OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 20, 2014, 02:23:48 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Roman Catholic misconceptions regarding the schism  (Read 15103 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,526

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« on: January 19, 2005, 01:37:23 PM »

So many times both here and elsewhere I have been chastised by both Orthodox and non-Orthodox alike for my insistence in defending the Catholicity of my Orthodox faith and my right to identify myself as an Orthodox Catholic.

Rather than try and understand why, many accuse me of having a Catholic Envy.  The following is a perfect example of what we allow to happen when we don't stick up for our faith and defend our rightful identity.  It is from the Catholics Answers section on a new thread that opened up called 'Greek Orthodox' -

============

 Re: Greek Orthodox
Today's "Greek Orthodox" are better called "Eastern Orthodox" because only a couple of the 16 or more Eastern Orthodox churches are actually Greek by nationality. Most of the others are the churches of some Slavic nation, like the Russian Orthodox, the Serbian Orthodox, etc. So I presume that you are not referring only to ethnic Greek churches, but to any EO church. There is not just one "Eastern Orthodox church", but instead there is a league of 16 or more juridically separate churches, all of which belong to the Byzantine rite, as they are descended from the churches of the East that once belonged to the "Patriarchate" of Constantinople (=Byzantium).

All these churches are descended from the originally Catholic dioceses of the East, and they have been in schism from Rome since, well, pick a date: 862, 1054, 1439 are dates sometimes found, as the schism originally begun about 862 by Patriarch Photius of Constantinople though healed was rekindled more than once.

There are other churches of the East that are Catholic, however. These are called "Eastern Catholic" churches, and almost all of them are descended from groups of Eastern Orthodox who left communion with Constantinople and came into communion with Rome again since the Photian schism. One, the Maronites,claims never to have been in schism, and a few others are descended from schismatic churches that were not in union with Constantinople, i.e., from churches that are not "Eastern Orthodox".

Catholics of the Roman rite have no quarrel with the authentic traditions of the East; the problem is only with their schism and the occasional errors that the Eastern Orthodox have picked up over the years, and above all with the anti-Roman animus that characterizes all these EO churches and is responsible for a great number of their errors. I think that wihout this antipathy to Rome they would have had a record of doctrinal orthodoxy even better than the otherwise fairly good record that they have had. If you want to appreciate the East you should check out a good solid Eastern Catholic parish, for instance, the Ukrainians, the Maronites, the Melchites, and so on, and attend their liturgy. This is fine and even recommended for Roman-rite Catholics to do.

Regards,

========

Note what I have put in bold type.  We are preceived as a group of  separate churches who all descended from Constantinople and left the Catholic Church at various times in history!

Note That as long as we are so willing to give up our Catholic identity for an ethnic identity we allow either misconceptions of of our faith or rewrites of history like this to continue.  And appear  to be agreeing with the misconception that we left the 'Catholic Church' continue.


Orthodoc
   
Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 9,907


ΠΑΝΑΓΙΑ ΣΟΥΜΕΛΑ


« Reply #1 on: January 19, 2005, 02:01:21 PM »

Orthodoc,
As you know, at your request I joined that forum - my first, only, and last participation in an RC forum. You need not defend your views here, of course, and you and Fr. Ambrose are made of heartier stuff than I; I prefer to leave them to their own propagandistic delusions.
I nearly took the bait on their questioning St Andrew's establishment of the Church of Constantinople by responding with an in-kind reply about Linus, not Peter, establishing the Church of Rome. Then I figured- 'Why bother?' - neither point matters to me in the least.

Demetri
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
bripat22
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 182


Slava Tebie, Boze nas! Slava Tebie


« Reply #2 on: January 19, 2005, 02:09:59 PM »


 Orthodoc,
   
       I find nothing in that quote from that forum other then a very ill-informed opinion of one Latin Catholic.  This is not the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church on the Orthodox which can be found in the Catholic Catechism and in the many Encylicals of Pope John Paul II. Why take such a quote and try to make it representative of Catholicism (Roman) which it is not?Huh
Logged

For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like!-

                            Maggie Smith "The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie"
TomS
Banned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,186


"Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono


« Reply #3 on: January 19, 2005, 02:17:16 PM »

...Then I figured- 'Why bother?' - neither point matters to me in the least.

Exactly. Once again -- all this stuff is just a distraction created by "you know who".
Logged
Jennifer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,154


« Reply #4 on: January 19, 2005, 02:54:58 PM »


 Orthodoc,
 
 I find nothing in that quote from that forum other then a very ill-informed opinion of one Latin Catholic. This is not the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church on the Orthodox which can be found in the Catholic Catechism and in the many Encylicals of Pope John Paul II. Why take such a quote and try to make it representative of Catholicism (Roman) which it is not?Huh

But it's not completely inconsistent with Rome's current teaching and is entirely consistent with Rome's historic teaching.  What does "schism" mean?  Rome doesn't deny there is a schism and Rome believes that communion is necessary for the fullness of catholicity so it's not inconsistent for them to insist that the Orthodox are not "catholic." 

But my question to Orthodoc is what does it matter what *they* think?  So what if they don't think you're Catholic? 

Logged
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,526

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #5 on: January 19, 2005, 03:09:32 PM »

[But my question to Orthodoc is what does it matter what *they* think?  So what if they don't think you're Catholic? ]

Because to an outsider or one who has a limited knowledge of church history it looks like we Orthodox Catholics are the schismatics why the RCC is the true and original Church.  How many have been swayed from the true Catholic Church (Orthodoxy) by reading false claims like this?

Orthodoc

Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
Jennifer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,154


« Reply #6 on: January 19, 2005, 03:16:21 PM »

Because to an outsider or one who has a limited knowledge of church history it looks like we Orthodox Catholics are the schismatics why the RCC is the true and original Church. How many have been swayed from the true Catholic Church (Orthodoxy) by reading false claims like this?

Why does it "look like" that based on *their* claims?  Just because they say something doesn't mean 'outsiders' believe it. 

These people will never agree with you so let it go. 
Logged
francis
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 24



« Reply #7 on: January 19, 2005, 03:26:56 PM »

Orthodoc,

As a Roman Catholic, I thought I would respond.

You need to understand that, basically, most practicing Catholics and Orthodox see their own Church and the "other" Church in exactly the same way - just backwards. I've seen this time and time again. You could flip the words "Catholic" and "Orthodox" in this forum and a Catholic one, and get the exact same posts sometimes.

- A Catholic believes that the Orthodox Churches are in schism from the true Church - the Catholic Church.
- An Orthodox believes that the Catholic Church is in schism from the true Church - the Orthodox Church.

No amount of debate will change their minds.

Regardless of which Church is the "true Church", I think that one thing is clear: neither Church "left" the other. The historical reality is that over a period of hundreds of years they became estranged until the schism just was a reality. The estrangement came due to numerous factors, only some of which were theological. I think if the other factors - political, cultural, liguistic, etc. - were not there, the theological problems could have been worked out.

It is my opinion that the Catholic Church has maintained the "fullness" of Catholic teaching. All of the specifically "Roman Catholic" teachings, I believe, are legitimate developments and not heresy. Obviously you disagree and would say the exact some thing about the Orthodox Church. I take no offense to that, but you should take none at my position. You should simply try to educate us Catholics as to why you believe we are wrong (and allow us to educate you as to why we think you are wrong).

The schism exists, to be sure, and in some way, both Churches are lesser for it. But is one Church "schismatic"? I don't think so - I think that implies that one Church purposefully "left" the other, which I don't think ever happened.

BTW, I used "Catholic" to mean the Roman Catholic Church, and "Orthodox" to mean the Eastern Orthodox Churches, simply for conveniece. I consider you a "Catholic", btw, but I acknowledge that your Church and my Church are in schism.

Logged
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,739



« Reply #8 on: January 19, 2005, 05:03:59 PM »

Gee Bob,

I thought you enjoyed it over thar, hell I like to throw a log or two on the fire over at CA.

You & Fr. Ambrose do a good job, throw a tibit out there and it becomes a feeding frenzy, no need to respond quickly, just sit back and read.

Some of the responses are really quite amusing, ... and ignorant.

I'm in your corner 75% of the time.

james
Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.
Jennifer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,154


« Reply #9 on: January 19, 2005, 05:35:22 PM »

Some of the responses are really quite amusing, ... and ignorant.


What I don't understand (and if I were still Catholic, I would be ashamed of) is why all of the Catholic boards are uniformly awful.  I can't think of one latin rite RC board that isn't full of these arm-chair theologians/apologists. 

I've written before about my decision to leave Rome.  And part of my decision was motivated by their behavior.  There's almost 'fascist' about the way these "apologists" operate.  Any perceived dissent and they come down on you like a ton of bricks. 

Another thing that annoys me is the tendency to 'dogmatize' history.  Every once in awhile one of you will mention Fr. Dvornik's book on the filioque and St. Photius.   The responses are so hostile.  It's almost as if these people believe that the RCC's version of history is dogma.   As an example, over on the DCF board someone asked about the Slovakian nazi/priest.  I responded that unfortunately that bit of history is true and mentioned Archbishop Stepanic and how it's unfortunate that he was beautified.  One poster responded with the "logic" that because the RCC beautified him, he must be in heaven.  What do these people believe about infallibility?  Does the beautification of someone move them from purgatory/hell to heaven? 

I don't care what the Pope of Rome says, I don't think Archbishop Stepanic is worthy of veneration.  I hope he repented of his terrible sins before his death. 

I assume that mentioning this got me booted off the DCF board since it now says my user name is invalid.  That was my first post in about a month so I figure that was the 'offensive' one.  I didn't get notified or anything so it's hard to say.   But good riddance. 
Logged
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,410


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #10 on: January 19, 2005, 05:37:53 PM »

All I have to say is that the internet tends to bring out the worst in humanity across the board.

Keeping that in mind has saved me from a heart attack in the 10+ years I've been on the internet, I'm sure.
Logged

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

Posts: 193


« Reply #11 on: January 19, 2005, 05:42:28 PM »

Jennifer, I think this is why you were booted:

http://forums.catholic-convert.com/viewtopic.php?t=26718

Someone who also posts here ran to the other board and "told" on us.  Roll Eyes

Logged
Jennifer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,154


« Reply #12 on: January 19, 2005, 05:44:32 PM »

Jennifer, I think this is why you were booted:

http://forums.catholic-convert.com/viewtopic.php?t=26718

Someone who also posts here ran to the other board and "told" on us. Roll Eyes


I guess that explains it.  Of course I haven't gotten the "talking to" that they mentioned since no one has contacted me. 

I wonder who the tattletale was? 
« Last Edit: January 19, 2005, 05:45:56 PM by Jennifer » Logged
Tony
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 193


« Reply #13 on: January 19, 2005, 05:47:28 PM »

It's ByzantineSerb. He has the same thread title "Discerning the East" on the convert section here and in the War Room.



I guess that explains it. Of course I haven't gotten the "talking to" that they mentioned since no one has contacted me.

I wonder who the tattletale was?

Logged
francis
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 24



« Reply #14 on: January 19, 2005, 05:48:21 PM »

I don't want to start a fight, but perhaps the reason you get banned Jennifer is that you spend so much of your energy in your posts pointing out everyone else's problems and faults. We all have them, but most of us don't like to hear about them all the time. Smiley You know the saying about honey and vinegar...

Just my not-so-humble opinion, feel free to fire away...
Logged
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,739



« Reply #15 on: January 19, 2005, 06:03:21 PM »

If one is sincere in their beliefs and faith why fear or care about what another thinks or states ? Heck I've adapted to Orthodoc,  he could ruffle my feathers but I understand him better now.

Though I visited that site yesterday & today via the link its not of my liking.

Sometimes I post something to draw out a idea/true feelings/intent but I do it due to the person's unclarity in the discussion.

I like to get to the point without all the BS garnish . You can spend hours and days fighting thru that jungle.

james
Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.
Jennifer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,154


« Reply #16 on: January 19, 2005, 10:53:06 PM »

I don't want to start a fight, but perhaps the reason you get banned Jennifer is that you spend so much of your energy in your posts pointing out everyone else's problems and faults. We all have them, but most of us don't like to hear about them all the time. Smiley You know the saying about honey and vinegar...

Well I don't like that either but that's been the overall response I've received on "religious" boards.  It's constant criticism to the point where you don't care anymore.  I've been told that I have no charity in my heart.  That I don't understand either the west or the east.   That's I'm "immature", "clueless," "stupid," you name it, I've been called it.  Now I have a chip on my shoulder and expect the criticism and sometimes shoot first. 

When I first showed up on the afforementioned site, I was "welcomed" by being informed that I couldn't be a Catholic because of what I wrote about politics.  They were rude to me from the beginning and I became rude in response.  That's no excuse on my part because I should have rose above it. 

Edited to add that what made it even worse for me was that when I was still trying to be Roman Catholic.  I was on the fence but wanting to be Roman Catholic because that's what I'd always been.  But to be told, in no uncertain terms, that I was not a Roman Catholic was very hurtful at the time.  That's probably why I'm still bitter about it. 
« Last Edit: January 19, 2005, 11:06:43 PM by Jennifer » Logged
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,739



« Reply #17 on: January 19, 2005, 11:22:16 PM »

Everybody has a different definition of charity & compassion. I have mine & you have yours, what really matters is that He knows what is in your heart.

james
Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.
Jennifer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,154


« Reply #18 on: January 20, 2005, 01:20:10 AM »

Everybody has a different definition of charity & compassion. I have mine & you have yours, what really matters is that He knows what is in your heart.

james

I thought that we all had the same definition of charity and compassion but apparently not.  My definition includes not calling people names and not publically judging people.  Apparently that definition is not shared by all. 

That's not to suggest that you don't share my definition of charity and compassion. 
Logged
Hien
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #19 on: February 08, 2005, 04:11:52 PM »

Jennifer, I think this is why you were booted:

http://forums.catholic-convert.com/viewtopic.php?t=26718

Someone who also posts here ran to the other board and "told" on us. Roll Eyes


[I am not Catholic either Orthodox.  I didn't believe in God... until "broken life".  Just try to learn about Chirstian Life...Come out, at this Web, I learn that people who belives in Jesus love to fight each other.  So shame to fight.]
Logged

NULL
Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #20 on: February 08, 2005, 08:36:27 PM »

I've never been to the Catholic Answers forum, but maybe I'll sign up.  Nobody should be mean to you, Jennifer, and I'm sorry if that happened.  This is a good time to compliment this forum.  As a Catholic, I find this forum quite hospitable for the most part, and the debate challenging and robust.  For an internet site, the level of discussion is kept pretty intelligent, meaningful, and educated.  I enjoy coming here and reading the posts even if I don't write something myself.  My compliments.
Logged

NULL
Augustine
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 565

pray for me, please


WWW
« Reply #21 on: February 09, 2005, 09:53:22 AM »

As many postings on this forum (and in many different threads) have indicated, getting shafted on RC ran boards (and I include Byzantine Catholic forums in this) is not a rare or surprising thing. I'm not saying that out there, somewhere I've never been, there is not a good RC forum to be had. I'm just saying I've yet to see it.

However, I don't think the problem is one Orthodox Christians should feel is unique to them, as if they're the only targets. Anyone who dissents from the "party line" or the cult of "John Paul II the Great", or who is not convinced that Cardinal Ratzinger is really the greatest thing since sliced bread, etc. is almost sure to be treated like a menace to society (with cooties) - and this is true, no matter how well argued, or civil your tone may be. All that you can count on, is that you'll be remembered for the few times where you fell from perfection, and (in your frailty) responded to the abuse with equal rancor. I've seen this many times, and in a previous online life (back when I was a Latin Traditionalist, and supported the Society of St.Pius X), was the victim of it myself.

The problem, is that these boards (which are invariably ran by Americans; not a slight to my American friends, but really to a certain variety of politicized Americans, and a certain type of American Catholicism) are ran by "neo-cons". The term "neo-con" refers to the "new conservatives" which in both political and religious terms (it's amazing how the two line up so well; scary actually) are really just yesterday's liberals - both are in want of clear thinking, victims to all sorts of modern philosophical fashions (egalitarianism, feminism "lite", etc.), and both are quite totalitarian despite cries to the contary. That "spirit" fills the "new Catholicism" of these American Catholic "conservatives", and of course it's going to find it's way onto message forums which are ultimatly derivative of the apologists of this movement (in fact the one that is being spoken of here right now is personally owned and operated by one of these apologists.)

A couple of "good" case examples of what I'm talking about (a situation involving non-Orthodox; in fact both of these people are "ultramontane" in the extreme) are what happened to both Gerry Mattatics and Robert Sungenis. Both were well known RC apologists (Mattatics in fact used to work for Catholic Answers, and is himself a former Presbyterian minister), but both in various ways ended up going from "neo-con Catholic stardom" to the sh*tlist. Why? Because both (in slightly different degrees but for very similar reasons) ended up concluding that everything isn't peachy keen in Rome, that the anarchy in modern Catholicism is not something the Vatican or the Pope can be totally absolved from, and that Vatican II itself was not the beginning of a "new spring time" but a collosal disaster. Well, this pretty much ended their "careers" in the neo-con/EWTN complex.

So, if these "new Catholics" will eat their own, it shouldn't be surprising that they'll treat Orthodox like crap*.

(* except for gooey, falsely ecumenical Orthodox, who basically don't raise any serious objections to distinctly Roman Catholic doctrines, or who do not interpret "re-union" in any terms other than the Pope renouncing those distinctly RC dogmas - so long as you're willing to be a "Catholic minus the Pope", you'll probably be ok...probably.)

Edited to changed a few words that some may take offense at even though I do not believe that was their intent.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2005, 01:00:47 PM by +Â¥+¦+¦-ä+¼-ü+¦++-é » Logged
JoeS
(aka StMarkEofE)
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,122


Global Warming Enthusiast.


« Reply #22 on: February 09, 2005, 10:22:41 AM »

IMHO, it is of little consequence whether or not the Roman church believes that the Orthodox is fully Catholic or not. We know that we are and we dont need Rome's approval to believe this. There was no loss of Catholicity at the Schism.

JoeS Cool
Logged
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,739



« Reply #23 on: February 09, 2005, 02:03:56 PM »

Augustine,

I'm 98% in agreement with your post regarding other boards, but we must acknowledge that a majority of people all have some sort of agenda, some will make you aware of it, or some of it or attempt to "veil" it (fat chance).

Speaking for myself, I am not one who places much power with men/mankind, sure there are some holy and righteous clergy out there, but they are human like us, prone to sin and mistakes also, no matter what a "Canon" states.

Guess I'm more in the mold of a "Old Catholic Thought", except I do not hold either East or West above each other.

james, a maverick of sorts
Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.
Jennifer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,154


« Reply #24 on: February 09, 2005, 03:31:25 PM »

The term "neo-con" refers to the "new conservatives" which in both political and religious terms (it's amazing how the two line up so well; scary actually) are really just yesterday's liberals - both are in want of clear thinking, victims to all sorts of modern philosophical fashions (egalitarianism, feminism "lite", etc.), and both are quite totalitarian despite cries to the contary. 

Exactly, Augustine.  I've been banned from two Roman Catholic boards: the Steve Ray board and byzcath.  On byzcath, I was accused of "bashing" Roman Catholicism because I stated that I didn't like the Novus Ordo.  I found that charge to be absolutely absurd.  Why is criticism of the Novus Ordo "bashing" the RCC?  That was when I thought Byzantine Catholics were fellow traditionalists but I learned differently.  Most of them are really Novus Ordo.  Honestly, are there any Orthodox who like the Novus Ordo?  I've yet to meet one.  Their support for the NO is strong proof IMHO that they are not "orthodox in communion with Rome." 

As for the Steve Ray board, "neo-con" is the best way to describe it.  Interestingly about a month ago a priest chastized them for being so critical of every other Catholic.  (Claims were made that people who used birth control weren't Catholics.)  They jumped on him just as they do with everyone who rocks the boat over there.  Traditionalists would never treat a member of the clergy like that.  Of course they're mostly ex-prots.  For the record, they banned me without any notication which I thought was ironic given that they complain when that happens on the protestant boards.  In fact, one of the moderators specifically mentioned that they don't ban without notification there.  Also, their moderators (well, actually in my case, the administrator) don't follow their own rules.  They have a no baiting rule now which is funny given the games the administrator plays over there.  She also spread lies about me and was nasty and hateful to me. 

Logged
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,730


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #25 on: February 09, 2005, 04:23:04 PM »

Jennifer,

Just to be accuarte byzcath.org forum is a Byzantine forum open to anyone regardless of confession.  It has both Catholic and Orthodox moderators.  And you were not banned, you were suspended for 30 days which is now over.  Please feel free to comeback.

Fr. Deacon Lance
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Jennifer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,154


« Reply #26 on: February 09, 2005, 05:19:17 PM »

Jennifer,

Just to be accuarte byzcath.org forum is a Byzantine forum open to anyone regardless of confession. It has both Catholic and Orthodox moderators. And you were not banned, you were suspended for 30 days which is now over. Please feel free to comeback.

Fr. Deacon Lance

No thanks.  I'm still 'smarting' over the "no charity in my heart" comment.  I'm also glad that I no longer have to endure right-wing propaganda.   
Logged
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,739



« Reply #27 on: February 09, 2005, 05:30:55 PM »

Jennifer,

I've had a few problems regarding the Mass of Pope Paul VI at ByzCath, but with other Roman Catholics not Easterners, and it is really not the place to discuss it. There are many corrections/revisions in progress, hopefully they will also include the priest facing east while performing/celebrating the Liturgy etc etc.

Personally, I've started to control my bitterness(this issue is not a me thing) regarding this and are cautiously awaiting the revisions.

Now with this aside, I'm refraining from all negative comments & discussions during this Lenten Season, there are more important aspects to pursue.

james



Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.
Augustine
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 565

pray for me, please


WWW
« Reply #28 on: February 11, 2005, 12:25:31 PM »

Jennifer,

Don't worry, I was actually accused of being in need of "mental help" when in my "Lefebvrist" days I bothered posting on byzcath.org. Smiley This is typically liberal - it's what commies did/do to their own dissidents, and is apparently what liberal/"queer" RC seminaries do in order to harass/weed out seminarians of a "traditionalist" bent (even if only slightly so.) However, the "type" on byzcath.org is generally of a different sort than the people I was talking about - the "neo-con/ewtn/JP-II-the-great-and-don't-tell-me-otherwise-despite-the-obvious" types. The byzcath folks are a reality unto themselves - neither genuinely "papal", and certainly not "Orthodox." Maybe when they figure out just what they are, they'll fill all of us in.

As for our neo-con "buddies", their need for absolute homogeny is legendary. Hence, why they could not make the real distinction that the visiting priest you mentioned was capable of making - someone practicing birth-control may be a sinner, but being a sinner doesn't make them an apostate. You'd figure these papalaters would be able to make that distinction, given how much time they spend labouring to distinguish the notorious personal immorality of many of medieval Roman Popes from their office of authority and charism of "infallibility".

« Last Edit: February 11, 2005, 12:26:34 PM by Augustine » Logged
Jennifer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,154


« Reply #29 on: February 11, 2005, 01:43:02 PM »

However, the "type" on byzcath.org is generally of a different sort than the people I was talking about - the "neo-con/ewtn/JP-II-the-great-and-don't-tell-me-otherwise-despite-the-obvious" types.  The byzcath folks are a reality unto themselves - neither genuinely "papal", and certainly not "Orthodox."  Maybe when they figure out just what they are, they'll fill all of us in.


The "no charity in my heart" comment (btw, I think this is one the worst anyone has ever said to me) was in reference to my assertion that some there were "deluded" about what it means to be in communion with Rome.  I had discussed some of the things written there with a good RC priest who's a friend of mine (or rather was a friend of mine before I became a catechumen).  He told me that they were "deluded" about what they have to accept about papal infallibility and supremacy. 

There's a discussion over there right now about something from the old Catholic encyclopedia and the typical "that's not what Rome believes anymore" response was given.  I think they've come up with their own idea of what it means to be in communion with Rome.   Their idea is not at all consistent with what Rome herself teaches.  But they ignore the conflict believing that they're somehow more enlightened than the rest of the Catholic communion. Anyone who disagrees is an ultra-trad or ultramontanist. 
Logged
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,730


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #30 on: February 11, 2005, 02:34:17 PM »

In order to gain an understanding of the deluded of byzcath.org I encourage everyone to read Archbishop Elias of Baalbeck's works We Are All Schismatics, A Voice from the Byzantine East, and Ecumenical Reflections.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #31 on: February 11, 2005, 03:13:44 PM »

Bashing another message board or saying that RC message boards are bad is not very productive conersation.  There are plenty of legitimate topics of conversation, or even a way to carry this one on at more mature level...i.e the ethos of a certain group is different this group because of A, B and C,

Logged
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,526

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #32 on: February 11, 2005, 03:24:38 PM »

[He told me that they were "deluded" about what they have to accept about papal infallibility and supremacy.

There's a discussion over there right now about something from the old Catholic encyclopedia and the typical "that's not what Rome believes anymore" response was given. I think they've come up with their own idea of what it means to be in communion with Rome.  Their idea is not at all consistent with what Rome herself teaches. But they ignore the conflict believing that they're somehow more enlightened than the rest of the Catholic communion. Anyone who disagrees is an ultra-trad or ultramontanist. ]
 
=======

He was right about their delusions.  Seems everyone sees it but them.

Those within the Unia have been suffering from an identity crisis since their inception in 1596. And they still haven't decided who they really are or what they really want to be. And its been over 400+ years now! Don't expect them to suddenly figure it out now. Especially since theology seems to take a back seat to nationalism, politics, and ethnic hatred which their churches seem to thrive on. Especially amongst the Ukrainians.

All one can do when reading some of their posts is shake your head in wonder. They will spend a whole week bitching and moaning about something where Rome has either interferred in or upsurted its authority regarding them. And then in the next week go right back to trying to convince themselves as well as others that they are this self governing entity who is only 'in communion with Rome' rather than under its authority. And act highly insulted if you in anyway connect their Church to any papal connection. Perfect example is their current bitching about the new appointment by the Pope to the Russian Catholics which they seem to be in disagreement with.

Another interesting discussion is concerning the possible evangelizing or missionary aspects of their Church. They have yet to figure out the their whole Church was never created for the purpose of evangelizing, but for proseltyzing and sheep stealing amongst their Orthodox Catholic relatives and bring them into papal domination. The only type of growth expected was thru this sheep stealing rather than the preachingof the Gospel amongst the heathens. What I find interesting in their their current discussions is the fact that when they speak of 'Church growth' they have expanded their goals to proseltyze not only amongst the family they turned their backs on, but amongst the family that they ran to become part of. So much for family loyality on either side!  Perhaps Rome has taught them too well what is expected of them regarding 'Church growth' and it will now come to bite them in the a--!

It still amazes me how few of them have figured out that the only future Romes sees for them is for them to disappear! Those with loyality towards tradition and ritual will return to their mother churches and those with loyality to Rome will be expected to become full fledged papal Catholics.

I found it better to just lurk than to try and show them how the real world works. Theological issues take a back seat where they are concerned about anyway.

Orthodoc



Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
Augustine
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 565

pray for me, please


WWW
« Reply #33 on: February 11, 2005, 05:31:09 PM »

Jennifer,

Quote
The "no charity in my heart" comment (btw, I think this is one the worst anyone has ever said to me) was in reference to my assertion that some there were "deluded" about what it means to be in communion with Rome.  I had discussed some of the things written there with a good RC priest who's a friend of mine (or rather was a friend of mine before I became a catechumen).  He told me that they were "deluded" about what they have to accept about papal infallibility and supremacy.

The fact of the matter is that the conditions of their "unia" were a complete acceptance of Roman Catholic dogmas (even if not theologenum - which is fair, since those are not considered "mandatory" amongst Latins themselves), and submission to the See of Rome; just like every other Papal Catholic.  The other side of this was that they would be "allowed" to keep all of their liturgical practices (though my understanding is that even some of these were "corrected" - whether that was by Rome's decree or their own choice I'm not sure), which is really not all that shocking a concession, since that's simply a liberal application of the "Apostolic Constitution" Quo Primum, which promulgated the Tridentine reform of the Roman Mass; the decree basically stated that liturgical usages older than 200 years, or which have received a special indult, could continue to be used but always leaving the option for those so privileged to willingly choose to adopt the Tridentine ritual if they so chose.

Obviously, the liturgical use of the various uniates would fall under those auspices.

The councils of the Latins which they see as being "Ecumenical" but which Orthodoxy doesn't recognize as such, are obliging to uniates - thus the idea that they are not obliged to believe in Purgatory, the Indulgences, the Immaculate Conception, etc. is nonsense.

The idea that any of the uniate churches (even those with "Patriarchs") are truly "self governing" is a fiction, at least by Orthodox understanding.  They are in the end (even those with Patriarchal title) no more self governing than the Archbishop of Milan, or the Patriarch of Lisbon, or any member of the RC heirarchy for that matter - what authority they have, it's only what Rome has chosen to give them.  This is precisely why Orthodox-RC dialogue on reunion is not helped when Pope John Paul speaks of a "reconsideration of how the Papacy is excercised in these times", since really all that boils down to is "how much of their government is the Papacy going to delegate to them".  It appears, for the sake of their ecumenical goals, the Pope is willing to delegate quite a bit should say, the Patriarch of Antioch or the Patriarch of Moscow (ha!) enter a "re-union" with Rome.  But what really matters is that in principle, the RC dogmas on the Papacy remain the same, and that the "self government" of these churches could be revoked at any time or altered by Rome's whim.

IOW, when push comes to shove, Rome can do whatever it wants in regard to the Ukrainians, Melkites, etc.  I'm not saying they would - the fact of the matter is they know if they pushed too hard, they'd just "go into schism" and end up re-integrating into the Orthodox Churches local to them.  But the principle remains in tact.

Logged
bripat22
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 182


Slava Tebie, Boze nas! Slava Tebie


« Reply #34 on: February 11, 2005, 05:47:56 PM »

Jennifer,

Don't worry, I was actually accused of being in need of "mental help" when in my "Lefebvrist" days I bothered posting on byzcath.org. Smiley This is typically liberal - it's what commies did/do to their own dissidents, and is apparently what liberal/"queer" RC seminaries do in order to harass/weed out seminarians of a "traditionalist" bent (even if only slightly so.) However, the "type" on byzcath.org is generally of a different sort than the people I was talking about - the "neo-con/ewtn/JP-II-the-great-and-don't-tell-me-otherwise-despite-the-obvious" types. The byzcath folks are a reality unto themselves - neither genuinely "papal", and certainly not "Orthodox." Maybe when they figure out just what they are, they'll fill all of us in.

As for our neo-con "buddies", their need for absolute homogeny is legendary. Hence, why they could not make the real distinction that the visiting priest you mentioned was capable of making - someone practicing birth-control may be a sinner, but being a sinner doesn't make them an apostate. You'd figure these papalaters would be able to make that distinction, given how much time they spend labouring to distinguish the notorious personal immorality of many of medieval Roman Popes from their office of authority and charism of "infallibility".



 God, you seem to be so full of bile for everyone from any group.Is there anyone who deserves a charitable comment in this rant?Huh
 It is one thing to make comments about a group such as "neo-cons" or "traditionalists" ect.  It is another to make an ad hominen attack on another poster. 
« Last Edit: February 11, 2005, 05:50:35 PM by bripat22 » Logged

For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like!-

                            Maggie Smith "The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie"
SouthSerb99
Archbishop of Shlivo, Patriarch of All Vodkas & Defender Against All Overstepping!
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 2,800


Now Internet Forum Friendly


WWW
« Reply #35 on: February 12, 2005, 11:32:36 AM »

Frankly any discussion about "what the RC Church" thinks of any facet of our one true faith, is of no moment to me or shouldn't be to any of my brothers and sisters in this discussion.

Furthermore, much of the discussion which follows thereafter, is clearly colored with the flavor of Ecumenism. Something which should be of no interest to any of us.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2005, 11:33:15 AM by SouthSerb99 » Logged

"Wherever you go, there you are."
 Guy from my office

Orthodox Archbishopric of Ohrid
Hungry? Click Here
bripat22
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 182


Slava Tebie, Boze nas! Slava Tebie


« Reply #36 on: February 12, 2005, 03:27:54 PM »



 I really don't it is helpful for us as Orthodox to close ourselves off to other Christians in this world.  I believe that we share more especially with Roman Catholics then with any other confession excepting the Oriental Orhtodox.  To be strong in our Faith does not mean to build walls.
Logged

For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like!-

                            Maggie Smith "The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie"
SouthSerb99
Archbishop of Shlivo, Patriarch of All Vodkas & Defender Against All Overstepping!
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 2,800


Now Internet Forum Friendly


WWW
« Reply #37 on: February 12, 2005, 03:41:25 PM »

I really don't it is helpful for us as Orthodox to close ourselves off to other Christians in this world. I believe that we share more especially with Roman Catholics then with any other confession excepting the Oriental Orhtodox. To be strong in our Faith does not mean to build walls.

I don't know that it is "closing ourselves off" to anyone.  I just don't like the notion that we need/want acceptance or approval from the RC Church.  As for closing ourselves off, I think an Orthodox Christian's doors are always open, but certainly not on the issue of religious compromise.  Indeed, we have an obligation to show all that ours is the way.

My best friend happens to be Jewish, and I can assure you she's heard this many times.  Wink
Logged

"Wherever you go, there you are."
 Guy from my office

Orthodox Archbishopric of Ohrid
Hungry? Click Here
prodromos
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,463

Sydney, Australia


« Reply #38 on: February 14, 2005, 03:54:52 AM »


IOW, when push comes to shove, Rome can do whatever it wants in regard to the Ukrainians, Melkites, etc. I'm not saying they would - the fact of the matter is they know if they pushed too hard, they'd just "go into schism" and end up re-integrating into the Orthodox Churches local to them. But the principle remains in tact.


Regarding the Melkites, my understanding is that when they formally joined Rome (since they had not ever officially been separate) it was agreed that they not be required to accept any dogmas/doctrines which they did not already hold to. This has since become a real thorn in Rome's side as this reunion happened in 1724, before the promulgation of such dogmas as Papal Infallibility and the Immaculate Conception which the Melkites still do not accept.

BTW, if anyone can track down the text of the 1724 agreement it would be much appreciated as it has been discussed on other forums and noone seems to be able to find it anywhere.

John
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 9,907


ΠΑΝΑΓΙΑ ΣΟΥΜΕΛΑ


« Reply #39 on: February 14, 2005, 04:32:40 AM »

John,
Are you csure you're not mixing Melkites and Maronites together here?

Demetri
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,730


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #40 on: February 14, 2005, 11:57:31 AM »

"The fact of the matter is that the conditions of their "unia" were a complete acceptance of Roman Catholic dogmas (even if not theologenum - which is fair, since those are not considered "mandatory" amongst Latins themselves), and submission to the See of Rome"

The conditions of the Unions were quite respectful of Eastern traditions, the Easterners only had to stop declaring heretical those doctrines or practices they disputed. Filioque and purgatory on the doctrine side. Unleavened bread and pouring instead of immersing on the baptism side.

"though my understanding is that even some of these were "corrected" - whether that was by Rome's decree or their own choice I'm not sure"

Not a single Latinization of an Eastern liturgy was ever done by Rome's decree, all were adopted freely (and unfortunately), unlike the mandated Byzantinizations of Latin liturgies among the Western Rite Orthodox.  Although some popes, Blessed Pius IV especially, favored some of the Latinizations adopted by the Byzantines as this served to distinguish them from the Orthodox.

"thus the idea that they are not obliged to believe in Purgatory, the Indulgences, the Immaculate Conception, etc. is nonsense."

Please read the books by Archbishop Elias I referenced above.  He is a bishop in good standing in the Melkite Catholic Church and has quite openly proclaimed that post- schism councils are not Ecumenical and finds no post-schism teaching binding.  Rome has not disciplined or excommunicated him.

"They are in the end (even those with Patriarchal title) no more self governing than the Archbishop of Milan, or the Patriarch of Lisbon, or any member of the RC heirarchy for that matter - what authority they have, it's only what Rome has chosen to give them."

Not true.  The Eastern Catholic Patriarchs are elceted and enthroned by their Synods.  The Pope could refude communion with him, but this could happen in among the Orthodox as well.  An Eastern Catholic Patriarch authority over his Church is far beyond anything a Latin Catholic Metropolitan Archbishop has over his suffragans or the faithful in their dioceses.

"But what really matters is that in principle, the RC dogmas on the Papacy remain the same, and that the "self government" of these churches could be revoked at any time or altered by Rome's whim.  IOW, when push comes to shove, Rome can do whatever it wants in regard to the Ukrainians, Melkites, etc.  I'm not saying they would - the fact of the matter is they know if they pushed too hard, they'd just "go into schism" and end up re-integrating into the Orthodox Churches local to them.  But the principle remains in tact."

But you provide the proof in the pudding, Rome can say what it wants, but Rome can do nothing really without the consent of the hierarchs of a given Church.  And indeed if Rome pushed to hard Churches would leave communion.  So in reality Eastern Catholic Churches are as autonomos as they are willing to be.

Fr. Deacon Lance
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,076


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #41 on: February 14, 2005, 02:14:40 PM »

Deacon Lance,

Please don't insult everyone's intelligence here by affirming that latinizations were adopted "freely" by Eastern Catholic Churches. You are right of course, in saying that nothing happened because of a Roman decree. Well, not directly. But have you forgotten how Pope Benedict XIV called the Roman rite "the most excellent" just because it was the liturgy of the Roman Church? The various latinizations that have come about have not been introduced because Eastern Catholics just felt like being closer to their Roman mother. They were made to feel inferior and encouraged and pressured ( if not outright coerced ) to adopt latinizations. Now, of course, Rome is encouraging the Eastern-rite groups to rediscover their authentic Eastern heritage.

I'm sure you're also quite aware that Rome has more direct authority over the "non-patriarchal" Eastern Catholics. Not that Augustine isn't right when he says that the Pope is allowed to do whatever he wants in any Eastern Catholic Church, political suicide notwithstanding.

The Melkite Church can (and largely does) believe whatever it llikes. It is the Orthodox understanding that they accept everything about Roman dogma simply by being in communion with the Roman see. I know that many of them are very sincere, but simply by saying they don't believe something doesn't mean that they are free of any corruptions that may be associated with (what are to the Orthodox )erroneus doctrines. To be in communion is to be in communion with everything that is essential to a community's doctrine. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Bob
« Last Edit: February 14, 2005, 02:26:11 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,730


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #42 on: February 14, 2005, 03:51:22 PM »

Bob,

What do you then make of the Latinizations adopted by the Orthodox? The fact is Rome did not force a single Latinization other than mandatory celibacy in the diaspora. Now encouragement of Latinization by some of the Latin Religious and Monastic Orders that trained our priests and yours certainly occured nor am I denying that we were in second class status for a period. However, the liturgical Latinizations were relatively minor things, using a lention instead of a sponge, not using the zeon, bowing at "He became man" in the Creed, use of Santus bells, and other minor things.

On the otherhand, inserting the Byzantine epiclesis into the Western Rite Liturgy is quite a major thing, asserting that the ancient Roman Canon is deficient when SS. Maximos the Confessor and Nichoal Cabasilas understood that the Supplices te rogamus prayer:

"Humbly we beseech Thee, almighty God, to command that these our offerings be carried by the hands of Thy holy Angel to Thine Altar on high, in the sight of Thy divine Majesty, so that those of us who shall receive the most sacred Body + and Blood + of Thy Son by partaking thereof from this Altar may be filled with every grace and heavenly blessing: Through the same Christ our Lord. Amen."

 is and was the only Epiclesis in or needed in the Roman Canon.

Fr. Deacon Lance
« Last Edit: February 14, 2005, 03:51:42 PM by Deacon Lance » Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 9,907


ΠΑΝΑΓΙΑ ΣΟΥΜΕΛΑ


« Reply #43 on: February 14, 2005, 04:13:32 PM »

What do you then make of the Latinizations adopted by the Orthodox? 
 

Question, Deacon Lance:

To what "Orthodox" are you referring?
« Last Edit: February 14, 2005, 04:14:36 PM by +æ-ü+¦-â-ä+++¦+++«-é » Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,730


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #44 on: February 14, 2005, 04:55:58 PM »

I was thinking primarily of the Ukrainian and Russian Orthodox who were trained in West and adopted a very Latinized theology.  One could also point to ACROD who held unto many liturgical Latinizations long after they had rejoined Orthodoxy.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 »  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 0.157 seconds with 72 queries.