Abandonment of Tradition?

[jam070406]

An Eastern Orthodox person posted this in the non-catholic forum.

There are lots of reasons why Roman Catholics convert to Orthodoxy. Some of these reasons are subjective, whereas others are objective. In my opinion, one of the best objective reasons for such a conversion is the continuity of appearance of the modern Orthodox Church with the ancient Church. The Holy Fathers were as conservative in practice as they were in doctrine. The holy Elder Paisios of Mount Athos says:

When there is a respect for small things, there will be an even greater respect towards the bigger things. When there is no respect for small things, then neither will there be for the bigger ones. This is how the Fathers maintained Tradition.

I believe that if one reads the writings of the Holy Fathers of the first millennium, they will see the truth in Elder Paisios’ statement. Even though Orthodoxy believes that her expression of Faith may develop in an organic fashion, she doesn’t endorse radical changes of her traditions. From my observation of the Western Church since the Great Schism of 1054, she seems to have disregarded this organic development and has felt no special fidelity to her ancient traditions of iconography, liturgy, fasting, forms of prayer and devotion, style of theology, canonical tradition, ancient hagiographical details and countless other minor traditions of her heritage. This is regretful and really hurts the claim of the Roman Catholic Church to be the Church of the Holy Fathers.

I encourage all people to remember to not disregard what their eyes and ears tell them when looking for the original Church. Any quote by Roman Catholic apologists that is supposed to prove the doctrine of the Papacy is only as convincing as the form of the Church that champions such a quote. The pearl of the ancient Faith will always be enclosed in the shell of the ancient Church.

You thoughts, Traditional Catholics?

 

[DustinsDad]

An Eastern Orthodox person posted this in the non-catholic forum.

There are lots of reasons why Roman Catholics convert to Orthodoxy. Some of these reasons are subjective, whereas others are objective. In my opinion, one of the best objective reasons for such a conversion is the continuity of appearance of the modern Orthodox Church with the ancient Church. The Holy Fathers were as conservative in practice as they were in doctrine. The holy Elder Paisios of Mount Athos says:

When there is a respect for small things, there will be an even greater respect towards the bigger things. When there is no respect for small things, then neither will there be for the bigger ones. This is how the Fathers maintained Tradition.

I believe that if one reads the writings of the Holy Fathers of the first millennium, they will see the truth in Elder Paisios’ statement. Even though Orthodoxy believes that her expression of Faith may develop in an organic fashion, she doesn’t endorse radical changes of her traditions. From my observation of the Western Church since the Great Schism of 1054, she seems to have disregarded this organic development and has felt no special fidelity to her ancient traditions of iconography, liturgy, fasting, forms of prayer and devotion, style of theology, canonical tradition, ancient hagiographical details and countless other minor traditions of her heritage. This is regretful and really hurts the claim of the Roman Catholic Church to be the Church of the Holy Fathers.

I encourage all people to remember to not disregard what their eyes and ears tell them when looking for the original Church. Any quote by Roman Catholic apologists that is supposed to prove the doctrine of the Papacy is only as convincing as the form of the Church that champions such a quote. The pearl of the ancient Faith will always be enclosed in the shell of the ancient Church.

You thoughts, Traditional Catholics?

Not a bad description of the reasons why some folks left in the wake of VII. Couple of things though:

• He misses the mark on the final conclusion - this is a recent storm in the church - storms come and go, the Christ’s Church marches on - and through 'em.
• The widespread abandonment (or neglect) of traditions didn’t occur after the Eastern schism, they occurred after VII.
• The falling away of the faithful post VII weren’t into the orthodox church in any significant numbers. I’d suspect they, for the most part, fell into agnosticism, protestantism, or cafeteria catholicism. Wherever they are, we must now go about the business of bringing them back home, and their children.
  Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[catharina]

An Eastern Orthodox person posted this in the non-catholic forum.

There are lots of reasons why Roman Catholics convert to Orthodoxy. Some of these reasons are subjective, whereas others are objective. In my opinion, one of the best objective reasons for such a conversion is the continuity of appearance of the modern Orthodox Church with the ancient Church. The Holy Fathers were as conservative in practice as they were in doctrine. The holy Elder Paisios of Mount Athos says:

When there is a respect for small things, there will be an even greater respect towards the bigger things. When there is no respect for small things, then neither will there be for the bigger ones. This is how the Fathers maintained Tradition.

I believe that if one reads the writings of the Holy Fathers of the first millennium, they will see the truth in Elder Paisios’ statement. Even though Orthodoxy believes that her expression of Faith may develop in an organic fashion, she doesn’t endorse radical changes of her traditions. From my observation of the Western Church since the Great Schism of 1054, she seems to have disregarded this organic development and has felt no special fidelity to her ancient traditions of iconography, liturgy, fasting, forms of prayer and devotion, style of theology, canonical tradition, ancient hagiographical details and countless other minor traditions of her heritage. This is regretful and really hurts the claim of the Roman Catholic Church to be the Church of the Holy Fathers.

I encourage all people to remember to not disregard what their eyes and ears tell them when looking for the original Church. Any quote by Roman Catholic apologists that is supposed to prove the doctrine of the Papacy is only as convincing as the form of the Church that champions such a quote. The pearl of the ancient Faith will always be enclosed in the shell of the ancient Church.

You thoughts, Traditional Catholics?

**Bolded above: it sounds as if the writer is saying that the accidentals are more important than the essence and that conclusion is not true. **

 

[jj2011]

An Eastern Orthodox person posted this in the non-catholic forum.

Any quote by Roman Catholic apologists that is supposed to prove the doctrine of the Papacy is only as convincing as the form of the Church that champions such a quote. The pearl of the ancient Faith will always be enclosed in the shell of the ancient Church.

You thoughts, Traditional Catholics?

The assumption here is that the Catholic Church has innovated in the matter of papal primacy. She has not. If you read the epistles of St. Leo the Great, a saint to both Catholics and Orthodox, it is obvious that he claimed and exercised jurisdiction over the bishops. St. Leo’s justification for using this jurisdiction was the same as that of modern popes. It is false to claim that papal primacy is a post-1054 innovation.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

An Eastern Orthodox person posted this in the non-catholic forum.

There are lots of reasons why Roman Catholics convert to Orthodoxy. Some of these reasons are subjective, whereas others are objective. In my opinion, one of the best objective reasons for such a conversion is the continuity of appearance of the modern Orthodox Church with the ancient Church. The Holy Fathers were as conservative in practice as they were in doctrine. The holy Elder Paisios of Mount Athos says:

When there is a respect for small things, there will be an even greater respect towards the bigger things. When there is no respect for small things, then neither will there be for the bigger ones. This is how the Fathers maintained Tradition.

I believe that if one reads the writings of the Holy Fathers of the first millennium, they will see the truth in Elder Paisios’ statement. Even though Orthodoxy believes that her expression of Faith may develop in an organic fashion, she doesn’t endorse radical changes of her traditions. From my observation of the Western Church since the Great Schism of 1054, she seems to have disregarded this organic development and has felt no special fidelity to her ancient traditions of iconography, liturgy, fasting, forms of prayer and devotion, style of theology, canonical tradition, ancient hagiographical details and countless other minor traditions of her heritage. This is regretful and really hurts the claim of the Roman Catholic Church to be the Church of the Holy Fathers.

I encourage all people to remember to not disregard what their eyes and ears tell them when looking for the original Church. Any quote by Roman Catholic apologists that is supposed to prove the doctrine of the Papacy is only as convincing as the form of the Church that champions such a quote. The pearl of the ancient Faith will always be enclosed in the shell of the ancient Church.

You thoughts, Traditional Catholics?

While I don’t agree with his ultimate conclusion, I do think much of what he says is spot on and contains quite a bit of wisdom, particularly where he says, “When there is a respect for small things, there will be an even greater respect towards the bigger things. When there is no respect for small things, then neither will there be for the bigger ones. This is how the Fathers maintained Tradition.”

That quote reminds me of this quote from the Ottaviani Intervention:

“The innovations in the Novus Ordo and the fact that all that is of perennial value finds only a minor place, if it subsists at all, could well turn into a certainty the suspicions already prevalent, alas, in many circles, that truths which have always been believed by the Christian people, can be changed or ignored without infidelity to that sacred deposit of doctrine to which the Catholic faith is bound for ever.”

fisheaters.com/ottavianiintervention.html

While God has certainly kept the Church from officially teaching error, I think the above quote has been demonstrated to be quite prescient.

I’ve often thought that if we had stayed united with the Orthodox perhaps they would have stopped us from doing what we did to the liturgy.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

John Henry Newman actually argued that the Roman communion was the one that had maintained its outward appearance throughout the millenia. It’s a long process of demonstration, but suffice to say there are arguments to the contrary of this writer. That said, I agree with Brennan in recognizing the great kernel of wisdom in this piece - the Church we live in today in which everyone seems to think “the Church doesn’t teach it unless we can find a declaration of the extraordinary magisterium” is simply absurd and quite far removed from the ancient, conservative, Church. We need to recover that, and I think Pope Benedict is certainly moving in that direction.