Wednesday, February 15, 2017

Rebutting Ortho-ganda

5 Differences Between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church.

I've had a run-in with this fellow online.
  • 1. There is only one church, the Catholic Church; it has a head bishop who shares in the church's infallibility. Not a problem. His job is to defend our doctrine: God, Christ, the Trinity, the Mother of God, the hypostatic union, bishops, the Mass, and the option of using images. The Pope's office has defended all those things and more as part of the full apostolic faith.
  • 2. Cultural difference, not doctrinal. Eastern Catholics do the same. The sin of the Orthodox is they think their rite, their culture, is the church. The culture is nice but not essential.
  • 3. Prayer for the dead supposes an intermediate state; without it, such prayer makes no sense. Indulgences are a relief from canonical penance, something ancient. Temporal punishment? Suppose I steal a thousand dollars from you. I go to confession. God forgives. I still owe you a thousand dollars.
  • 4. I go to the traditional Latin Mass most of the time, and to a Ukrainian Catholic parish part-time. For centuries, Catholic churchmen didn't consciously change much in the liturgy because the liturgy wasn't studied as history until around the 1800s. There is no doctrinal reason not to write a new service, which doesn't necessarily mean one should. Obviously I think we shouldn't have.
  • 5. Discipline, not doctrine, and I detect a whiff of spiritual pride in the schismatics' boast about fasting. I don't eat meat on Fridays (Jesus said, "When you fast...") and the Roman Rite has fasts Ash Wednesday beginning Lent and on Good Friday, as well as the Friday abstinence in Lent.
Eastern Orthodoxy is Eastern folk Catholicism, a collection of Catholic customs, not a church.


  1. Чварков Ђорђе11:22 pm

    Stop sublimating your sexual energy here Latin zealot. Papist perversion of faith, you are embodiment of that sorrow. No one cares to what mass you go. There are entire Roman-Catholic nations that don't even have Latin mass church running. And like Latin mass is something to be proud of. Priest doing his private thing while confused flock rotates rosaries. And just with a simple look at uniate Liturgy of the Ukrainians you can see how all of that is modernized and Latinzied it looks horrible when compared to the Divine Liturgy of the Orthodox Christians. Their fat bishops with Lenin style beards, almost ashamed of growing it because pope does not do it. Just repulsing.

    1. Mr. Chvarkov: Some ethnic Orthodox are nice. Some, following the schismatic mindset, are bigots.

      And like Latin mass is something to be proud of. Priest doing his private thing while confused flock rotates rosaries.

      The Byzantine Rite is largely medieval just like mine; likewise the people's piety. In an ethnic Orthodox parish church the people come in and out at will, walk around lighting candles in front of their favorite icons, chat, etc., while the clergy do the long service at the altar. Like I said, folk Catholicism.

      The rest of your screed is just bigotry over cultural things not worth fighting about. The Catholic Church has many cultures and subcultures; both the unlatinized and the latinized Byzantine Riters have a home here.

    2. Чварков Ђорђе3:32 am

      Like Roman-Catholics don't have nationality? lol Biggest nationalists in Europe are banderist uniates in Ukraine and roman-catholic Croats, both groups known for performing genocide during Hitler's era.

      Uniates lost their rite. It is some plastic copy of Divine Liturgy.

      Lighting candles is not an argument. Roman-Catholic priests known as scandal masters who made world hate Christianity, can serve private Mass all alone. While Orthodox priest cant serve Divine Liturgy alone, because that would be a witchcraft to try to turn bread and wine in to body and blood of the Lord without the believers who will say Amen. One Christian - Zero Christian. You cant serve Liturgy without the believers who will chant replies. Now we come to roots of the problem. Latins are self centered and Eastern Christians and opposite. That is why hate and crimes were spreading from Rome until Rome lost all authority and power in it's own countries. Rome would still practice violent methods if it had any serious authority left in western society. That is why Vatican II was an pathetic attempt to try to please the modern society, because Rome could no longer rule it. What a fail. You guys are tragicomic.

    3. Maybe you need a translator. Of course we have proudly nationalistic peoples. We include many cultures; we don't suppress them. Better a Banderist than a schismatic who collaborated with the worst regime, the Communists, who murdered more than the Nazis and were openly at war with Christianity. By the way, Catholicism and Ukrainian nationalism aren't synonymous; I'm actually a moderate russophile.

      Again, you think somebody has to adopt or keep your culture exactly in order to be a true Christian or have the true Eucharist. I say that's idolatry. We recognize your sacraments on principle; you don't have to recognize ours. Some Byzantine Catholics keep Orthodox forms exactly; many don't because they don't want to. They don't like you. The Russians including the Soviets persecuted them, ordering them to leave the church.

      "Scandal-masters who made the world hate Christianity"? I can't imagine the humble Catholic priest from India who heard my confession yesterday doing that. This sounds awfully Protestant of you but then again your apologists do that because they hate us.

      Actually, our rules say there should be someone with the priest but yes, a priest can celebrate alone if I recall rightly. You are confusing culture and discipline with doctrine, but again, that's the Orthodox' sin.

      In your last sentences you swing from the left, agreeing with the Soviets, for example (I guess old habits die hard, comrade), to the right. I don't like Vatican II either but it didn't change our doctrine because it couldn't, thanks to church infallibility and indefectibility, which the Orthodox also believe of themselves.

    4. Чварков Ђорђе4:32 pm

      First we don't care if you recognize our sacraments. At Crete we said you are not a real Church. We just like to converse with you to point out your errors make you feel miserable about it until one by one you all convert.

      "Byzantine Catholics" are slimy losers that were used by Rome as evil tool for persecution of the Body of Christ - the Orthodox church. That is why God deformed very quickly "Byzantine Catholic worship" so any serious person could sense there is something evil and wrong with it. Lol even today's popes call uniates a historical mistake, and yet these slimy losers must swallow those insults and remain with Rome because they are too proud and too NAZI to return to the Church of Christ.

      You cant talk of Orthodox sins, because you come from an evil sect that persecuted the Orthodox. Soviets are better than Vaticanists, because Soviets did not abuse Christ's holy name for their purposes unlike Vatican that raped entire worlds for the worldly benefits.

      Vatican II is only logical continuation of idolatry that Latins follow by following fake demi god pope that ended up kissing qurans and practicing syncretism.

    5. Чварков Ђорђе5:03 pm

      And don't talk about variety of cultures anymore in the Vatican sect. Vatican surpressed any other rite and imposed Latin language use until the second half of 20th century. I wont even talk about those monophysite and other uniate sects that Vatican created, they are only clown embodiment with funny hats for the purpose of jesuit insecure politics.Just look at Maronite sect who's rite was swallowed by the Latin rite by force greatly. Orthodox Church fought for the use of local languages already in 7-9 centuries, while Rome needed Vatican II to allow worship in local language.Each Orthodox Patriarchate and Church developed it's own chanting style based on the population's culture while Rome imposed Gregorian chanting on it's entire sect. So think twice before you try to say Vatican has many cultures unlike Orthodox Church. Orthodox Church was and is far more advanced in cultural diversity autonomy than Rome. It gave cultural and administrative independence to the converted nations, unlike Rome that waged war against anyone who disagreed, creating only more mess, evil and division.

    6. Vatican surpressed any other rite and imposed Latin language use until the second half of 20th century. I wont even talk about those monophysite and other uniate sects that Vatican created, they are only clown embodiment with funny hats for the purpose of jesuit insecure politics.

      First, these sentences contradict each other, and second, the Monophysites actually opposed the Byzantine Orthodox, the Uniates of their day, right after the Council of Chalcedon. Yes, the Maronites heavily latinized themselves, but that's not required. Actually your churches have liturgical languages too, rather than vernacular services in the old country. For example, Serbia, like Russia, used Slavonic, not Serbian.

    7. Чварков Ђорђе8:53 pm

      I am talking about Uniate Monophysites, not Monophysites of Chalcedon.
      Russians and Serbians can understand at least 75% of Church-Slavonic. Russian and Serbian are Slavic languages, and Church-Slavonic is similar to the language of their ancestors. While Poles, also Slavs, were forced to use Latin even though Polish population did not understand almost any of Latin.

    8. Although Byzantine culture is good, the church doesn't begin and end with it.

    9. Steven Christoforou9:01 pm

      You're right, the Church doesn't begin and end with Byzantine culture. Christ is the Alpha and Omega.

      And we do see this in the Church. Russian culture, for instance, is rather non-Byzantine and not shaped by Greco-Roman civilization. Yet the Church in Russia is quite important, and has produced more than its fair share of saints over the centuries.

      So, forgive me, I'm not quite sure what you're addressing.

    10. Russia was in the Byzantine sphere of influence, definitely ecclesiastically; it's Byzantine Rite.

      You need not be Byzantine Rite, or Greek, Russian, etc., to be in the true church.

      By the way, the parallel between Eastern Catholics and the little Western Orthodox experiments breaks down. Eastern Catholics include villages in Eastern Europe and the Middle East that have been of this faith for generations, real Christian communities with a long tradition. No equivalent in Western Europe, just a myth about righteous Anglo-Saxon and/or Irish Orthodox persecuted by the evil French papists.

    11. Steven Christoforou6:05 pm

      Forgive me, I'm not following. Your initial comment made a point about Byzantine culture, but we've shifted to Byzantine liturgics and a perceived uniformity. Your point now seems to be that one doesn't need to be Byzantine Rite to be in the Church.

      First, I think you overstate "Byzantine Rite." There are significant liturgical differences amongst different Orthodox Churches: from hymnology and chant styles to precise liturgical and festal practices, and so on. Calling all Orthodox liturgical practice "Byzantine" may be helpful to differentiate it from other practices, it glosses over significant diversity of practice.

      (It ignores the historical diversity of liturgical practices which, broadly speaking, fell into two basic categories: cathedral rite and monastic rite. It ignores the historical circumstances that resulted in the practices of the St Savas Monastery becoming widespread. And it ignores that there are at least three Liturgies at use in the Orthodox Church today, along with a variety of liturgical practices that reflect different historical elements in different proportions.)

      Second, you may not be aware but there actually are non-Byzantine Rite Orthodox Christians. They follow what we often refer to as the "Western Rite."

      Third, though there is certainly liturgical diversity in Catholicism today, I don't think one could have comfortably observed that before 1969.

      Finally, I'm not sure what you're referring to as "myth" in your last paragraph.

    12. My last paragraph refers both to the small Western Rite experiments (microscopic and almost all converts) among you and to one form of the liturgical diversity in Catholicism well before 1969, Catholics of the Eastern rites (centuries-old communities). The myth is that the early Irish and English were Orthodox until they were ruled by French Catholics.

  2. There are plenty of Orthodox banderists. Do you forget that 80% of Ukrainians are Orthodox? The most horrid Ukrainian genocides were done in Volyn where there are practically no Uniates.

    1. 80% of Ukrainians are Orthodox? I understand the breakdown there is like Russia proper except for the hopefully practicing Greek Catholic majority in the far western provinces (80% there) that the Soviets stole during World War II and for the split among the Orthodox mostly between their official church still under Moscow and the Kyiv Patriarchate schism (which the American-backed Viktor Yushchenko belongs to; led by the former Russian Orthodox metropolitan of Kiev, Msgr. Filaret) plus a few smaller schisms. Many unchurched/secular Soviet-bred people with a big Orthodox minority, only a few of whom really go to church.

  3. Is this some sick joke? A Serb calling any other group genocidal?

    1. I sincerely doubt that this fellow is a Serb (even though he is using the Serbian Cyrillic alphabet); although his hatred for Latin Christianity is quite widespread in that community. All of his attacks against the Latin tradition is in reference to the Russian tradition, from his use of Banderists to Lenin style beards. I think that he is perhaps a typical oikophobic convert.

    2. Great minds think alike: I was wondering if the Serbian Cyrillic name and even the broken English were an act, partly because I couldn't tell if he was sincere or a parody, as it's a perfect spoof of such people's attitude.

  4. Actually, the practice of a priest celebrating the Liturgy alone is not at all unknown in Orthodoxy. This subject did come up, more than once, when I was in seminary (Orthodox); what does a priest do if he has done all of the proskomedia, and when the public part of the liturgy is to commence, no one is there? This is not an unknown occurrence in especially small or isolated Orthodox parishes, the consensus is that he continues the service since there is no such thing as a priest celebrating alone; the whole of the Heavenly Host is present at every offering of the Divine Liturgy.

    Also, in, well at least pre-1947 canon law in the Latin Church, a priest should only celebrate Mass if there is at least one person to make the responses. Only in cases where this is not possible is the Mass to be celebrated. Actually, a priest celebrating completely alone without a sever is quite rare.

    It would appear that our Russian friend knows neither Orthodox or Latin canon law.

    Finally, especially Russian services are often not too much more than a spectator sport with bad opera, which include no congregational participation. In the Greek Church the services tend to be a yelling match between priest, deacon and cantor, all of them under the impression that God is deaf and that louder is better. Indeed one of the few ethnic Byzantine traditions that have full participation of the congregation, who congregationally chant the whole of the liturgical cycle, tend to be Ukrainian and Ruthenian Greek Catholics. Once again, our Russian friend should be more careful in throwing stones.

    But, at least what perhaps many will see is the bigotry and hatred that many of his denomination have for anything that is not Byzantine; one suspects he has unkind remarks for not only the Latins, Greek Catholics, but for the Oriental Orthodox as well who refuse to submit to Byzantine imperialism.

  5. Dale thank you for your moderate,polite and informative response.It does concern me,that when in I read many Orthodox blogs and websites,instead of preaching the Gospel ,they seem too busy attacking fellow Christians. However I think of the example of the former Australian rock singer,hard living,and drug taking,who converted to Orthodox Christianity and now is a priest working in Africa.Even the antichristian and virulent anti catholic Australian Broadcasting Commission featured him in a well presented article and TV interview. The lives of Orthodox and Catholic believers in the Gulags- John Noble's I FOUND GOD IN SOVIET RUSSIA and Solzenystin's works- should be examples to us all.

  6. I think this Serb dude is hilarious. Talk about unintentional self-parody. :D

  7. Lotusisrael5:05 am

    There is a whole ansambly of teachings, a pretty different world view, and an Orthodox elite. Your words denote a real hard ignorance of Orthodoxy and Orthodox faith.


Leave comment