- Wrong: The Orthodox. "If you don't use our kind of images, you're outside the church."
- Wrong: Many of the first Protestants. "Christians must ban images. They're idols." Iconoclasm, originally an Eastern heresy, redux.
- Right: Certainly not Anglicans at their founding, the Protestant position, but yes, Anglicans now, and I dare say the church agrees: "All can; some should; none must." But those who don't use them must accept the principle behind those who do. Not only can we use images but venerate them (on which many Protestants are still wrong).
I'm not sure how accurate it is to say that for Catholics iconography/sacred imagery is "optional." I know what you're getting at. Catholics have no obligatory practices (such as metanias, kissing icons, etc.), nor do we have uniform "canonical" ways to depict sacred subjects. But still the word "optional" bothers me a bit.
Nicæa II said not only is it possible and not heterodox to have sacred images, but sacred imagery is necessary for Christianity because to secure a proper understanding of the Incarnation, his visible appearance/revelation in the flesh, among men.
No need to worry. I agree that "images are idols" is forbidden in Catholicism. I've tried to get that across. "Sacred imagery is necessary for Christianity"? Maybe, but everywhere in Christianity? There are different schools of spirituality, different cultures... so an imageless Eastern Christianity, the Nestorian/Assyrian tradition as it became under Mohammedan persecution, coexists with image-laden Greek and Spanish pieties. The low-profile, Georgian Anglican-like Catholicism of English colonists in Tidewater Virginia and an Italian saint's neighborhood
festa in New York with people pinning $5 bills on the statue. We're not "either/or" like the Orthodox; we're "both/and" as far as practice goes. But we don't have contradictory theologies, pro and con, about images.
I've always wondered about a comment of Joseph Ratzinger in his book Spirit of the Liturgy, to the effect that the Latin West never really came to a full reception of Nicæa II, or a proper realization of the implications of its teaching. I don't take that to mean that we should all Byzantinize ourselves ... perhaps he means something like the West never really developed an idea of the icon as liturgical object. It also explains the waves of iconoclasm that swept the West at the Reformation and post-Vatican II.
I've long liked the notion that icons are halfway between Latin statues and a sacramental presence. Turns out to be a recent idea from a Russian, Leonid Ouspensky, but nice all the same. Sure, deepen our appreciation of images so some of our people stop trying to turn us into Protestants.
Catholic integralism is the true seamless garment.
Thank you, Captain Obvious. And for this, I expect that you will use all the means necessary to block me.
ReplyDeleteBuddy, I don't know what your problem is and don't care.
DeleteI was going to mention the then Cardinal Ratzinger's book. I believe he praises, in it, not only Nicaea II but the "Stoglav Council" (the "Council of a Hundred Canons") held in Moscow in 1551, for their pronouncements on Iconodulia.
ReplyDeleteErrrm… who are you to define orthodoxy, small-o, big-O or any other kind of o?
ReplyDeleteBecause God gave man an intellect, so one can read a catechism, for example, and think logically, which is compatible with faith, Christian revelation, as St. Thomas Aquinas and others showed, using Aristotle's philosophy as a tool. So no, I won't just shut up and buy into your schismatic church.
DeleteAn intellect allows you to express an opinion, it hardly allows you to define orthodoxy. If it did then orthodoxy has no meaning. According to you, orthodoxy means various divergent opinions, which is actually, linguistically speaking, the opposite of orthodoxy.
DeleteThis is something the Orthodox just don't get. Small-o orthodoxy points out basic truths; within that there's lots of room for different cultures and opinions. We don't have to be in one empire and its satellites.
DeleteSmall-o orthodoxy is a myth. All it means is one schismatic deciding how big a circle to draw around himself so as to exclude his own favourite heresies and include a particular set of beliefs he is apathetic about. Every such "small-o orthodox" proponent draws the circle differently, thus leading to a near infinite number of "churches" consisting of which people every heretic are willing to include in their "communion".
DeleteIf you think this approach is so great, I can just as easily say that big-O Orthodox do the same thing, and you just happen to fall on the outside of our circle, outside of the pale of Orthodoxy on our essentials and basic truths.
The difference is of course, we don't decide as individuals where the circle is, unlike you.
The "empire and its satellites" is just rhetorical flourish. What empire? Orthodox jurisdictions are independent, so the accusation of "one empire" is just nonsense. We are one in belief, that's all
Well, as William Tighe has reminded elsewhere, all of the ancient churches claimed to be the true one, including the heresies, and all the remaining ancient churches still do. Choosing among the four big contenders — us, you, the Monophysites, and the Nestorians — is a matter of faith.
DeleteI can just as easily say that big-O Orthodox do the same thing, and you just happen to fall on the outside of our circle, outside of the pale of Orthodoxy...
That you do.
... on our essentials and basic truths.
But the trouble with you is what you claim are essentials and basic truths are often just national/ethnic boosterism, cultural stuff, which may be why you hemorrhage people once they're third-generation Americans and not really Eastern European or Middle Eastern anymore. Plus, anybody who's really spiritual sees through the propping up of the tribe and concludes there's nothing really there for him intellectually, etc.
The difference is of course, we don't decide as individuals where the circle is, unlike you.
Neither do we. The difference, besides truly accepting more than one set of cultures and one rite, is that we believe the Pope uniquely shares in the church's charism of infallibility. You accuse him of overstepping his bounds. The real issue is he ended up outside your empire and culture so you arrogantly declared him, and us, outside the church. How are those empires working out? Eastern Europe is a story of slow decline; Byzantium politically is dead, now taken over by Turkey, and while Russia's great for Russians, I wouldn't want to live there or re-create it here. My faith says I don't have to.
There is no such thing as "the Orthodox Church." There is only one world church, the Catholic Church; you are dioceses sharing a rite but estranged from us and besides, you have very little to do with each other. Then you've got the power struggle between Constantinople, the sick old man that was the headquarters of the old empire, and Moscow, your only geopolitically important church because it's controlled by a superpower with massive territory plus nukes. Those two could break communion with each other.
Which things do we supposedly declare as essential but is actually cultural boosterism? Not images, since they are accepted by your "big 4". So what then? Rhetorical flourish deserves some hard facts.
ReplyDeleteStrange you should promote the concept of small-o orthodoxy and in the same breath mention papal infallibility. If ever there was a doctrine that was so poorly attested it deserved to be (at best) optional, it would be that doctrine. What makes it so special that you seem to elevate it out of small-o orthodoxy to such significance?
And if Papal infallibility is so great, how come nobody knows when it was used? I can infallibly tell you stuff, I'm just not going to tell you when I'm talking infallibly. It's a bit of a joke, right? Scott Hahn believes that there have been only 2 ex-cathedra pronouncements by popes which are infallible, Tim Staples believes that there are 4, Adam S. Miller 11, Fr. Leslie Rumble 18, and so on and so forth. This doctrine could be totally true, and yet still completely useless.
You accept all cultures unlike us? Isn't that claim heavy with irony considering that the east west schism was precipitated by the Pope stopping the churches of southern Italy from practicing eastern rite christianity? Isn't it heavy with irony considering with what a heavy hand the Pope has forced western practices on eastern rite churches? That's why we have Ukrainian churches with clean shaven priests in buildings with stained glass windows, forbidden to marry and wearing western clerical collars - because of a total lack of respect for eastern christian culture.
What is your evidence that we don't accept different cultures? Each Orthodox church has its own cultural peculiarities, and it doesn't seem to bother anyone. There are even a few "western" rite dioceses (not many, because of historical realities). It seems to me your claims are just fictional. Your idea of accepting many cultures is brow beating them into looking exactly like your own, and then proudly proclaiming how you accept their cultures.
And strangely you want to argue and play both sides against the middle, one minute arguing we are "one empire" and who needs to be in one empire? the next minute saying our churches "don't talk to each other" and promoting your centrally based emperor.
Turkey blah blah, Russia blah blah. So what? Most of Europe used to be ruled from the papal palace. That empire shrank and shrank and shrank until now it's half a square kilometre, and Italy is as pagan as anywhere in the world. What of it? What of Constantinople and Moscow? There are no power struggles in the Vatican and Catholicism?!?! Ha!
Which things do we supposedly declare as essential but is actually cultural boosterism? Not images, since they are accepted by your "big 4". So what then? Rhetorical flourish deserves some hard facts.
DeleteAn example: "Wrong: The Orthodox. 'If you don't use our kind of images, you're outside the church.'" Or treating leavened vs. unleavened bread or Communion under both kinds for the laity as doctrinal. Among the dumbest reasons I've heard for schism.
I can infallibly tell you stuff, I'm just not going to tell you when I'm talking infallibly. It's a bit of a joke, right?
No dumber than denying the Immaculate Conception yet pushing a fairy tale that Mary lived in the Holy of Holies, or "sometimes adultery is OK" to have divorce and remarriage (up to three times), or making excuses for contraception just like modern Protestants. Besides the creeds and other decrees of the first seven councils, and an entirely Catholic liturgy, theologically there's nothing there on your side.
I understand Eastern Slavic ex-Catholic resentment of us in America; that schism cuts me to the bone even though I'm not one of their people, because I've been to those churches and met those people on both sides. We haven't always lived up to our teaching supporting all traditional rites. But with the Ukrainians, for example, the biggest Eastern Catholic church, nine times out of 10 they latinized themselves. The unlatinized forms have our full support (ever been to the Russian Catholic church in Manhattan, St. Michael's?) but the self-latinized forms have the right to exist too. See, we're "both/and," not "either/or" on things that are not doctrine. (Why some churches have celibate priests and others have married priests.) And that religion of spite of the ex-Catholics, where their church exists to try to preserve their culture, has no staying power beyond three generations in America.
There are even a few "western" rite dioceses (not many, because of historical realities).
Not as far as I know. Your Western Rite churches are not under their own patriarchs nor even have their own bishops; all your Western Rite clergy are ordained in the Byzantine Rite and are under your Byzantine Rite bishops. It's obvious you want to byzantinize everyone. Byzantium's great, but no thanks. Eastern Catholics, on the other hand, are usually of relatively fair size and consist of whole peoples, for centuries, with their own bishops.
...promoting your centrally based emperor.
Actually no. Historically Western Catholicism wasn't all that centralized because travel and communication were so hard. Like you, we've always been run largely by custom.
Most of Europe used to be ruled from the papal palace.
No. See above. And that's the rub, isn't it? "How dare the Pope claim universal jurisdiction? The Byzantine emperor or Russian, Bulgarian, etc. tsar should rule by right as God's vicar on earth!" No thanks.
There are no power struggles in the Vatican and Catholicism?!?! Ha!
We have many opinions and schools of spirituality that sometimes don't get along, but there is still only one faith and one church, and those are Catholic.
Why Eastern Orthodoxy for you? Were you born into it? If not, why not the Monophysites, for example, who have the same true-church claim we and you do?
I'm not called to live in an Eastern rite and I'm not interested in worshipping Greekness, Russianness, Serbianness, etc., as a substitute for the church.
"If you don't use our kind of images, you're outside the church.'"
DeleteThat quote is from where? Because I never heard such thing.
"Communion under both kinds for the laity as doctrinal. "
""Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man --AND-- drink his blood, you have no life in you."
How many times have we seen Catholics throwing that in the faces of Protestants?
"Or treating leavened vs. unleavened bread"
I think, and it could be discussed, that the Roman church introduced unleavened bread around the 9th century. The Roman church made an awful lot of changes around the 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th centuries, and then they blame the Orthodox for getting up tight about holding to the apostolic tradition.
Wouldn't it be better if Rome stopped changing stuff so as to not arise controversy? Withholding the cup from the laity: 13th century. Baptism by pouring: 12th century. Indulgences: 11th century. Not giving communion to infants: 12th century. Not chrismating infants: 13th century. The list could go on. Is it our fault you keep changing stuff?
"No dumber than denying the Immaculate Conception yet pushing a fairy tale that Mary lived in the Holy of Holies"
Do you understand the difference between Mary being sinless and Mary being immaculately conceived? And how are we supposed to teach the immaculate conception when we don't believe in your version of original sin in the first place?
"sometimes adultery is OK"
Did you notice the word "except" at Mt 19:9?
"making excuses for contraception just like modern Protestants"
The problem being what? Rome has nearly zero evidence for their position which frankly defies reason. All they've got is a few off hand comments by some church fathers whose comments are equally as damning of so-called Natural Family Planning which is heavily promoted by Catholicism (and not by Orthodoxy). So what's your excuse? As St Cyprian said, "A custom without truth is ancient error."
And guess what? We don't even know if what passes for Catholic orthodoxy on contraception is even doctrine or mere opinion. I mean, lots of things used to seem like core Catholic doctrine like limbo for unbaptised infants and hell fire for those in schism with Rome, but those are now out of favour. Who knows what will be out of favour in some years.
"We haven't always lived up to our teaching supporting all traditional rites"
No you haven't and you still don't. Which is why I find it odd you would hang your hat on the truth of Catholicism on the very point that it has failed at so miserably, whilst not removing that log from your eye, franticly looking for this splinter in Orthodoxy's eye.
"nine times out of 10 they latinized themselves."
DeleteDon't know about 9 out of 10, but even when the latinisation wasn't of the form of a non-negotiable decree from the Vatican it came in the form of western clerics sent to the East with a general attitude of "We are better than you and this is how we do it in Rome, why don't you do it too". It was all part of the general theory that the Pope and Rome is the head of the church and thus anything emanating from there is better than anybody else. And let's not forget the whole schism started with the FORCED latinisation of southern Italy. Even now, contrary to ancient tradition, Rome must approve the election of eastern patriarchs.
Canon 43 (of the Eastern Catholic Churches)
"The Bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore, in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise."
Canon 45:
1. The Roman Pontiff, by virtue of his office (munus), not only has power over the entire Church but also possesses a primacy of ordinary power over all the eparchies and groupings of them by which the proper, ordinary and immediate power which bishops possess in the eparchy entrusted to their care is both strengthened and safeguarded.
3. There is neither appeal nor recourse against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.
All this is totally a-historical in terms of the relationship between Rome and other churches and is in no small part the cause of the supposed "self" latinisation.
"but the self-latinized forms have the right to exist too."
Do they? I've seen documents telling Eastern Catholics to "recover" their eastern traditions. You can't keep your self-latinisations whilst abandoning them too on instruction from Rome.
"See, we're "both/and," not "either/or" on things that are not doctrine."
That's why there's is a long tradition of married eastern rite priests in North America right? Oh wait...
"Not as far as I know. Your Western Rite churches are not under their own patriarchs nor even have their own bishops"
Uh huh. Because that would be contrary to the canons. We are having discussions about moving away from such things, not towards them. In any case, on a pure practical level there aren't many western rite churches so it would be absurd for them to have their own bishops, and that is for historical reasons that the east didn't go invading the west trying to easternise you lot, but vice versa.
"Historically Western Catholicism wasn't all that centralized because travel and communication were so hard. "
Nonsense. Unlike the east which had many patriarchs, the west had only one. And let's not forget Unum Sanctum where the Pope declared that he had not only universal spiritual power, but temporal power too, and it was absolutely essential to be subject to the Pope for salvation in both areas.
"Like you, we've always been run largely by custom."
Not once the Pope got it into his head he had absolute power and could go change anything he liked. See the above discussion of the 9th - 13th centuries.
"The Byzantine emperor or Russian, Bulgarian, etc. tsar should rule by right as God's vicar on earth!""
Much better to have a secular ruler than combine them in one Pope.
"If not, why not the Monophysites, for example, who have the same true-church claim we and you do?"
The monophysites so-called have had discussions with us, and neither of us are really convinced that we teach anything different. It's just an argument over vocabulary.
John stated the following: "Uh huh. Because that would be contrary to the canons. We are having discussions about moving away from such things, not towards them. In any case, on a pure practical level there aren't many western rite churches so it would be absurd for them to have their own bishops, and that is for historical reasons that the east didn't go invading the west trying to easternise you lot, but vice versa."
ReplyDeletePersonally, I have no idea where such levels of ignorance come from. The reality is in southern Italy, when it was occupied by the Byzantines, they demanded that all diocese and parishes adopt the Greek liturgy: " Emperor Nikephoros II Phokas and the Patriarch Polyeuctus made it obligatory on the bishops, in 968, to adopt the Byzantine Rite. This order aroused lively opposition in some quarters, as at Bari, under Bishop Giovanni. Nor was it executed in other places immediately and universally. Cassano and Taranto, for instance, are said to have always maintained the Latin Rite. At Trani, in 983, Bishop Rodostamo was allowed to retain the Latin Rite, as a reward for aiding in the surrender of the city to the Greeks. About the middle of the eleventh century, however, Bishop Giovanni II the Constantinople Patriarch Michael I Cerularius after the Great Schism of 1054. In every diocese there were always some churches which never forsook the Latin Rite; on the other hand, long after the restoration of that rite, there remained Greek churches with native Greek clergy."
Of course, history has never been a strong point with the Byzantines.
What you quoted doesn't have any bearing on what I said which that "we", I.e. The current Orthodox churches don't have many western rite because "we" didn't invade the west to easternise them. Yes sure, at points in history some easternisation took place, but those places are no longer "us", they are your lot now. You can't equate the long dead Byzantine empire with the Orthodox Church. For one thing we were one church back then, so whatever happened then wasn't us and them. And Pope Leo willingly signed over southern Italy to Constantinople. So you can hardly blame us about the current arrangements in Italy as far as bishops, that's your issue, not ours. BTW, your initial whinge was that our western rite churches don't have their own bishop, and yet in Southern Italy the Greek churches never did either right? So why quote something that defeats your own point?
DeleteYou certainly did not have trouble trying to destroy and Byzantinize all of the Oriental Orthodox churches when they were under the thumb of the Byzantine Empire. You church only has one liturgical tradition, and when you have had the power, you have always destroyed older traditions if they were not Byzantine.
DeleteOh, the eastern rite is quite alive and well in Southern Italy, I was there this summer, and does indeed have its own bishops. Pray tell, how many non-Byzantine bishops, of any tradition, does Byzantium have? Well, none comes to mind.
Delete"And Pope Leo willingly signed over southern Italy to Constantinople."
DeleteNonsense; it was the Emperor Leo III, the great propounder of iconoclasm, who transferred southern Italy from Rome to C'ple, precisely because Rome refused to accept his iconoclastic decrees.
Thanks William, I was going to point this out as well. It is typical of the Byzantines to force anyone not of Byzantine heritage to become so:
Delete"When, in 726, Leo III the Isaurian withdrew Southern Italy from the patriarchal jurisdiction of Rome and gave it to the Patriarch of Constantinople, the process of hellenization became more rapid; it received a further impulse when, on account of the Muslim conquest of Sicily, by Greeks and hellenized Sicilians fled to Calabria and Apulia. Still it was not rapid enough to suit the Byzantine emperors, who feared lest those regions should again fall under the influence of the West, like the Duchy of Rome and the Exarchate of Ravenna."
"Oh, the eastern rite is quite alive and well in Southern Italy, I was there this summer, and does indeed have its own bishops."
Delete"Ecclesiastical law, based on the constitution of the Church, provides that there shall be but one bishop of each diocese." -- Catholic Encyclopedia.
At least the Orthodox acknowledge this is a problem and are slowly trying to solve it. But Roman Catholicism seems happy to sit in the mud of their heresy and be proud of their multiple bishops per city model. And you are happily promoting it as a model.
BTW, I think there might be a western rite orthodox bishop in Union des Assosiations Cultuelles Orthodoxes de rite occidental in France. But who cares. Unlike Roman Catholicism people aren't in a rite, churches are. So we don't need to fix hard the boundaries of a rite like you guys. I suspect you guys only do it because you are dead scared that all your priests will run off and join the eastern rites so they can get a wife, and the people will start insisting they can remarry in accordance with the ancient practice of the eastern churches. And we can't have that, seeing as western rite practices are oh-so superior.
Byzantinize the Oriental Orthodox? If you remember your own theology, you reckon the head of the church back then was the Pope of Rome with "full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.". So if that's true, why didn't the pope do something about it?
Oh wait, he didn't because that is a figment of the recent Roman church's imagination.
I've answered you and you're outgunned, John. William Tighe is a history professor with his doctorate from Cambridge, and Dale is a born Orthodox, graduate of the St. Serge Institute, Paris (intelligentsia Russian Orthodox, their Vatican II and Novus Ordo, so to speak, which St. Vladimir's Seminary is a sort of spinoff from), and a former Russian Orthodox priest, now an Anglican; both know your own schtick, your own script, better than you do. We are not interested in joining your churches.
DeleteIt's elementary, John: Catholics have the same faith as you (in other words, born Orthodox are estranged Catholics) but we're not tied down to a set of cultures, and this church has taught all nations. A universal church in every sense, which includes the Christian East and not just the Byzantines. It's not about the Pope's person, about whom I care little beyond "goodwill to men," or digging up historical grievances, which the Byzantines seem to enjoy selectively doing (still propping up the empire). As Catholics and Anglicans, we don't hate the Christian East. (The first traditional Mass I attended was Ukrainian, and Professor Tighe is an official Ukrainian Catholic by choice.) Most of the Christian East takes a perverse pleasure in hating us.
...Roman Catholicism seems happy to sit in the mud of their heresy and be proud of their multiple bishops per city model. And you are happily promoting it as a model.
BTW, I think there might be a western rite orthodox bishop in Union des Assosiations Cultuelles Orthodoxes de rite occidental in France. But who cares. Unlike Roman Catholicism people aren't in a rite, churches are. So we don't need to fix hard the boundaries of a rite like you guys.
1. Your churches have not attempted an ecumenical council since the estrangement of our sides and thus have never made it their doctrine that we are heretics. That we are heretics is just schismatic opinion.
2. I think that fellow in France either never was or is no longer really Orthodox.
3. Determined schismatics like you just can't take yes for an answer, and I guess it just gets you angrier. Unlike your churches, where it's clear that the Western Riters are Byzantines in different dress, the Catholic Church has had whole Eastern peoples, whole churches, with their own bishops, for centuries. Canons aren't doctrine: we have Eastern bishops in Western lands (not without acrimony from some of our Western bishops) in order to protect Eastern cultures (and for pastoral reasons, and to prevent more of the schisms that our earlier attempts at uniformity in the New World caused). Your side selectively follows its unenforceable, contradictory canons regarding one bishop per see regarding the Western Riters and that's not centralization and byzantinization? We take steps to protect Eastern rites and you damn us anyway. Naturally, I don't care what you think.
Your attempts to convert me only make me happier to be what and where I am.
So your big argument for your side is that due to accidents of history, at this point in time, your side invaded and held eastern rite lands, whereas our side didn't invade and keep western rite lands, and therefore you are great. (Facepalm)
DeleteWhy is the big argument eastern vs western rite anyway? Every church has a different rite. The eastern churches have more in common with each other than with the western rites, but it's all window dressing really. We have western rites which shows it's not an issue, so what is your big western rite argument amount to?
If Orthodox have the same faith as you, are you saying you have no issues whatsoever with our doctrines? If so, why the polemics about our doctrines like for example remarriage? You can't have it both ways, either our faith is ok, or it is not. Which side do you want to push today?
If your system of dual hierarchies is so great at protecting the eastern rites, how come you had it for so many hundred years, and yet eastern rites were denied things like married priests, and your eastern rites progressively descended to where it is indistinguishable from western? Seems like the scheme was a total failure. If and when permission comes, it's not from eastern bishops, it's crawling on hands and knees and getting western approval just to do the things that historically were done in the east without bothering to even tell the west about.
1. Ecumenical councils are a sign of internal conflict and division needing resolution. Why would lack of division be a sign of a problem?
2. I believe those French folks have approval from the Serbians.
3. Your eastern rites look like westerners in Byzantine dress. Often lacking married priests, having western clean shaven, western clerical collars, stained glass windows, sometimes you can barely notice a difference from western rite. At least we have the excuse that our western rite is reconstructed, yours is merely corrupted.
Yes we have a lot of issues regarding the one bishop per see principle, but it's a topic we talk about a lot with a view to resolving. I hear a lot of priests saying they don't have an issue being under a different countries bishop if the unification can be negotiated.
You guys have got a confusing and contradictory ecclesiology. Only cardinals can elect a pope for example. But the highest position is supposed to be patriarch and metropolitan. Cardinal is a totally a-historical position. You guys can't figure out your own hierarchy because you're struggling with incorporating the a-historical medieval Catholic Church with the historical world wide church. And that extends to your idea of who the pope is, which is basically based on the pseudo Isidorian decretals which were long admitted to be forgeries. Despite that, your Eastern Catholic canon law is based on this forged concept of the papacy and universal church, yet you can't grasp the idea you need to back away from falsity.
Here's the bottom line to the whole discussion: EVERYTHING we do can be traced to the pre-schism church, and we haven't changed one iota. Tons of stuff you do has changed. The mode of baptism, age of christmation, paedo-communion, direct papal involvement in eastern decision making, liturgical fiddling (e.g. Facing the congregation), age of christmation, communion of both kinds, changing the creed, the list is endless, we didn't change, you guys did, and you didn't ask our opinion first, and you didn't ask the apostles either. Why should orthodoxy feel guilty for just not changing? Why should we pay attention to you guys who seem happy to change whatever you want, whenever you want without asking us first?
I don't bother your side's blogs and forums anymore. Why are you trolling mine?
DeleteBecause young fogey, you mentioned the Orthodox. And I note that my challenges to prove your contentions have been ignored. For example I challenged you too document "If you don't use our kind of images, you're outside the church." claim, but that was ignored. I don't think you've documented much actually, except that you think Roman Catholicism is really great because you've got (highly westernised) eastern bishops.
DeleteCountless of your co-religionists say one MUST use icons — not just images, icons — to be truly and fully Christian. I say that's cultural stuff being pushed as necessary for salvation. I think Catholicism is great because we don't do that. You CAN use icons but you don't have to.
DeleteEste hogar es católico. Favor de no chingar.
Somehow, following this thread, I called to mind a lovely piece of Augustan prose from a theologically eccentric but interesting book, the two volumes of which were my bedtime reading for a couple of months in 1983: *The Unbloody Sacrifice and Altar Unvailed and Supported, in which the nature of the Eucharist is explained according to the sentiments of the Christian Church in the first four centuries* (1718) by John Johnson; in particular, to an appendix to the second volume in which Johnson responds to the critique of his views and those of his fellow high-churchman George Hickes (a Nonjuror, unlike Johnson). Johnson (1662-1723) was for most of his adult life Vicar of Cranborne, Co. Kent:
ReplyDelete"They, who indulge themselves in the most unchristian and diabolical practice of accusing (others of heterodoxy) should take special care so to contrive their calumnies, that they may at least be consistent and hang together: for those slanders that confute themselves (which is the present case) do at once absolve the party accused, and convict the delator of forgery and nonsense both in one. We know the devil to be the common father of lies, especially such as are malicious: but, in the case now before us, I can see none of the craft or subtlety of the old serpent: the Doctor, in contriving this calumny, was left, I charitably believe, to his own natural invention; I cannot say, the Doctor has the innocence of the dove, nor yet can I allow him the cunning of the serpent: he abounds with gall, but he wants the sting." (Vol. II, p. 331; 1847 ed.)
William, Since you are (I guess) Roman Catholic, I find this quote highly ironic, both in your quoting a Protestant and approving of such wishy washing thinking. I mean you're familiar with what the Popes have said through the ages about Protestants like John Johnson right? I'll quote Leo XIII for you in case you are not:
DeleteIt is now well known to everyone by the evidence of the facts that the plan conceived by the heretical sects, multiform emanations of Protestantism, is to raise the standard of discord and religious rebellion in the peninsula [of Italy], but mostly in this noble city [of Rome] which God Himself, admirably ordaining the events, established as the center of this fecund and sublime unity, the object of which was the prayer addressed by our divine Savior to His heavenly Father (John 17:11,21), which was jealously guarded by the Popes, even unto the price of their life, despite the oppositions of men and the vicissitudes of time. After having destroyed in their respective homeland, by opposite and discordant systems, the venerable and ancient beliefs that were part of the sacred deposit of revelation; after having scattered the icy breath of doubt in the souls of their spectators, of division and incredulity — immense ruin that We deplore and of which We are touched by compassion in the bottom of Our heart, for We see in each of these creatures the sons of the same Father, redeemed by the same Blood — these sects have thus introduced themselves into the chosen vineyard of the Lord, with the objective to pursue their disastrous task. Not being able to count on the strength of truth, they reap the benefit, in order to extinguish or at least to reduce the Catholic faith in souls, in the young and helpless, the culturally inadequate, the distressed and the needy, simple people who are accessible to flatteries, to lures, and to seductions. Being made aware of this fact, before anything We suffer the need to confess, as We have done so on other occasions, just how exasperating is the condition imposed upon the head of the Catholic Church, forced to observe the free and progressive development of the heresy in this holy city, from which must shine forth on the world the light of truth and of good example, and which should be the respected See of the Vicar of Jesus Christ. As if this didn’t suffice, to corrupt the mind and heart of the people, from a torrent of unwholesome doctrines and depravations that spring forth with impunity on a daily basis, from professor’s chairs, from theaters, from newspapers, there had to be addedd to all these causes of perversion the insidious labor of heretical men which, fighting amongst themselves, are but of one accord to inveigh against the Supreme Pontifical Magisterium, the Catholic clergy, and the dogmas of our holy religion, of which they know not the meaning and much less appreciate its august beauty.
So... why are you Catholic if you don't like what Popes have said on this topic?
And this is relevant to my quoting from a Protestant author, how?
DeleteBecause William, you quote from a Protestant holding one position and belong to a church that has always promoted the opposite position.
DeleteIcon is the Greek word for image. They are interchangeable.
ReplyDeleteThe true church hasn't changed in its essentials, such as not selling out on contraception, and we don't force Irish and Puerto Ricans to use Greek paintings. Go sell your bill of goods somewhere else.
DeleteProve that contraception constitutes "selling out" whilst also proving that Catholic promoted "NFP" is not selling out. You can't, because any ancient sources anti the former also damn the latter. I said this already, you couldn't refute it, but you think repeating the same old ra-ra slogans constitutes an argument.
DeleteWhat's this nonsense about forcing people to use Greek art? Does this look like Greek to you?
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-FMBpCTnZpss/TbzkzfYRcNI/AAAAAAAAEFM/9pjudP5bVBs/s1600/1999ii-08a.jpg
Not having sex is different from barrier methods you now accept just like Protestants and non-Christians.
DeleteYour doctrine is the first seven ecumenical councils, which of course we believe in too. Your errors such as divorce and remarriage aren't doctrine.
So the Chinese can become Greek too. Touching. Bye.
"Not having sex is different from barrier methods you now accept just like Protestants and non-Christians. "
DeleteNot according to the few church fathers who expressed an opinion on this.
"Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?" (Jerome Against Jovinian 1:19).
NFP is deliberately having sex when you know you won't procreate.
"You [Manicheans] make your auditors adulterers of their wives when they take care lest the women with whom they copulate conceive. They take wives according to the laws of matrimony by tablets announcing that the marriage is contracted to procreate children; and then, fearing because of your [religious] law [against childbearing] . . . they copulate in a shameful union only to satisfy lust for their wives. They are unwilling to have children, on whose account alone marriages are made." Augustine Against Faustus 15:7
NFP is satisfying lust whilst being unwilling to procreate.
Then again, if you ignore them, what argument have you got left? None is what.
"Your doctrine is the first seven ecumenical councils, which of course we believe in too. "
Ahhh, the 7 ecumenical councils...
"Your errors such as divorce and remarriage aren't doctrine."
Remarriage is regulated by the Council of Trullo. The Eastern Orthodox Church holds this council to be part of the Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils.
So what you say isn't true. These things are part of the seven councils.
Some Catholic apologists claim that celibacy is the authentic practice for priests but marriage with abstinence is allowed. That's not our teaching and I'm not claiming it is.
DeleteIf we're wrong, fine; I'll go to hell.
If our teaching against contraception is foolish, I don't think you ever answered why as recently as 1963 and maybe later, Kallistos Ware agreed with us that contraception is forbidden, as indeed ALL Christians before 1930 did.
Reread: Professor Tighe is a Ukrainian Catholic.
We are not interested in rewriting world history and our personal histories to make Eastern Europe the center of them. Tighe and I like Eastern Europe but we're not interested in making an idol of it. Again its history is of slow decline; its churches a backwater and footnote in history you've probably glommed onto. They have spirituality and insights that can benefit the church, with a rite worth saving, but they're clearly not the church.
I don't think you ever answered why everyone used to agree that natural family planning is forbidden, as indeed ALL Christians before 1930 did.
DeleteIn the year 388, St. Augustine wrote, "Is it not you who used to counsel us to observe as much as possible the time when a woman, after her purification, is most likely to conceive, and to abstain from cohabitation at that time...?" The Manichaeans (the group the early church father St. Augustine wrote of and considered to be heretics) believed that it was immoral to create any children, thus (by their belief system), trapping souls in mortal bodies. Augustine condemned them for their use of periodic abstinence: "From this it follows that you consider marriage is not to procreate children, but to satiate lust." ( "Chapter 18.—Of the Symbol of the Breast, and of the Shameful Mysteries of the Manichæans")
Saint Thomas Aquinas wrote in his Summa Contra Gentiles: "Hence it is clear that every emission of the semen is contrary to the good of man, which takes place in a way whereby generation is impossible; and if this is done on purpose, it must be a sin. I mean a way in which generation is impossible in itself as is the case in every emission of the semen without the natural union of male and female: wherefore such sins are called 'sins against nature.' But if it is by accident that generation cannot follow from the emission of the semen, the act is not against nature on that account, nor is it sinful; the case of the woman being barren would be a case in point." Summa Contra Gentiles, Section 1.3.122
Clement of Alexandria wrote, "Let the Educator (Christ) put us to shame with the word of Ezekiel: "Put away your fornications." [Eze. 43:9] Why, even unreasoning beasts know enough not to mate at certain times. To indulge in intercourse without intending children is to outrage nature, whom we should take as our instructor." The Paedagogus or The Instructor, Book II, Chapter X.--On the Procreation and Education of Children.
What's your definition of slow decline and "backwater" ? In 1987 there were 6983 Russian churches. Today there are 27000. Is that a slow decline?
You know what, John? You're right. Abstinence, rubbers, pills; what's the difference? We're all damned. Guess I'll bag the church again and go worship Greece, Russia, etc. on Sundays like a sensible fellow. Seriously, a reason I like Putin, for example, is his country's Christian revival since dumping Communism. But they're still outside the church.
DeleteJohn, family planning aside, why are you not upset with the pro-abortion position of the Ecumenical Patriarch?
DeletePlease see: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2009/10/a-not-so-pro-life-patriarch
Dale, a simple case of Bartholomew being mis-quoted. BTW, how do you feel about Pope Boniface VIII's view on adultery?
Delete"There is no more harm in adultery than in rubbing one's hands together." - Boniface VIII.
"Dale, a simple case of Bartholomew being mis-quoted"; yeah, sure. Unfortunately, he has stated the same position several times, how many times can on be misquoted.
DeleteThis sounds like Islamic apologists, every time it is pointed out the really nasty things in Koran, their response is, well it is a faulty translation.
You can study Arabic and check the translation. You can't check some liberal newspaper from 30 years ago. You're grasping.
DeleteJohn, you are obviously clueless, here is more information from an Orthodox site on the issue, gee...trying to blame this on "some liberal newspaper" is really pathetic:
Deletehttp://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2013/07/patriarch-bartholomew-and-abortion/
No mention of abortion there either. Anyway, what does all this matter? The EP is not the eastern Pope, so whatever he might say must be weighed like anything anybody says.
Delete"There is no more harm in adultery than in rubbing one's hands together." - Pope Boniface VIII.
"A gay person who is seeking God, who is of good will – well, who am I to judge him?" - Pope Francis
It matters because no one can be considered canonical unless they are in full Eucharist communion with this fellow.
DeleteI am beginning to realise that you are not even Orthodox, simply game playing. Your ignorance is too total.
"no one can be considered canonical unless they are in full Eucharist communion with this fellow. "
DeleteNonsense, Chrysostom was out of communion with the EP for most of his life.
Yes of course in practice you aren't canonical if you are not in communion with the EP, just as you aren't canonical unless you are in communion with little old me. Because everyone is in communion with each other. (facepalm)
So for you, the Orthodox Byzantine Church is simply an eastern rite Church of England, bishops may say whatever they want to, well because, "he isn't the Pope of Rome." I have heard the same arguments from Anglo-Catholic clergy that remain with the establishment.
Delete"Nonsense, Chrysostom was out of communion with the EP for most of his life"; well, gasp, because the Ep was heretical. Gasp, too bad that St John didn't have your ecclesiology.
"well, gasp, because the Ep was heretical."
DeleteOops, my memory was bad. It was actually ROME that Chrysostom was out of communion with for most of his life. My bad.
Because... well... Rome was heretical, LOL.
So for you, the Roman Church is simply a rite of the Church of England, bishops may say whatever they want to, well "he is the Pope of Rome."
"There is no more harm in adultery than in rubbing one's hands together." - Boniface VIII.
John, I have been trying to search a respectable, refereed source for the quote that you attribute to Pope Boniface, I cannot find one; it appears to be hearsay. And you question the "liberal Press"? Really?
DeleteNot hearsay, but what his inner circle reported him as saying. Just as useful as what someone said about the EP.
Delete"There was no Jesus Christ and the Eucharist is just flour and water." - Boniface VIII
"Mary was no more a virgin than my own mother" - Boniface VIII
Hey, they didn't call it the pornocracy for nothing. The rule of the harlots.
Actually, the last source on the EP was from an Orthodox source, and was a book actually published by the EP. His giving of titles to Greek-American politicians with 100% rating from Planned Parenthood are also well documented as is his American Archbishop stating that Dukakis, a communicant member of the Protestant Episcopal Church as an "Orthodox in good standing."
Delete"Dukakis, a communicant member of the Protestant Episcopal Church as an "Orthodox in good standing.""
DeleteAnd Cardinals William Keeler of Baltimore and Theodore McCarrick of Washington have declared that they would not withhold communion as a means of sanctioning pro-choice Catholic politicians. So I guess pro-choice Catholics are in good standing since they are not withheld communion. Because only a small percentage of American bishops are in favor of withholding communion and the majority are opposed, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops decided in 2004 that such matters should left to the discretion of each bishop on a case-by-case basis.
So now what? Being pro-abortion is officially not enough to lose your status as being a Catholic in good standing. Since unlike in Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism claims its top bishop "enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.", why is the pope sitting on this hands?
"It has served us well, this myth of Jesus" -Pope Leo X
DeleteSince this John fellow, has mentioned the Latinization of Eastern Rite Catholicism, I thought I would post some photos of one of their western rites, it goes beyond goofy to the comical: Look only if you have a very strong stomach:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10204973168512526&set=a.10204973168312521.1073741834.1340860564&type=3&theater
Hopefully that Aussie troll or team of trolls has moved to greener pastures for them but... Oh. My. Lord. As if the schismatics' overt anti-Westernism wasn't enough. No thanks.
DeleteNot sure of your point Dale. This is what the western rite looked like 1000 years ago.
DeleteRight, and St. Peter used the 1962 edition of the Roman Missal. Nice try, sport.
DeleteWould you think at first glance this was Byzantine or western art?
Deletehttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/RavArchBpChapelXt.jpg
It's Italian, but you won't find this sort of thing in Italy from the last 1000 years. A long time ago, the west looked like us. Now it doesn't. Our fault?
That doesn't mean jack, mate. Sure, older Western art is pretty and resembles Byzantine art, but you can't force any use of images on Christians as de fide. We only have to accept veneration of images in principle; that is, Catholics who do it aren't worshipping idols. Go wank to Orthodox culture on your own site.
DeleteOh irony of irony. Dale rails against our western rite for how it looks. When I point out that the western rite used to look like us, you concede the point, but then reverse the argument that it is us not accepting how you look. Oh hypocrisy, how ugly art thou.
DeleteYeah; I'm a hypocrite going straight to hell. Get off this blog and go pray or something.
DeleteStrange, ad orientem has posted a little article declaring that such goofy konvertzi are very rare, that has not been my experience at all.
DeleteYeah, the fellow he writes of sounds like the convert hollers of ROCOR I heard 20 years ago. Consider that this attracts the same kind of self-hating Westerner as John Walker Lindh, the American kid who joined the Taliban. In fact, I understand a convert priest (not ROCOR) I actually met a couple of times has apostatized... to Islam.
DeleteJohn, you really believe that the western rite looked like the post-1666 Russian new rite? Really? Even holy Byzantium did not have the modern from of the ikonostasis 1000 years ago, but it is nice to know that the west did.
DeleteDo, pray tell me, do you simply invent this stuff up as you go along?
Come on Dale, you sent me a photo of a western rite that does NOT have a full screen iconostasis. It has mostly empty space above waist level. And if you look at pictures of the old St Peter's Basilica in Rome before it was demolished, it was almost the same. A row of columns in front of the altar, the part at the bottom filled in, and at the top, space between the columns.
Deletehttp://2.bp.blogspot.com/-mP-HVBaoRoU/TjaOB-p62NI/AAAAAAAAAGI/RQ8WrsHHfGQ/s1600/20.jpg
Even a thousand years ago the west had oblong altars, as do modern day Greek churches, only the Russian have small cube shaped ones. The ancient Syrian and Armenian rites also still use altars that resemble pre-Vatican II altars as well. Gee modern Greek style vestments, topped off with a very baroque style Mitre, are you for real? Also, your pretend western rite crosses in the post-1666 Russian style with three fingers. All of the Oriental Orthodox, whose liturgical tradition is far more ancient than modern Byzantium cross left to right, the same as do the west, now and a thousand years ago as well. But it is nice to know that you were alive 1000 years ago to tell us about the tradition. The orlitzi, notice them, were only introduced into the Greek rite after the fall of Constantinople in 1453, the were part of the imperial, not religious, rite of the Emperor. really, have you any real liturgical training at all?
DeleteIn my experience the shape of the altar in a small church is dictated by how much space you have, nothing more or less. And in your photo I can't see just how square it is.
DeleteAnyway, Catholics aren't impervious to square altars, so why not get the log out of your own eyes?
http://www.dispatch.com/content/graphics/2013/10/11/fv-99-year-old-altar-server-art-g5bos3cg-1fv-99year-old-alter-server3-jpg.jpg
Greek style vestments? What is Greek about them?
The orlitizi (I thought it was an orletz) is the privilege of the bishop, and despite this diocese being western rite, the bishop is still from the Russian rite, and is thus given the orletz. When you have western rite parishes with eastern bishops THEN you can let me know whether those bishops get an orletz and have a good old whinge. Until then, you've got nothing to talk about.
So you caught one of them using a Russian cross. What a tragedy. What you're forgetting in all this is that there wasn't existing western rite congregations with a tradition to preserve. We didn't go into existing churches and encourage them to lose their traditions. We reconstructed something to make people feel comfortable who are from that background. That you noticed a Russian cross is hardly comparable to what was done by Rome to eastern parishes.
"The orlitizi (I thought it was an orletz": if you notice there are two of them. Well, at least you are honest in admitting that the Byzantine orthodox western rite, like the novus ordo, is simply a made-up liturgy, but by personalities and not by committees. have you seen the joke of a "Gallican rite"; my, since this is a rite from the year 5oo, I guess the Byzantines have magic time machines. "We didn't go into existing churches and encourage them to lose their traditions"; it is obvious that you have never bothered to study the Byzantine attempts to suppress the Syrian and Coptic traditions of the Oriental Orthodox, why do you think they preferred Arab Muslim invaders to their Greek masters?
DeleteWe don't pretend that the Oriental Orthodox are part of our church and thus incumbent on us to preserve them. You do claim the eastern rites as legitimate rites to preserve... right before you destroy them. Your complaint is about as cogent as my bringing up the issue of Catholic persecution of Jehovah's witnesses.
DeleteI guess the Byzantines have magic time machines.
DeleteYet Jesus can't go back in time to redeem his mother, claim the schismatics.
We don't pretend that the Oriental Orthodox are part of our church and thus incumbent on us to preserve them.
Eastern Orthodox seem deadlocked on the status of the Lesser Eastern Churches. Historically they were seen as "graceless heretics" worse than us, like a Mormonism with putative holy orders. In this ecumenical age you're seeing an unlikely friendship between these two sides: "We're both Eastern, we both hate the Pope; hey, we're really the same after all." The church recognizes their orders (the credal orthodoxy required for that being that basic) so we lean toward "it's all really the same; it was just a misunderstanding."
You do claim the eastern rites as legitimate rites to preserve... right before you destroy them.
Right, the hurt parade, and I get why some nice Slavic-Americans are mad at us, nothing to do with our teachings and it was our fault. But we didn't destroy their rite. Nine times out of 10 back in Eastern Europe they latinized themselves. All we did in the United States was impose a rule banning the ordination of married men, which the church can do but here we shouldn't have, and giving the parish properties to the bishop, again in our scope of authority. Both rules are reversible according to our doctrine. I'm not seeing the destruction of a rite, mate. I AM seeing that rite fade away on both sides in America as they assimilate; the people are leaving these churches. So leaving the church to preserve the rite doesn't work. The convert boomlet is a one-generation blip; a fad. We are not suppressing Byzantine Christianity here and should not but it seems self-limiting for natural reasons.
"Yet Jesus can't go back in time to redeem his mother, claim the schismatics. "
DeleteWhat a ridiculous statement. This is so wrong in so many ways, it would take pages to unpack all the errors.
"Historically they were seen as "graceless heretics" worse than us, like a Mormonism with putative holy orders."
The same could be said of Rome's attitude to all the eastern churches.
Anyway, if we were wrong about that then it was an error shared with Rome.... except we don't claim to have an infallible guy who can always avoid such errors.
And then there's the oddity that if folks back then believed in an infallible pope in Rome who defined unity... the whole split is inexplicable. Even more so that this issue was never raised at the time. It's probably the single most obvious argument that Rome invented something new one can imagine.
And if we were right about them, what's the complaint?
"Nine times out of 10 back in Eastern Europe they latinized themselves. "
Ahh yes. They were sitting around for 1500 years or whatever, doing eastern christianity when all of a sudden, for no apparent reason, they all en-masse, independently of one another, and yet of one accord, up and decided to latinise THEMSELVES.
If you believe that, I've got some nice cheap bridges to sell.
"All we did in the United States was impose a rule banning the ordination of married men"
A lot of damage was done before anybody even got to the united states. I mean in the crusades the Roman bishops replaces the greek liturgies in Antioch and Jerusalem with Latin ones.
I mean come on, the official text of the council of Trent says that infant communion is a practice that is no longer done. Clearly they had no interest in eastern affairs. At the Maronite Synod of Mt. Lebanon, the papal legate pushed and achieved the ban on infant communion, and the synod imposed an automatic suspension for communing infants. And do you think if they were so blatantly obvious about latinisation in this church and on this topic, they'd ignore other obvious eastern discrepancies with Rome? Of course not. This was all orchestrated by papal legates.
It is obvious that this John fellow has never bothered to study, well it appears he has never bothered to study anything, the really, really shameful behaviour of the Greeks towards the Syriac and Coptic Orthodox churches when the lived under the dominion of the Byzantine empire. Sad really.
DeleteYet again I have to point out that the Syriacs and Coptics are not in our church whereas the eastern rite catholics are in your church. So comparing them doesn't make sense. What about all your persecution of Jehovah's witnesses? Huh? Huh?
DeleteJohn, although for a long time the Oriental Orthodox have not been in your church, but they were under the very long arm of the Byzantine Emperors and were bitterly persecuted by the Byzantine Emperor as well as the Greek Orthodox church which for centuries attempted to force them to become Byzantine. Do please do some studies before posting on this issue.
DeleteNext you will be saying that there was never an inquisition, from 166 to 1906 against the Russian Old Believers, which including the burning of many at the stake for the old form of making the Sign of the Cross.
"After the fall of Rome, the Byzantine Empire became the center of both political and religious power. The political and religious conflict between the Copts of Egypt and the rulers of Byzantium began when the patriarchate of Constantinople began to rival that of Alexandria. The Council of Chalcedon in 451 initiated the great schism that separated the Egyptian Church from Catholic Christendom. The schism had momentous consequences for the future of Christianity in the East and for Byzantine power. Ostensibly, the council was called to decide on the nature of Christ. If Christ were both God and man, had he two natures? The Arians had already been declared heretics for denying or minimizing the divinity of Christ; the opposite was to ignore or minimize his humanity. Coptic Christians were Monophysites who believed that after the incarnation Christ had but one nature with dual aspects. The council, however, declared that Christ had two natures and that he was equally human and equally divine. The Coptic Church refused to accept the council's decree and rejected the bishop sent to Egypt. Henceforth, the Coptic Church was in schism from the Catholic Church as represented by the Byzantine Empire and the Byzantine Church.
DeleteFor nearly two centuries, Monophysitism in Egypt became the symbol of national and religious resistance to Byzantium's political and religious authority. The Egyptian Church was severely persecuted by Byzantium. Churches were closed, and Coptic Christians were killed, tortured, and exiled in an effort to force the Egyptian Church to accept Byzantine orthodoxy. The Coptic Church continued to appoint its own patriarchs, refusing to accept those chosen by Constantinople and attempting to depose them. The break with Catholicism in the fifth century converted the Coptic Church to a national church with deeply rooted traditions that have remained unchanged to this day."
http://countrystudies.us/egypt/14.htm
Dale, I really have no idea whatsoever you think mentioning the Monophysites brings to this discussion. But let's pretend it's on topic for a moment. When the Monophysite church was being (allegedly) persecuted by the Dyophysite church, who was the head of the Dyophysite church? I mean, the buck must stop with the head, right???!??!?
DeleteI'm coming clean: besides cheering for Dale, I really don't care, John. This schismatic stuff is just clickbait for my blog, bringing in traffic while I read manosphere (Roissy and beyond) and human biodiversity stuff I don't post. So rant away.
ReplyDeleteI am going to join you, this fellow is too stupid, well perhaps not stupid, but ignorant of history to really try to carry on a conversation. I noticed that our friend William long ago stopped attempting to participate.
DeleteIn his defense, this last summer, whilst in Rome, I had to spend quite some time with two fanatical Roman Catholics who were just as ignorant. I once mentioned that at one time in France and England, white, and not violet was used for the eternal light and that the reserved sacrament was in a hanging pix, the one women became quite fanatical, screaming that that was a lie and was not true, and since I was not a Roman Catholic and a schismatic, I had no right to voice any opinion that concerned the Roman Catholic tradition. Unfortunately, these two were born Catholics...they also went absolutely gaga over the person of the Pope.
I had a very helpful Facebook friend for a while, a Catholic, but he'd be extremely rude like that every time I mentioned the Anglicans, even attacking the ordinariate Catholics, until he stomped off twice; the second time I didn't ask him to come back. Theologically we agree on everything, but most Anglicans are better company.
Delete