P
Peter_J
Guest
Well that’s hurtful. :tsktsk:Coming right down to it, I wonder if there is any point to this entire thread:
- Status
M
malphono
Guest
Not meant to be. :imsorry:
P
Peter_J
Guest
It’s alright, I realize you’re kidding. But honestly, this thread *has *been a trifle depressing, inasmuch as people seem to gravitate to one extreme or another: either rejecting “Orthodox in communion with Rome” absolutely, or else setting it as the goal for all Eastern Catholic Churches that use the Byzantine Rite.Not meant to be. :imsorry:
B
ByzCathCantor
Guest
How is that “a trifle depressing”? It seems to indicate a willingness to be faithful to Orthodox heritage, while acknowledging present realities and those of being in communion with Rome (although that does come with its ups and downs).
M
malphono
Guest
:yup: Exactly my point. That’s what always seems to happen around these parts. :newidea: ???
P
Peter_J
Guest
Well, it doesn’t give me a lot of hope that the two sides will have a very meaningful dialogue with one another.
B
ByzCathCantor
Guest
Not sure I follow your line of reasoning. From the actual Orthodox-Catholic dialogue, one might conclude that claiming ECCs are fully Orthodox while in Communion with Rome would be a logical inconsistency easily rejected by the Orthodox, and actually become a barrier to progress. Surely the Orthodox would never accept the status quo of the Catholic Communion as an acceptable model / basis allowing for reunion.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Well, it’s really just common sense combined with past experience: whatever the topic is, if half of the people take one extreme position, and the other half go to the other extreme, and virtually nobody takes any kind of moderate position, it suggests that conversation will be difficult.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Well, I suppose so. Although on the other hand, I’m curious whether a “moderate” position – e.g. the notion that “Orthodox in communion with Rome” is one possibility, but without declaring it to be the goal of all EC Churches that parallel Orthodox Churches – will emerge in time.:yup: Exactly my point. That’s what always seems to happen around these parts. :newidea: ???
M
Mickey
Guest
I’m not sure that there is “a moderate position.”
D
dzheremi
Guest
I don’t think it is helpful to think of positions as “extreme” or “moderate”. That mistakenly frames the idea of Orthodoxy and Catholicism as a kind of continuum, rather than the binary choice it really is. You’re either Orthodox or you’re not. (Pick one.) You’re either in communion with Rome or you’re not. (Again, pick one.) If you’re one, you’re not the other. There is no middle ground. By choosing one you’re by default making your choice on the other as well. They’re likewise not a Venn diagram. They don’t overlap.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Well, I think the aforementioned position,I’m not sure that there is “a moderate position.”
is moderate in some sense, although I can see how in another sense it isn’t since it still allows for “Orthodox in communion with Rome”.
M
malphono
Guest
Actually, what I meant was that people stake out their positions and become entrenched, sometimes to the point of beating the issue to death. That seems to be what happens to so very many threads in this forum, (particularly, but not exclusively, the byzanto-centric ones) where the argument often becomes "us vs them (i.e. EO vs RC/EC and v.v).
More to the matter at hand, I think [post=9604830]Mickey[/post] and [post=9605250]dzheremi[/post] are right: there really is no such thing as a “moderate” position. As I see it, the expression “Orthodox in Communion with Rome” is an attempt to stake-out a “middle ground” where no such thing actually exists. Not by EO/OO standards and not by RC standards. It’s more of an illusion (or delusion) than anything else.
Those who insist on maintaining the illusion seem to forget that a number of elements of the praxis among a lot of EC/OCs has, whether they want to admit it or not, taken on elements that clearly reflect Novus Ordo-inspired neo-latinization, whereas the Orthodox have not been so tainted. For example, we have the use of versus populum tables (on occasion with the Melkites and more generally in the SCC and CCC). (There are other things, too, of course, but I won’t go there. Another case where experience has taught me not to involve myself in things Byzantine in this forum.) For my money, looking at it that way, the expression “Orthodox in Communion with Rome” makes no sense at all.
OK, there’s my unsolicited :twocents: … Yeah, I know :yawn:
P
Peter_J
Guest
Actually, my impression has been quite different: namely, that people who talk about “Orthodox in communion with Rome” are very much aware of latinizations, and see de-latinization as the gateway to being “Orthodox in communion with Rome” (for those of the Byzantine Rite I mean).
M
malphono
Guest
That makes even less sense to me. Someone who admits that there are latinizations is usually talking about the rosary and some other rather inconsequential devotional practices that have been around for centuries (some of which are actually used in one way or another by some Orthodox) (but very few will admit to, or even acknowledge the existence of, the Novus Ordo-inspired variety of neo-latinization such as the table I mentioned earlier but I digress), and ends up twisting and turning over sacramental theology and the CCEO (that typically Western legal gem which Rome has imposed – and I don’t care a whit about the legions of Eastern Canon Lawyers who collaborated on it – upon its impudent and unruly Eastern & Oriental children). And let’s not forget Vatican I and all that goes with it. Therein is where I see the illusion (or delusion). To be “in communion with Rome” means, when taken down to the least common denominator, to be “out of communion with the Orthodox” so I still see the expression “Orthodox in communion with Rome” as meaningless at best. Maybe it’s just me … I dunno.
B
ByzCathCantor
Guest
I have to agree with malphono on virtually all counts. There is still a fair degree of re-catechesis, if you. will that needs to take place befre many ECs can even see the “goal” of being more Orthodox while in communion with Rome.
D
dzheremi
Guest
Not only used by them; some of the Eastern Orthodox even claim it was originally an Orthodox prayer, connecting it somehow to St. Pachomios…don’t ask me how (all that page says is that the prayer rope used to pray the Rosary was first made by the saint…
I know that in Russian there is an Orthodox form and a Catholic form, and they’re actually quite different). Maybe other Orthodox churches are like this too. I don’t know. We don’t use it in the Coptic Church as far as I know, though it exists in Coptic thanks to Catholic evangelization of the Copts, I suppose.http://www.christusrex.org/www1/pater/ave/coptic-a.jpg
I don’t really have a problem with the Hail Mary myself. It’s a fine prayer (I prefer the prayers of the Church, though, like this or this), but as you rightfully point out, its presence or absence kind of doesn’t matter. I have a feeling that this kind of understanding is often dismissed as “extreme” because some people have a reductionist view of what Orthodoxy is. But that’s not the way it works, of course, and such people are usually not Orthodox to begin with, so…frankly, I am surprised that anyone is ever surprised that threads like this one don’t go anywhere. They really are a nice microcosm of why we will not be in union.
P
Peter_J
Guest
But that wasn’t what I understood Malphono to be saying.
M
malphono
Guest
Read my [post=9606022]earler post[/post] again, then revert.
P
Peter_J
Guest
P.S. When I say that, I don’t mean to imply that a moderate take on “Orthodox in communion with Rome” (assuming a moderate take is even possible) is automatically right.
- Status