Catholic integralism is the true seamless garment.I'm not going to be a notch on your apologetics rifle, whoever you are. If we're wrong, then as Mark Twain had Huckleberry Finn say, "All right, I'll go to hell." Put that in your kadilo and smoke it. Getting back to your opening volley, I don't define small-o orthodoxy. The Catholic Church does. And within that there is room for opinion. And why didn't you answer my question about your origins? I have nothing to hide. Born Episcopal, confirmed Catholic but left the church rather early on, was Orthodox but realized early on I'd made a huge mistake but out of human respect dragged my feet on coming back, but when that door opened over four years ago I took it. You?
Underneath the creeds and the rest of the first seven councils and the Catholic liturgy, Orthodox theology and apologetics consist of yiayia and baba bigotry from people too obstinate or dim to see the difference between doctrine and cultural expressions, leavened (ha) by the occasional Protestant smartass passing through such as Franky Schaeffer (whose Orthodox phase seems over). Or, more and more as he ages, Anglicanism in Byzantine drag from Kallistos Ware (a more urbane Protestant) and the diluted Russians and konvertsy of St. Vladimir's Seminary.
"If you don't use our kind of images, you're outside the church.'" That quote is from where? Because I never heard such thing.Glaringly obvious from your practice, where the putative Western Rite parishes look like they went on a spree at Icon & Book Service, plus beards, "matushki," etc. Partly why I say images are an option Catholics have to accept in theory; we don't force byzantinizations on people.
One more time: the azymes, Communion under one kind for the laity (concomitance: every molecule of the changed elements is Christ, indivisible. So what difference does it make?), infant chrismation, and infant Communion are matters of rite and culture, NOT doctrine. In other words, you DO want to byzantinize us. Dragging us into the empire, mentally.
Interesting point about the Immaculate Conception. I understand the difference between "conceived immaculate" and "sinless." The interesting thing is one can make a case that the Latin method of reaching the conclusion and explaining the doctrine aren't necessary when using the Byzantine method, but that's not the same as denying the doctrine, which Catholics can't do. Ditto original sin. Your apologists are going through back-breaking contortions rather than admit they're really Catholic, so they end up Pelagian on original sin and Lutheran about the Eucharist. (See above about Protestant smartasses passing through.)
By "sometimes adultery is OK" I mean the nonsense in your theological school of thought that the first marriage is eternal but the church can tolerate adulterous second and third marriages for pastoral reasons. A theology not worth taking seriously. Also, your precious canons are an unenforceable jumble, hence economy: you're winging it and doing whatever you feel like on a given day.
Regarding contraception and the other things you named to try to discredit us, you're not even close. Those other things are not doctrine. Being anti-contraception, one can argue, is taught by the church's ORDINARY magisterium and doesn't need an ex cathedra statement. And... until 1930 it was universally believed by Christians, ALL of them... including you, as Ware wrote as recently as 1963 (he keeps changing his story; funny for a church that allegedly doesn't change/compromise). This isn't a "Catholic hangup"; it's simply a Christian belief.
Complaining that the Pope overstepped his authority, then changing your teachings... that's right out of the Anglican (Episcopal) playbook.
"We haven't always lived up to our teaching supporting all traditional rites." No, you haven't and you still don't.Correct. It's a failure of our churchmen in practice, not our teaching.
The church has the authority to change rules such as on ordaining the married in North America, for example, but changing longstanding custom that's not heresy is not our normal practice. We shouldn't have changed the rule for Eastern Catholics in North America (all that heartbreak for no good reason), and I understand that's been reversed. The damage has been done as they say. I say: everything that's not doctrine should be on the table.
Unlatinized vs. latinized practices are a matter of culture, not doctrine. The church in principle has always supported not latinizing Eastern Catholics, but now that many of them have latinized themselves, it would be spiritually harmful to force changes in the parishes, so live and let live.
Regarding Italy, you know about the Italo-Greeks and Italo-Albanians, right? These Byzantine Catholics have lived there for centuries, I think making up for the alleged mistake of latinizing the local Greeks before the schism.
I understand that maybe Romania (Latin, like Italy) and maybe Bulgaria were Western Rite under Rome before the Greeks byzantinized them (the Russians reinforcing that), that Constantinople closed the Latin churches in the city before the schism, and there were even Latin Catholic martyrs in Byzantium. While not Western, in its beginning the Ukrainian Catholic Church was that whole country, the metropolia of Kiev, and included much of Byelorussia. Tsarist Russian expansion, persecution, stamped much of that out, basically reducing it to Polish Galicia. Much as Stalin did when he stole the western Ukraine from Poland and Czechoslovakia during World War II and outlawed the Byzantine Catholic churches there. When given a choice, as in 1968 in Czechoslovakia and in the early 1990s in the Ukraine, almost all the western Ukrainians and Ruthenians returned to Catholicism. As for benevolent Byzantine Orthodox such as the Russians, ask Poles and Slovaks what they thought of Russian rule. "Slavic brotherhood" usually really means just Russianism, imperial reach. The Catholic Slavs, even fellow Eastern Slavs the western Ukrainians, won't have it.
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.Except he doesn't believe that. He can't bless abortion, ordain women, or marry two men, for example. Again, this carping sounds so Anglican. The kind of people who complain about St. Pius X gutting the breviary in 1911 yet have women priests and same-sex marriages. That Eastern Orthodox adopt the same defense admits they don't have the truth.
"Partly why I say images are an option Catholics have to accept in theory; we don't force byzantinizations on people."
ReplyDeleteNobody who truly understands the 7th Ecumenical Council can make purely theoretical the use and veneration of images in divine worship. In addition to violating the form of the ancient Church and the doctrinal spirit of the 7th ecumenical council, this attitude leads directly to the bastardization of sacred art. An iconographic tradition, which must never be applied in churches, is a tradition that is neglected and later, compromised (certainly no ecclesiastical canons can safeguard such a tradition in this context). You often bemoan "byzantinization," but to make theoretical wide portions of the ancient and holy Orthodox Catholic Faith is sheer "rationalization," which does more than perpetuate the perceived hegemony of a liturgical rite - its robs Christianity of its most cherished and hallowed traditions.
You're trying to push narrow cultural stuff as a requirement for Christians. I'm not interested.
DeleteI am not requiring you to adopt any particular iconographic tradition. However, I am defending the historic Christian traditions governing the Church's ancient iconographic (and musical) traditions. The Western Church once had an authentic and viable iconographic tradition, as reflected in the historic remains of her Romanesque and Gothic art and architecture. Unfortunately, the theoretical and minimalist tendencies of the Western Church ensured that this tradition would be unguarded and eventually lost – corrupted by the creations of a secular and humanist world. Such could not happen otherwise since there was no longer any requirement for Christians to preserve this artistic tradition.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, the ancient Church knew no conception of serial non-practice of the Faith through comments such as, “you can remain a Catholic in good standing” while making purely theoretical wide portions of the Church’s practice. A living Tradition requires the preservation and defense of all of the Church’s traditions, not their progressive abandonment via dry rationalism.
There is a reason for why Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches look (and sound) very different. Orthodoxy emphasizes the preservation of the ancient traditions of the Church and refuses to violate the organic combination of Faith and praxis, which characterized the ancient Church, while Western Catholicism all too readily abandons tradition for innovation and allows the reduction of the Faith to theory and minimalism.
Blogger, are your serious, have you never, obviously, seen 18-19th century Russian ikons? The most certainly are not in the revived Byzantine tradition at all. Only the Old Believers continued the ikonographic tradition, so to condemn the west for not stagnating culturally in Romanesque or Gothic art is simply mind-boggling. Glass houses come to mind. Have you at least bothered to look an interior of the new Christ the Savour Cathedral in Moscow/ Clueless:
Deletehttp://about-eastern-europe.com/the-cathedral-of-christ-the-savior-catedrala-lui-isus-hristos-mantuitorul/
Blogger stated: "Additionally, the ancient Church knew no conception of serial non-practice of the Faith through comments such as, “you can remain a Catholic in good standing” while making purely theoretical wide portions of the Church’s practice. A living Tradition requires the preservation and defense of all of the Church’s traditions, not their progressive abandonment via dry rationalism."
DeleteWell, at least try and be honest here. Do you remember when Dukakis was running for President and the Greek Archbishop declared that he was an "Orthodox in good standing" simply because he was a Greek, although he had been a communicant, in good standing, at St John's Episcopal Church, Washington D.C. for many years?
Orthodoxy, great in pretend principals, not so great in reality.
"You're trying to push narrow cultural stuff as a requirement for Christians. I'm not interested."
ReplyDeleteAs usual, what today is called, "Eastern" was once simply called, "Christian."
I'm not sure what art you think Orthodoxy eschews that you are proud to embrace. Why don't you point us to some examples, then we'd have something to discuss. When I look at fairly ancient western art, it's very hard to distinguish from eastern art. And whenever I see Protestants tentatively embrace icons, it is usually byzantine. I was in St Paul's cathedral in London a few months back, and they seem to have enthusiastically embraced mounting a traditional Greek Christ and Mary icons like you would see in any eastern church.
ReplyDeleteCommunion under one kind, what difference does it make? The difference it makes is it is not the tradition of the church. Why did Christ say to do both if it is redundant? He wasted his breath? What basis do you have to rail against protestants when you yourself seem happy to change anything on a whim? On a purely textual basis, the text says that unless you eat my flesh AND drink my blood, you have no life in you. It doesn't say that unless you eat my flesh OR drink my blood. On a purely exegetical level, you are damned if you don't take both.
Contraception and NFP: You seem to have no conceded that the offical doctrine of Catholicism is contrary to the ancient church fathers. At least whatever some Orthodox have said is mere opinion and not official. So if this bee is in your bonnet, Catholicism OUGHT to bother you more.
This idea of "adulterous 2nd and 3rd marriages" is utter rubbish. 2nd or 3rd marriages are not adulterous, and to suggest that Orthodoxy says they are is rubbish. As our LORD said, EXCEPT for adultery. In other words, remarriage is permitted in the case of sin of the partner. We didn't make this up, it's right there in your bible if you'd care to open it once in a while.
Pelagian on original sin? I don't think you have a single clue what Pelagius taught, but if you want to formulate a coherent argument on that, I'd be happy to address it.
Failure with regards to upholding the rights of the eastern rites is "merely" a failure of churchmen, and not of teaching? Rubbish. Go back to the other post and the Canon law of the eastern churches and read what it says about the role of the Pope with regards to the eastern church. "Full immediate jurisdiction which he may always freely exercise" blah blah. Now go back and read your history books. Did the pope in history have full immediate power over the eastern churches which he freely exercised? OF COURSE NOT. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Let's see what the Council of Nicea said:
CANON VI. LET the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.
In other words, bishops, including the bishop of Rome, should butt out of other jurisdictions.
In other words, bishops, including the bishop of Rome, should butt out of other jurisdictions.
DeleteHe hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England, Australia, etc. Usher! I've seen this picture before. So when will you, maybe through the person of Msgr. Kallistos in England, be concelebrating with Dr. Welby and Bishops Lane and Treweek? That'll show us papists.
Facepalm. Nobody is suggesting anybody celebrate with heretics. The issue is you don't give eastern rite churches their historical independence. They are just puppets of Rome, given a few eastern garnishes and foisted on the east to steal adherents.
DeleteThe issue is you don't give eastern rite churches their historical independence...
DeleteIn order to service various kings, the Turks, and the Soviets. What a vast improvement to the faith. What the hell was I thinking? Let's throw Western civilization out the window and stick to Orthodox countries' contributions. Whee.
Actually the Eastern Catholic churches can and perhaps should have much more independence, all in accord with our doctrine. The way we do things doesn't have to be, when it doesn't touch on doctrine, and much of it doesn't. Everything that's not doctrine should be on the table, but conversely, Western Catholicism isn't the graceless wasteland you schismatics claim it is.
When given a choice, in 1968 in Czechoslovakia and after 1989 in the Ukraine, those "puppets of Rome, given a few eastern garnishes" returned to us, so much so that the Russian patriarch is still whining. I guess you'd call that Stockholm syndrome, but the record stands.
You throw up the Turks and soviets, but despite it all, what did Orthodoxy ever change? I gave you a long list of things wayward popes changed but despite the Turk rhetoric you can't name one thing Orthodoxy changed.
DeleteAnd what, you're scared to let the east loose on doctrine ? Do you remember that the west took no significant part in the 7 councils? I mean come on, it took until the 11th century before any Pope had the guts to say if he approved the 7th council. That's like 3 centuries for the West to get up to speed.
Not sure what you gain from bringing up Ukraine or whatever. 10% or so of Ukrainians are Catholic. Is that impressive? Most remain Orthodox.
First, the Turks re-separated the Greeks from the church because they couldn't have Christians in the sultanate they couldn't own. Second, I don't think serving a false religion or atheism are what Byzantine theologians had in mind with symphonia.
DeleteAnd what, you're scared to let the east loose on doctrine?
The East, just like the West, must obey. Again you're making an idol of the East, having it say like Satan, "I will not serve." (I will not serve a barbarian Pope, outside our empire. I thank thee, O Lord, that I am not as other men, such as that Frank.)
I know full well that the Ukraine is not a Catholic country. It really is a Russia Jr., about evenly divided between Sovietized atheist and Orthodox, and largely Russian-speaking (but wanting to be independent), but with the significant difference of a substantial Catholic minority (thanks to the Soviets stealing the far west from Poland and Slovakia during World War II), the Galician (former Polish land) part being very patriotic Ukrainians and traditionally Ukrainian-speaking. Catholics are the majority in Galicia and Transcarpathia (the former Slovak territory). The point is after 40 years of having "returned to Orthodoxy," that 10% wanted nothing to do with it and either voted with their feet or took back the parish churches the Soviets and schismatics stole.
"When I look at fairly ancient western art, it's very hard to distinguish from eastern art. And whenever I see Protestants tentatively embrace icons, it is usually byzantine."
DeleteThis is an excellent point. Like the full cycle of liturgical services and similarities in liturgical chant, iconography was once shared in common between East and West. Ironically, those who have long rejected these elements of a shared patrimony accuse the Christian East of ethnocentrism, while it is rather a prime example of preservation of Tradition.
Additionally, the fact that well-meaning Protestants understand this reveals that the real examples of ethnocentrism exist on the side of those who make purely theoretical the use and veneration of images in divine worship in order to safeguard a western-centric replacement of tradition with innovation.
Oh, boy; Kentucky fried troll, the other white meat.
DeleteThe theoretical use and veneration of images are all that is de fide on the matter. I don't have to have an iconographic tradition or any other images but I can't accuse Christians who do (and venerate the images) of idolatry. A rite can make a disciplinary rule requiring a kind of images and a kind of chant but to elevate those to de fide is idolatry. The Iconoclasts and Protestants are wrong but so is this; no wonder the Protestants react.
The historic Christian Faith was never limited to what is "de fide." The Church does not live by dogma alone. By failing to appreciate the importance of traditional praxis that safeguards the Church's doctrines and dogmas, you indirectly undermine the Faith of the Church and rob her of all her beautiful traditions (including those traditions that you so rightfully admire and defend). Do you not see the connection between this minimalist attitude and the rise of ecclesiological liberalism in the Latin Church?
Delete"Oh, boy; Kentucky fried troll, the other white meat."
DeleteJohn, It is very hurtful and offensive to be labeled a "troll." I visit this blog because I enjoy reading the commentary (of which you clearly have a talent) and sharing my thoughts in order to add nuance to some of your statements and views on the Orthodox Church. The verbal sparing can be done in a manner that benefits both interlocutors without name-calling. Unlike a troll, I have no interest in personal attacks and have continually attempted to keep our conversations on a principled level. I hope you can appreciate that.
The historic Christian Faith was never limited to what is "de fide."
DeleteAnd then you continue with idolizing a culture. Trolling Catholic blogs: when the high from Byzantine liturgical aesthetics isn't enough anymore.
You still haven't told us what art you'd like to see in churches that we don't have. Many Russian churches, like the Cathedral of Christ the saviour in Moscow have decidedly non-byzantine art. When I go to some Catholic country and see a very western statue of Mary, should I rail against you folks?
DeleteThe reality is, orthodox icons tend to have a "style" (which is not actually the secular style of byzantium, it's a peculiar church style) because we pass on the traditions. Icons are part of the tradition, so we pass it on. Apparently you'd be happier if we didn't pass on the tradition, but innovated continually. Perhaps you'd like to see a Picasso church or something, I don't know.
Icons are meant to be theology first, and art second. If they are theologically correct then we don't care too much what the style is. In fact the style is deliberately fairly simple to allow easy reproduction. If every church had to find the next Michelangelo, then nothing would get done.
This John fellow, really, really needs to study the history of the Oriental Orthodox under Byzantium, talk about persecution!
Delete"The reality is, orthodox icons tend to have a "style" (which is not actually the secular style of byzantium, it's a peculiar church style) because we pass on the traditions. Icons are part of the tradition, so we pass it on. Apparently you'd be happier if we didn't pass on the tradition, but innovated continually. Perhaps you'd like to see a Picasso church or something, I don't know"
DeleteThis is so much tripe, please see interior photos of Christ the Savour Cathedral in Moscow. Completely western, and quite lurid as well.
John, mentioned an Orthodox church by Picasso, well not by Picasso, but here is one by Frank Lloyd Wright (Annunciation Greek Orthodox Church). This fellow should either expand his knowledge, or shut up, he is making himself into a fool:
Deletehttp://www.abbeville.com/interiors.asp?ISBN=0789202875&CaptionNumber=05
Dale, if we innovate you whinge, we don't, you whinge. That's called being bigoted.
DeleteThe Cathedral of Christ the saviour, which I have been in, is indeed decorated in a western style. I think there's a subtle difference between building decoration and icons per se. I don't think you'll find the decorations of that cathedral being "passed on" as tradition, even though they are pretty. And doesn't this defeat the premise of this blog article? The premise is that we simply can't accept non-Byzantine art. You just proved we can, thanks. Go whinge to the young fogey.
Back to your "damned if we do, damned if we don't" attitude.
DeleteThe icons inside of the Annunciation Greek Orthodox Church are conventional Greek icons, so what is your point? The Pantheon Catholic church was designed by idolatrous worshippers of the Roman gods. Should we be concerned? Inquiring minds want to know.
John, the modern byzantine ikons in a more medieval form is very, very recent. As the west experienced the Gothic revival and began to rediscover ancient art and religious representation, the same movement, originally under the slavophiles began to also attempt to return to more traditional forms of Byzantine are, but strangely, the impetus for this movement was originally western. In Orthodoxy, only the schismatic Old Believers, for national reasons, preserved traditional ikons.
DeleteJohn Beeler's point, which I am not certain you can understand, is that there are today many, mostly converts, who would say that only a single specific style is Orthodox and every other style, especially the very westernized ikons of the 17-20th century are actually heretical and cannot express Orthodoxy.
In my mother's former parish, which had very, very westernized ikons a convert priest ranted that they were all heretical and forced the congregation to replace them with "correct" ones, according to slavophile understanding.
That issue aside, I tend to find your limited and narrow understanding of the Church to be problematic. You know so little, and most of what you do know is mostly partisan, that silence might serve you and whatever issues you have better than showing your ignorance.
I know many converts ranging from apathetic, to "more orthodox than the orthodox", and I've never heard any of them express such an opinion about the icons. But regardless, converts have always been a small minority in western countries, so you're talking about a vanishingly small subsection of a small minority of a minority (the western countries). Then you accuse me of having a limited viewpoint because you promote this tiny sliver as definitive of Orthodoxy. Never mind that 98% of American Catholics have used birth control. No, let's focus on 1% of 1% of 1% who have a particular viewpoint on icons. (facepalm) And then accuse me of ignorance!!! Amazing stuff.
DeleteSince, I am not a Roman Catholic, and have never been a Roman Catholic, and have serious theological issues with them, I fail to understand your fixations on them. What is problematic, and usually is to be found amongst the converts, is that they fail to see that Byzantium is also not pure, and has, especially against the Oriental Orthodox and the Old Believers, committed crimes of horrific magnitude. It is this lack of honesty that is problematic. At least in Rome, and only for the last few years there is some acknowledgement of such issues, amongst the Byzantines, virtually none at all. Most of your arguments tend to degenerate into, "well Roman Catholicism is worse." That is hardly an acceptable attitude, and is not true (the Massacre of the Latins in 1182 comes to mind). I simply find your attitude infantile and not helpful, plus you are quite ignorant as well.
DeleteIf you have never heard such issues, as an example, about ikons, then you truly have no idea.
Although I am no longer an Anglican, have no desire to be one again, and have serious theological issues with them, left or right, I'm glad to share a culture with them and find people such as Dale better company than the Orthodox because even though the Orthodox have bishops and the Mass, the Anglicans, even though at heart they're Reformed, not Catholic, also claim continuity with us so they recognize our baptism and our Eucharist. Strictly speaking the Orthodox don't and some of them will tell you so. A nice Anglican churchman implicitly believes his is the true church but he's not a bigot.
Delete"A nice Anglican churchman implicitly believes his is the true church but he's not a bigot": John, I am not completely convinced that this is true, the branch theory, which sounds better and better to me everyday, rather accepts that there are no such absolutes in the Church (of course the present pope's ecclesiology seems more and more to align with the Anglican Branch Theory). Now, I would a support King Charles' admonition that Anglicanism is the only religion for a gentleman.
DeleteI should also like to add that what I find so tiresome in both Byzantine and Roman Catholic fanatics, is not only their ignorance, but their lack of humour.
DeleteAs I understand it, the old high churchmen were upfront about claiming to be the true church: "We're Catholic but we're better because we're Reformed too." Modern Anglicans say "there are no such absolutes in the church" (which is nicer than being called graceless, I'll grant you), which is a stealth true-church claim, since neither we nor the separated Eastern churches believe such a thing. We believe there is very much that absolute in the church. Our claim includes the East and the West, like Anglicanism's theory but without the rupture with the medieval church that was the transplant of Reformed theology at Anglicanism's center.
Delete"so they recognize our baptism and our Eucharist. Strictly speaking the Orthodox don't and some of them will tell you so."
DeleteOh how sweet, they recognise your baptism and Eucharist. But do you recognise theirs? Oops no!!!
BTW I would bet that Sydney Anglicans wouldn't recognise anything in Roman Catholicism.
Dale's right; you don't know what you're talking about. We recognize their baptism. The Sydney Anglicans, being Anglicans, recognize our baptism, bishops, and Eucharist; they just don't believe the same thing about the Eucharist that we do. They recognize us, claiming continuity from us, but believe we are heretics.
Delete"Strictly speaking the Orthodox don't [recognize Catholic baptism, orders, and Eucharist] and some of them will tell you so." That statement stands.
Stop obfuscating over the point that you don't recognise their Eucharist.
DeleteYes you recognise their baptism, but then again, up until 2001 you recognised Mormon baptism, until the Pontiff said "oops", all those Mormon converts for 171 years have never been baptised. And since Roman dogma is that nobody can see the beatific vision without valid baptism, that "oops" just put a ton of people in hell I guess.
Sydney Anglicans don't claim continuity from you because they don't believe in continuity. That's why they can consistently advocate lay presidency because no holy orders are required, because there is no such thing as continuity.
Yes, they believe something different about the Eucharist, such that anybody who wants to slurp some wine and bread with the right intention can be a valid Eucharist, so their recognition of your Eucharist is hardly much of a compliment.
While you seem unhappy about the Orthodox implementing consistently a Cyprianic view of holy orders, it saves us the "oops" of retrospectively obliterating the baptism of hundreds of years of converts, and we don't have deal with accepting the equivilent of sedevacantist pseudo-bishops running around the countryside and accepting they are real bishops like you guys do.
Yes your "statement stands", but analysed it is meaningless because you don't accept Anglicans either, which was your point of comparison.
Stop obfuscating over the point that you don't recognise their Eucharist.
DeleteNever said I did, you troll.
Yes you recognise their baptism.
Earlier today you accused us not doing so.
You admit that in principle you don't accept our baptisms so we have nothing to talk about. But again, all you're doing is driving up my traffic.
"Never said I did, you troll."
DeleteAd hominem. The sign of having run out of real arguments.
"Earlier today you cause us of not doing so".
I said that while they recognise your baptism AND Eucharist, you don't return the favour. Anyone who understands simple Boolean algebra would realise you don't recognise their baptism AND Eucharist, because for an AND condition to be true, both operands must be true.
I'll wait patiently here for an apology on that one.
"You admit in principle you don't accept our baptisms".
Sort of. We don't feel the need to pronounce judgment on you, which is subtly different. Now if you wanted to convert to Orthodoxy we would say we have no knowledge of the status of these things outside the church and that you need to do them inside the church.
While you boast of your ecumenical credentials in recognising these folks, just be mindful that in some hundreds of years the pope might just as well change his mind and retrospectively pronounce Anglican baptisms to be invalid, so everything you guys say is tentative only. Sleep well on that one.
You're never getting an apology.
DeleteNow if you wanted to convert to Orthodoxy...
I don't. That's why I don't go to your blogs or forums. Keep driving up my traffic; maybe it will help share the Catholic faith.
What about the The Council of Sardica in 343AD where Pope Julius is censured with an anathema.
ReplyDeleteWhat about the 2nd council in 383 where the west didn't turn up, and the east told the pope belatedly that they had settled it all without his input.
"To the right honourable lords our right reverend brethren and colleagues, Damasus, Ambrosius, Britton, Valerianus, Ascholius, Anemius, Basilius and the rest of the holy bishops assembled in the great city of Rome, the holy synod of the orthodox bishops assembled at the great city of Constantinople sends greeting in the Lord.... "We beseech your reverence to rejoice at what has thus been rightly and canonically settled by us, by the intervention of spiritual love and by the influence of the fear of the Lord, compelling the feelings of men, and making the edification of churches of more importance than individual grace or favour."
Don't worry pope, we settled it without your input. In the 6th century the pope finally signed off on it. Thanks pope!
With the 3rd council, the Pope had already condemned Nestorius. But the East ignored him and decided to hold a council to make up their own mind. So much for papal infallibility and full immediate jurisdiction of Rome.
The 4th council deigned to pronounced Constantinope equal to Rome. "And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges (isa presbeia) to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, "
The Pope never liked it, but the east was happy to go down this road.
The 5th council totally condemned the Pope's view. After six months Pope Vigilius capitulated and reversed his judgment for a fourth time by issuing a second Constitutum dated 24th Feb 554 condemning and anathematizing the Three Chapters and blaming the devil for misleading him. French Catholic Bishop Bossuet observed: "These things prove, that in a matter of the utmost importance, disturbing the whole church, and seeming to belong to the Faith, the decrees of sacred council prevail over the decrees of Pontiffs, and the letter Ibas, though defended by a judgment of the Roman Pontiff could nevertheless be proscribed as heretical".
At the 6th Council, the Pope was declared a Heretic. "Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this apostolic Church with the teaching of apostolical tradition but by profane treachery tried to subvert its spotless faith".
The 7th council again totally ignored the west. British Historian Judith Herrin comments: "As few bishops of Rome had bilingual skills, they were increasingly dependent on Latin translation of Greek theologial texts. Although canon law was recognised as fundamental to a universal faith, Rome had no complete Latin version of the decisions of the first four oecumenical councils until the early 6th century. Full participation in the process of defining dogma and establishing ecclesiastical discipline was therefore denied to the See of St Peter, for without a complete knowledge of past rulings it was powerless".
The reality is, the east never cared much for the Pope's opinion, and thus the modern canons of the Eastern Catholic Churches are a total a-historical teaching which led to the undermining of the eastern rite.
Oh, my God, a bunch of nerds quoted the Bible and church fathers out of context! Western European civilization is a fraud; throw it all away and submit to the Russian empire. Oh, thank you, spasibo, enlightened ones. I have seen the uncreated light.
DeleteWhen in 1054 the disputes arose, it was Rome who was promoting the innovation of the filioque. It was Rome promoting the fraudulent Donation of Constantine, the False Decretals of Pesudo Isidore, and papal supremacy. All the arguments of the time that the east should cave in and do as the Pope told them were based on the fraudulent Donation of Constantine, the False Decretals of Pseudo Isidore. It's only since the 19th century that even Roman apologists have completely given up on them and admitted it was all a fraud. But yet the papal claims persist, now as if floating in mid air, their foundation ripped from under them.
DeleteSo yes, western civilisation was built upon a fraud. Whatever you might think about Orthodoxy, it is what it is, it is genuine and ancient. We don't change stuff like you folks, and we don't base our claims on fake documents.
God is one in three, Jesus is true God and true man, and thus Mary is the Mother of God.
Delete— The Pope, then and now
He's outside our empire. To hell with him.
— The Byzantine emperor and patriarch
The Byzantine emperor is long gone and Msgr. Bartholomew serves a hostile civil government as a Turkish citizen.
You blokes can keep your "gen-yoo-wine" and authentic church. I don't want it.
So yes, western civilisation was built upon a fraud.
DeleteSaid the Australian in native English, enjoying the unprecedented benefits of Western civilization. Can you spell "hypocrite"? "Ingrate"?
This strange self-hatred reminds me of a recent story about a young Norwegian woman who insists she's really a cat, but says so in perfect Norwegian, of course.
Oh come on, you want Rome to take credit for western civilisation? Rome brought in a dark age which was mainly lifted by England, and their brand of Protestantism (if one wants to credit a religion). All the 3rd world countries, the ones that often speak Spanish or Portuguese, living in grinding poverty, these are the sons of Rome. There is no self-loathing here. I can appreciate anglo-culture and even found the services in London quite Orthodox, at least on the surface. But give Rome credit for western civilisation? Nah. It only gets credit in that it was the force holding back civilisation for so long.
Delete"Rubbish." I've lived in the mother country so I can use that too. If not for Rome you'd still be worshipping the Germanic pantheon in the woods. I'm of Spanish heritage. That Rome brought in a dark age has been debunked. Actually, considering the limits to what people could know, the Middle Ages were pretty good. And Byzantium was originally, and always called itself, Roman.
DeleteYou say the Pope doesn't believe he can do anything, he can't do this, that or the other. History says otherwise. There are tons of things that were historically condemned by the church fathers, but then Popes signed off on. Pope Gelasius said "It is a wicked deed and sacrilege for any man to divide the communion and when he hath received one kind to abstain from the other".
ReplyDeletePope Leo said "Unon one day it is lawful to say but one mass in one church". Then in the middle ages we had priests in Rome saying 50 masses in one day.
So who knows what a future pope, under the guise of papal power and/or infallibility might foist on you.
G'day, mates. "Us"? "Rubbish"? Since you ignored my question regarding who you are and where you came from, I don't see the point of continuing this on top of my not being interested in what you're selling, your baiting notwithstanding. (Way to conquer the passions and see the uncreated light, or whatever. By trying to appeal to my passions with this baiting, you're clearly not doing this for the glory of God.) If I'm right according to your Blogger profile that you're a team probably of converts trying to invade this Catholic blog, and my guess is right that you're based in Australia, I'll tell you what. Why don't you give back everything Christian Anglo-Saxon culture has given you, from your jobs to your clothes, give up your passports, and get on the next flight (on Qantas?) back to whatever country your particular part of your sect (Greece, Russia, Syria, etc.) happens to call home? Just like the Muslim "refugees" who rape, machete, and shoot people. I'm as interested in your "trying to spread the faith" as I am in theirs. As far as I know, Australia has freedom of religion but still, you're not welcome here.
DeleteSo who knows what a future pope, under the guise of papal power and/or infallibility might foist on you.
Ha ha. Classic Anglicans used to make this argument; now their churches have women bishops and same-sex weddings. The church is what it's always been, and willing to take the heat for it from secular culture, and you're in a schismatic sect, albeit one that has the true doctrine we defined in the church's early centuries, bishops, and the Mass, that always falls into line with the state once it's been slapped around (Greeks under the Turks, and Russians, Serbs, et al. under the Communists).
The classic invalid argument is ad-hominem, i.e. addressing the person and not the argument, and now you're admitting you're unwilling to address the arguments because I won't tell you who I am or some rubbish. So you're basically admitting you failed because I didn't deign to feed you the raw materials to mount some ad-hominem attack.
DeleteYou complain about women bishops in Anglicanism, but what objective basis do you have to say that's bad when Romanism changed communion under both kinds, paedo baptism, paedo communion, paedo christmation, immersion baptism, indulgences, and we had Pope Boniface VIII saying he has temporal power over the whole earth, submission to which is essential to salvation, etc etc, but you've got the temerity to criticise Anglicanism because they changed something you didn't get around to yet.
Get on a plane to eastern europe? When will all Catholics get on a plane to Rome? That's the equivalent of what you are saying and makes about as much sense. Yes I am Australian as you say, and my priest is Australian. He doesn't speak Greek or Russian or any of those languages and neither does anyone in the congregation. So your get on a plane spiel is nonsense. The country my "sect" calls home is Australia, that's all.
BTW, this thread started when you started talking about small-o orthodoxy and you claimed your church defines what it is. Wrong. Your church claims to define big-o orthodoxy. It doesn't leave room for small-o orthodoxy. It claims to have the only true faith, and everyone else is wrong. That's big-O, not small-o. Let's at least get our terminology right.
"We... recognize the Soviet Union as our civil fatherland, whose joys and successes are our joys and successes, and whose failures are our failures. Every blow directed against the Union... we regard as a blow against us."
Delete— Msgr. Sergius, future Patriarch of Moscow, 1927
When the USSR annexed eastern Poland and eastern Slovakia during World War II, the number of Greek Catholic bishops who obeyed their order to "return to Orthodoxy": zero.
You will never convert the West. Your immigrants' third generation leaves you.
I didn't know converting each other was the aim. There are 140,000 catholics in Russia and 180,000 Greek Orthodox in Italy (not counting Russian Orthodox), so on pure head count, you're certainly not converting the other side.
DeletePretty sure almost all Irish Catholics in the US are purely nominal by the 3rd generation. I mean, since you are so big on the contraception issue as foundational, if that is the touchstone of nominalism, 98 percent of sexually experienced women of child-bearing age and who identify themselves as Catholic have used a method of contraception other than natural family planning at some point in their lives. So the old chestnut of immigrants leaving is not the glasshouse you should be throwing stones in.
I didn't know converting each other was the aim.
DeleteSo, Crocodile Dundee-ski, why are you wasting your time here?
There are 140,000 catholics in Russia and 180,000 Greek Orthodox in Italy (not counting Russian Orthodox), so on pure head count, you're certainly not converting the other side.
We passively accept individual conversions but our goal is to bring all these estranged particular churches, all these estranged dioceses, in together and then leave their rite alone.
Pretty sure almost all Irish Catholics in the US are purely nominal by the 3rd generation.
Nope. For example, Irish-Americans have been around in big numbers since the 1840s; while we have had attrition too, the Pennsylvania county I call home, part of greater Philadelphia, is still noticeably Irish and Catholic, and I can assure you most of these people aren't immigrants or second-generation.
You will lose.
"We passively accept individual conversions but our goal is to bring all these estranged particular churches, all these estranged dioceses, in together and then leave their rite alone."
DeleteWell to bring in the entire Orthodox church, you'll have to convince us individually. First step in that part is have a solution for all the remarried members. Got a solution for that? Francis had been sounding very wishy washy on this issue, so expect a change of doctrine on your side at some point.
Whatever you want to say about the Philadelphia story of Irish and Catholics, 98% of them use contraceptives, so if those are the folks you embrace, why rail at us?
Well to bring in the entire Orthodox church, you'll have to convince us individually.
DeleteRight; reception and sobornost'. Interesting concepts. There is no such thing as the Orthodox Church as far as I am concerned but you're expressing what I said about bringing all these dioceses back. Fine.
First step in that part is have a solution for all the remarried members. Got a solution for that?
"If anyone wishes to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me."
— Matthew 16:24
Whatever you want to say about the Philadelphia story of Irish and Catholics, 98% of them use contraceptives.
Like your line about the divorced and remarried, here you sound EXACTLY like my country's media and Planned Parenthood. What's next, your parish sisterhood, banner, icons, and all, yelling en masse "Keep your laws off my body!" at pro-life demonstrators?
Even if the statistic you claim is true, "Survey Says" to try to undermine the Catholic Church is meaningless because everybody knows what the church teaches, even though many/most fall short (we are all sinners). The powers that be aren't mad at the United Methodist Church in America; they're mad at the only church that matters spiritually.
...so if those are the folks you embrace, why rail at us?
Because you're a potential danger to Catholics, especially in the Internet age when communication is so easy, dangerous exactly because you're so much like the church but aren't. Because you're being rude on a Catholic blog. I stay off your blogs and forums now. Return the favor.
"Because you're a potential danger to Catholics, especially in the Internet age when communication is so easy, dangerous exactly because you're so much like the church but aren't. Because you're being rude on a Catholic blog. I stay off your blogs and forums now. Return the favor." Absolutely!!! We don't troll near like the EO troll us. Why? To me, this speaks volumes and has the exact opposite effect that EO trolls intend.
Delete""If anyone wishes to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me."
DeleteMeaning what, that because of rather odd interpretation of scripture you folks have, you would like to break up a lot of families just to have the privilege of bowing down at the apostolic palace and have the Pope wave at their shattered lives? THANKS! There never was a more anti-family organisation than Rome.
"because everybody knows what the church teaches"
Nah.... everyone knows the opinion that recent popes have expressed. There's a big difference. The popes have not spoken "infallibly" and dogmatically on this topic, and history shows that the papacy has a strong inclination to contradict its predecessors. Furthermore, since everyone knows Rome promotes NFP, and that NFP contradicts the church fathers, everyone also sees that this is a flexible area of theology for Rome and that Rome will change sooner or later.
You rail against Orthodox "reception", but the reality is in the long term, Rome doesn't accept things that aren't received either. At the 5th ecumenical council they ignored Pope Vigilius until such time as he was willing to agree with the majority.
The Pope's latest pronouncement is that a contraception ban "does not mean that the Christian must make children in series." Soon, popes will get around to thinking how that works in practice and soften their stance. Oh, it will be couched with a lot of theological mumbo jumbo, but it will come.
You accuse me of being rude, but I haven't said anything personal against any person, unlike you. You claim I'm a danger to Catholics and should stay off your blog. Yet you publish my responses. This is pure hypocrisy.
Oh, good grief; you do sound like a Protestant in drag.
DeleteYou rail against Orthodox "reception"...
Either you don't understand what you read very well, you dare to misrepresent me in the same combox in which I wrote this, or "rail against" means "mention" in Australian English.
You claim I'm a danger to Catholics and should stay off your blog. Yet you publish my responses. This is pure hypocrisy.
Bait. I guess all your comments are.
You sure sounded negative on reception. Since you are now implying your are positive, when do you reckon Catholicism will endorse contraception bans with reception?
DeleteNow I see. So by "reception" you mean "the church that never changes" is really a democracy that believes it can change essentials, such as teaching on contraception, by mob rule/opinion, even if it's not a synod/convention vote? How Anglican, another sect that supposedly kept the essentials better than the Pope does.
DeleteAs opposed to your "church that never changes" that changes essentials like allowing NFP contrary to the fathers on the whim of a grumpy celebate old man holed up in the apostolic palace?
DeleteThis from the sect that may pride itself on not kneeling or sitting during services but needs kneepads to service sultans and Comrade First Secretaries.
DeleteYou're complaints are getting more and more bizarre. Kneeling certainly does occur in Orthodox services. But last time I was in St peters in Rome I didn't notice any pews. Did you?
Delete