders so one can speak of a great Catholic family of churches. Third, there's Catholicism: born Orthodox are neither Protestants nor personally guilty of schism, so Orthodoxy's an estranged Catholicism; the church accepts but doesn't solicit individual conversions of born Orthodox anymore.
Logged

"You always were a historically illiterate jerk, John." - OicwR doyen Stuart Koehl

High-church libertarian
Blog
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #133 on: June 21, 2013, 01:40:46 AM »

It's pretty much because of attitudes expressed in this thread (for example) that I decided to remain Catholic. I do love the Orthodox Churches I've attended but even there, I've had to deal with so many people like "James" that I don't think I'd have the energy to do it on a regular basis. I'd always feel the need to defend the Catholic Church from unfair attacks, even if I left it. So I think I'll just stay where I am and keep asking God for mercy.  Wink

Well then, I am very sorry for you if this is truly the case as you describe it here.  It seems that you are letting bad Orthodox like us on this forum define your experience of Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Christianity in general.  If you are convinced that remaining in communion with Rome is the right thing to do, then surely it should come from a much more "positive" place in your heart than one that says "there are such uncharitable Orthodox here and there, therefore I will just stay where I am."  I think each one of us has the duty to ask ourselves "who is Christ?" all the time.  What would the Living God of the Gospel have to say about this or that ecclesial situation and our relation to it?  Christ said "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life."  Are we truly struggling to follow that Way, Truth and Life in Him who is Love every day, or are we following an idol of our own creation, that is not the Living God?  I think every Christian of whatever ecclesial affiliation has to keep this before them at all times.  Forgive me, but I think to do less is to cop out; it is deciding to be spiritually lazy or dishonest.  I am not saying that God does not meet us where we are in His great mercy, or that moving from one Church to another is an easy thing to do or that you don't have other good reasons for doing what you do.  But please don't let your church life be defined by how some crazy sinner like me behaves, that is just wrong.
What you say may be the ideal situation, but many people respond favorably to charity. What Catholic would want to join a Church where the priest screams that you and all Catholics are heretics? Such happened to me when I asked if I could join his adult catechism class, which he said was not open to heretics.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #134 on: June 21, 2013, 06:42:34 AM »

I thought the Orthodox Church was already Catholic

To quote myself:

I have no reason to leave the Catholic Church, although I have every reason to be in the Orthodox Church.

This is only true if you equate the Vatican confession with "the Catholic Church."

Your fellow Orthodox have told us not to use "Roman Catholic", or at any rate not to include Eastern Catholics in that designation.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 »   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 0.19 seconds with 73 queries.