Tuesday, September 30, 2014

On living midcentury and more

  • From Face to Face: Status contests and the shift from involuntary to voluntary identities. Ouch. Defense: it's not like pretending to be black or a woman. Part of my own culture and, like the old joke about dogs, because I can. Why bother? Because it's better. I've said Westerners becoming Orthodox are self-hating, but some are called to Greek Catholicism. Sure, it's like moving to New York and becoming a New Yorker; more important, there's only one church.
  • Damian Thompson: Human beings aren’t built to handle "celebrity."
  • The church: The Ciudad del Este case. Urrutigoity was dangerous; no responsible bishop would have taken him. Because as a priest taught me 25 years ago, when you are in his position, you not only have to BE above board; you have to LOOK above board. Urrutigoity was not only dangerous but scandalous. That said, it seems he cleaned up his act in that diocese, and the war with the old liberals is still on. We lost our protector in Benedict; low-church Francis is not our friend. MIGHT this Paraguayan diocese's acceptance of Urrutigoity be something to do with Latino culture seeing the priesthood as a sort of dumping ground for its maricones? Latins generally are primordially Catholic but with no romantic illusions about the clergy.
  • "Byzantine Catholic" on Facebook: no. Another page hijacked by anti-papal types, self-hating Westerners: soi-disant Orthodox and their wiggers, OicwRs. Regarding "Why don't we all just become Orthodox?" (no, thank you), Bob Gardner, a putative Catholic: This post doesn't address the question the lead-in suggested it would (i.e. why so stubborn about the latter-day claims of "the Bishop of Rome?") At least you acknowledge that the claims are latter day, that's something I suppose, but how do the claims square with St. Vincent's canon since that was referenced in the post? If the Orthodox view of remarriage was acceptable to the undivided church who are you to question it? When did annulments start in the west? What does the historical record say, or shouldn't we worry about that because you say we shouldn't? Shawna Hoekstra, Orthodox: I will be straight with you. I don't want to read your blog. Because posting it in a forum like this strikes me as shameless self-promotion, and the precious little time I have to read long documents is reserved for theologians who have gone onto glory often via martyrdom. Stuart Koehl: Try to get those lithium levels back in balance, John. Stop being our problem; the door's over there. If that's what you really believe about the teachings of the church, you should join Miss Hoekstra rather than be hypocrites causing scandal among us. Put your soul's fate where your mouth is. Answers: development of doctrine and non-contradiction. The Orthodox can't prove to me that the essentials of the faith are different under the Pope (so we don't have Calvinism's problem of a bad premise with perfect logic based on it), and Catholicism doesn't hate the East like Orthodoxy hates the West. "Acceptable to the undivided church" or an abuse based on civil power? So far I don't buy the "proof" it was acceptable; it all comes from Orthodox and OicwRs. Catholic doctrine makes sense.
  • Some British inside jokes explained. Glad we don't hate redheads; maybe because generally we're so Irish.
  • Japan as a U.S. vassal state.

2 comments:

  1. " 'Acceptable to the undivided church' or an abuse based on civil power? So far I don't buy the 'proof' it was acceptable; it all comes from Orthodox and OicwRs."

    Well, if the Orthodox practice was only "standardized" and given official recognition in the years around/after 900, it came at a time when the papacy was at one of its ebb points, and that's assuming that it was brought to Rome's attention; and there's the further assumption that Rome would do something, issue a denunciation or protest, say, once it learned of it. But if you have problems closer to home, why make a fuss that will almost certainly have no effect?

    What one can say, though, is that Rome does have a history throughout these centuries of resisting and overruling (when granted by complaisant bishops) marriage dissolutions of the sort which the Byzantines accepted, or came to accept. I can think offhand of papal resistance to the attempted divorce of Charlemagne's great-grandson, Lothair II (d. 869) and, centuries later, of that of Philip II of France (d. 1223). This being the case, it is difficulty to argue that situations in the West that the papacy has resisted as constituting (and endorsing) adultery are okay when Easterners do it. I often wonder whether those who argue that the papacy should "accept" the Orthodox practice really desire them to accept it for the Catholic Church as a whole as well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I often wonder whether those who argue that the papacy should "accept" the Orthodox practice really desire them to accept it for the Catholic Church as a whole as well.

      Only logical. Doctrine doesn't apply to just one part of the church, a reason the OicwRs' game doesn't make sense to Catholics. It makes sense to Orthodox. The OicwRs are trying to convert us to Orthodoxy from within, then, appealing to our teaching that both churches have the sacraments, asking the Orthodox to come in economically.

      Delete

Leave comment